Jump to content

Talk:Alice Miller (psychologist)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The following archived posts have been selected for archiving due to irrelevancy to the improvement of the page

Hitler, victim of "horrendous parental abuse"?

"... as she discussed in her psycho-biographies of Hitler and Bartsch (both victims of horrendous parental abuse)."—I'd just like to point out that I am not aware that Hitler suffered "horrendous parental abuse". What's the bottom line here, was all that warmongering and genociding just a cry for help? Maikel 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Maikel, the issue is a rather complex one. Alois Hitler beat very often little Adolf; as Adolf’s sister and Adolf Hitler himself confessed. The psychological issue cannot be fully explained here but yes: the horrendous abuse originated Hitler’s vengeance on innocent scapegoats since Hitler fulfilled the commandment to honor his father. In psychology this is called displacement. Perhaps you might find interesting to take a look at Miller’s For Your Own Good? —Cesar Tort 20:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You may also find this deMause article interesting: [1]. —Cesar Tort 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your information. I have to say this about Alice Miller, though: to attempt to psychoanalyze anyone without ever having met him or her seems rather unprofessional to me; to do the same for someone like Adolf Hitler amounts to megalomania. By what I know about his upbringing—mostly from Brigitte Hamann's Hitler's Vienna — I have to ask myself what sort of ideal childhood one must have had in order not to have carte blanche for turning into a genocidal maniac. Maikel 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
But please note Maikel that Miller didn’t use psychoanalytic models to retroactively be able to empathize with battered little Adolf. —Cesar Tort 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, this is the problem with a emotional trauma model of behaviour dysfunction - the alleged "trauma" is not proportional to the dysfunction. I'm sure, as a result of Hitler's policies, many young European Jews suffered equally horrendous childhoods - none of them have 'displaced' quite to the spectacular extent Hitler did. Of course, opportunity has a big role to play (but genetics does not, according to Miller, play a role) As for her psychoanalysis of historical figures - well, i'm sure it has made her a decent living and a higher profile than those putting their skills to use on the mere living. Historians can't even agree on most historical facts, thus analysis of historical psyche can be nothing other than pure speculation. Retrospective analyses like these are pretty useful to bolster whatever theory one is promoting, but thats about the limit of its credibility. Rockpocket 21:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason that Jews didn’t displace the abuse is clearly explained in Miller’s concept of “enlightened witness”. Only the abused child who has absolutely no one to empathize with him turns into an abuser himself. Jews did have witnesses. As psychiatrist Silvano Arieti wrote in Interpretation of Schizophrenia not about dead persons, but about his clients:

"First of all we have to repeat here what we already mentioned [...], that conditions of obvious external danger, as in the case of wars, disasters, or other adversities that affect the collectivity, do not produce the type of anxiety that hurts the inner self and do not themselves favor [insanity]. Even extreme poverty, physical illness, or personal tragedies do not necessarily lead to [insanity] unless they have psychological ramifications that hurt the sense of self. Even homes broken by death, divorce, or desertion may be less destructive than homes where both parents are alive, live together, and always undermine the child’s conception of himself".

While Jews suffered collectively, young Adolf’s ego underwent an all-out assault by his father and no soul helped him. He repressed an infinite hatred that exploded years later. —Cesar Tort 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously i was using the victims of the Holocaust for dramatic contrast, but the principle remains true - individuals react differently to the same emotional trauma - and claiming trauma conditions form psychopaths retrospectively to prove a point, is inherently self selecting. There may be millions of perfectly adjucted people who had identically abusive childhoods to Hitler, but because they never slaughtered millions of people, we will never have their psyche analysed to counter the point. Rockpocket 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
They never had political power but could instead become serial killers or, when the repressed anger is directed toward oneself, addicts, bulimics, self-harmers or a myriad of psychopathological conditions. And no: there are no individuals who have had identical abusive childhoods to Hitler with no enlightened witness that are sane. Show me one. —Cesar Tort 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously i cannot, for the very reason that no two people have an identical childhood, though i know of at least one person that has had an extremely abusive childhood and, appears (and claims to be) perfectly adjusted. However, i would argue that for this theory to be acceptable, the burden of proof would be for you to show me that everyone who is not sane had a similarly abusive childhood. I find that very hard to believe. Rockpocket 07:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the burden of proof rests on me. Did the abused person you know had an enlightened witness? I insist in this since it’s possible to endure Auschwitz and be sane (in Houston I met Yakoff Skurnik, who was castrated in Auschwitz, and he is perfectly sane) [2]. If you take a look at the book of neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus’s Base Instincts: What Makes Killers Kill?, published in 2002, you will see that “virtually all criminals suffered severe abuse as children” [3]. —Cesar Tort 16:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I honestly do not know, though they have never identified anyone to me. But what if they say 'no'? Miller would say: well you must have done, even though you do not realise it. Isn't an enlightened witness simply something to explain away why not all abused people follow her theory?
No: that’s not an enlightened witness. It’s not an ad hoc rationalization of a psychological theory. Rather, it’s a very concrete person. Though this is a risky argument (because it is so personal) I could only cope in life after I found one. (Unfortunately millions of abused people found none in this cruel world.) As stated elsewhere, this is not a scientific theory. It belongs to the humanities and to what may be called intuitive psychology (something totally alien to the specious thing studied in the academia). —Cesar Tort 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
So, if a person has been abused and does not identify an "enlightened witness", then by Miller's theory they must have a mental disorder? Rockpocket 00:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
“Identify” is not the word; nor mental disorder would necessarily follow (see what I’m going to write below in a couple of minutes). —Cesar Tort 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
As its impossible to prove that any given person did or did not have one. However this concept could be turned around to say the certain abused people can influence the situation to obtain and "enlightened witness" while others can/do not. Afterall it appears to me that in many cases there is always the potential for an "enlightened witness", but lots of factors may conspire for or against their envolvment.
This comes back to the possibility that one of these factors are the inherent differences in how people 'deal' with their abusive environments and that can impact the consequent effects.
Again, i would argue this is another example of how how mental disorder is a complex consequence of genes interacting with environment.
That “virtually all criminals suffered severe abuse as children” is obviously incorrect, some people commit crimes for political or financial reasons, for example. That many serial killers have been abused may well be true (though perhaps not all, as the motivations of some, like Harold Shipman, seem borne out of tragedy combined with narcissim, with no evidence of abuse). However, the argument that certain groups of people share abusive childhoods says nothing about primary cause and effect. It is no different than saying virtually all cystic fibrosis sufferers die from lung infections. True, they do, but not all people with lung infections die. It is not the lung infections alone that kills CF sufferers, it is the lung infections interacting with their CFTR gene. Thus that serial killers are often abused as children says nothing about childhood being primarily responsible for their subsequent actions. Sure, it is a very strong risk factor, but there is no evidence that rules out a biological basis. Rockpocket 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
There are answers for each and every one of your astute observations in Miller and Lloyd deMause’s writings (and mine as well but, alas, I write in Spanish!). To fully explain them I would need an enormous amount of space. Since this isn’t an edit war perhaps it’s not the forum for extremely complex explanations. If you want thoroughgoing answers I could only recommend what I told Neurodivergent in another talk page, to follow the white rabbit and enter the very grim world of Wonderland, i.e., Primal Page chapters of a book by deMause [4]. —Cesar Tort 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate it is not your responsibility to justify Miller's work, but i thank you all the same for providing some background to her perspective. I did try to read the deMause chapter you cite, but i genuinely found it a strange mix of historical supposition with cultural associations. That is not to say that it isn't valid or even have some truth in it, but i don't feel it answers the questions from the same 'scientific' aspect i am asking them. Perhaps i'll never fully understand the sociological justifications, as my brain simply dosn't work that way. Rockpocket 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a high IQ but to some extent lack “emotional intelligence”. Perhaps my IQ is not that high but I can feel other people’s wounded hearts (today I was called to visit a woman in psycho crisis because the family does not want to commit her and called me for help). —Cesar Tort 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, Cesar, perhaps. I guess that is the beauty of neurodiversity. Rockpocket 03:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
However, this is all beside the point. Whether Miller's analysis of Hitler is valid or not, correct or incorrect, the purpose of the article is to document her work and life, not to offer opinion, praise or criticism of it. Thus i would suggest the word "horrendous" be removed as it is a POV adjective (what type of abuse isn't horrendous?), or else it should be in quotes and referenced. Other than that, i don't think that Hitler had an abusive childhood is really in question. That Miller chooses to attach wider significance to this is entirely her opinion and we have acknowledged that. Rockpocket

I agree with removing the adjective unless I find a direct quote. However, I’d like to elaborate a little further on Miller’s analysis of Hitler’s willing executioners.

Hitler, like every other child, was born innocent, but was raised “as were many children at the time: in a destructive fashion”. Hitler was survivor “of a machinery of annihilation” that in the turn of 19 century’s Germany was called childrearing. The Prussian upbringing demanded absolute obedience and expressed contempt for the child. Hitler once told his secretary that during one of the regular beatings given by his father “he was able to stop crying, to feel nothing”. By denying his pain and despair, “Hitler made himself into a master of violence and contempt” for others, a person incapable of any empathy for other people.

Hitler was no exception. He “could make Europe and the world into a battlefield of his childhood because in the Germany of that time there were millions of people who had experienced the same kind of upbringing”, and thus became Hitler’s willing executioners. It is noteworthy that since these Prussian methods of childrearing were not so systematically used in other fascist countries, like Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain, in those fascist countries there were no murderous drive or hate displacement as the mass murder of Jews perpetrated by Germans. Take a look at citation #1 above in this talk page. —Cesar Tort 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cesar Tort wrote above:
The reason that Jews didn’t displace the abuse is clearly explained in Miller’s concept of “enlightened witness”. Only the abused child who has absolutely no one to empathize with him turns into an abuser himself. Jews did have witnesses. As psychiatrist Silvano Arieti wrote in Interpretation of Schizophrenia not about dead persons, but about his clients:

First of all we have to repeat here what we already mentioned [...], that conditions of obvious external danger, as in the case of wars, disasters, or other adversities that affect the collectivity, do not produce the type of anxiety that hurts the inner self and do not themselves favor [insanity]. Even extreme poverty, physical illness, or personal tragedies do not necessarily lead to [insanity] unless they have psychological ramifications that hurt the sense of self. Even homes broken by death, divorce, or desertion may be less destructive than homes where both parents are alive, live together, and always undermine the child’s conception of himself".

Did they?
Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.184 10:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Christiane F.?

Does "Christiane F." get mentioned at all in the English language edition of "For Your Own Good"? Maikel 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t have the English version; but she is mentioned in the Spanish translation. —Cesar Tort 22:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; she is indeed also mentioned in the English edition. Maikel 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Alice Miller have any children herself?

I have always assumed that she did but have just noticed that this might not actually be the case as it is never mentioned. Thanks, Maikel 20:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Miller has two adult children [5]. Rockpocket 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, thank god for that, I would have found it somewhat untoward if she as a child-rearing expert would have been childless herself.
PS: I think this is the document you are referring to. Maikel 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I hope her kids 'turned out alright' or else they might prove to be a rather bad advert for her theories. Rockpocket 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Miller about Virginia Woolf

Miller has written about Virginia Woolf in her book The body never lies and in her book Thou Shalt Not Be Aware revised edition 1998 [6]. In the 1981 German edition Du sollst nicht merken I have found something about Virginia Woolf, too (page 159-161) she has mentioned her lifestory. Austerlitz 88.72.3.24 11:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz. Can we talk about Virginia et al in the external forum that appears far below? Thank you. —Cesar Tort 16:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Austerlitz’s three subheadings

1) Quoting Alice Miller from Interview by Diane Connors 1997

  • OMNI "What advice would you give today to a therapist in training?"
  • Miller "First try to discover your own childhood, then take the experience seriously. Listen to the patient and not to any theory; with your theory you are not free to listen. Forget it. Do not analyze the patient like an object. Try to feel, and help the patient to feel instead of talking to the patient about the feelings of others."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Austerlitz (talk • contribs).
Hi Austerlitz. According to WP:TPG and WP:TALK wikipedia’s talk pages are no “soapbox”, which means that in Wikiland we are supposed to talk about how to improve the article, not about the subject. If you want to talk about the subject may I suggest we go here [7]. That forum specializes in Miller, and you can discuss Jeffrey Masson issues as well. I look forward to see you there :) Cesar Tort 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Cesar, I've had a look at that forum. I have not seen your name there. Are you really there? talking about Miller and Jeffrey Masson? Austerlitz 88.72.1.211 21:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I should’ve been more specific. Just go to this place: [8]. —Cesar Tort 23:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2) Communication from Alice Miller's Website

http://www.alice-miller.com/readersmail_en.php?lang=en&nid=803&grp=0806 I feel that Alice Miller has not understood what the letter really wanted to say to her. Do you agree? Austerlitz 88.72.1.236 16:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:TPG and WP:TALK wikipedia’s talk pages are no “soapbox”, which means that in Wikiland we are supposed to talk about how to improve the article, not about the subject. If you want to talk about the subject may I suggest we go here [9]. That forum specializes in Miller, and you can discuss Jeffrey Masson issues as well. I look forward to see you there :) Cesar Tort 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Another quotation taken from your external link: But I cannot accept it when a partially healed patient like Alice Miller creates a theory based on her own rationalizations, and calls it the full truth. This is not respectful, that is the jugdement of a therapist disqualifying another human being as being a patient thinking himself to be healed completely.(?) The rest of the essay is worthwile reading, I think. Austerlitz 88.72.4.33 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We can discuss this in Daniel Mackler’s forum [10]. Perhaps Daniel himself may want to join us in the discussion? —Cesar Tort 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Cesar, I don't like the Registration Agreement Terms of that forum. I would like to join the discussion about Daniel Mackler's article about Alice Miller, though. Austerlitz 88.72.1.119 11:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've joined it in spite of my disliking parts of the Registration Agreement terms; we'll see what is going to happen with the power of webmaster,administrator and moderators. How they (mis)use it or not. Austerlitz 88.72.0.254 12:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I’m sure you know by now that Daniel would never misuse his “powers”. I’m glad to talk to you there (and everyone interested in Miller issues) [11]. —Cesar Tort 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Cesar, I've had a look at that forum. I have not seen your name there. Are you really there? talking about Miller and Jeffrey Masson? Austerlitz 88.72.1.211 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I should’ve been more specific. Just go to this place: [12]. —Cesar Tort 23:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cesar, do you think that the following quotation of Alice Miller:

  • "I betrayed that little girl [...]. Only in recent years, with the help of therapy, which enabled me to lift the veil on this repression bit by bit, could I allow myself to experience the pain and desperation, the powerlessness and justified fury of that abused child. Only then did the dimensions of this crime against the child I once was become clear to me."

refers to the painting of Miller you have left there? Austerlitz 88.72.2.227 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Miller was talking not only of her own swaddling but about all the abuse her mother inflicted her. —Cesar Tort 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I continue this discussion in this forum [13]. —Cesar Tort 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Book review

A book backing the findings of Alice Miller?

I think so. http://www.goodtherapy.com.au/products/the_body_remembers/19/1 The Body Remembers - The Psychophysiology of Trauma and Trauma Treatment by Babette Rothschild Austerlitz 88.72.3.34 13:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a nice book, but does not deserve an external link to a website selling it. --Karuna8 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to look for a "not selling website", so it's o.k. for me. I wonder why Alice Miller herself doesn't link to books and authors who back her findings on her own websites. You know, there are many ignorant journalists (or at least some) who think she has invented all this (body-mind-connection) by herself.
Austerlitz 88.72.3.34 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A letter and an answer from Alice Miller's Website

http://www.alice-miller.com/readersmail_en.php?lang=en&nid=999&grp=1206

Austerlitz 88.72.25.173 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For the good of "Aryan race"

According to my judgement Miller erronously has not taken into consideration that there has been a racist ideology in order to justify all those massmurder for the "good" of socalled "aryan race". If Hitler had not got strong support from powerful people he could not have done nothing - or maybe he would have become a "private" massmurderer because of his infancy -, not being able to murder with the help of so many institutions so many people.

There has also been strong propaganda and a totalitarian educational system in order to make people convince that the killing of innocent people was a task which had to be done for the good of majority of Germans (and Europeans). There is a book from Erika Mann, published in 1938, entitled "School for Barbarians", which is about the Nazi educational system of State.

Austerlitz 88.72.16.84 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the mainpage

I've added this text:

  • Miller blames psychoanalysis for not acknowledging the reality of experienced trauma claiming those memories to be mere phantasy. She admits them to be true, focussing on parents as the one and only source of evil, though. Traumatical experiences of other type, for example caused by politically motivated and intentional traumatization, she does not pay attention to, as psychoanalysis did neither.

This is relevant, it is her teaching. Austerlitz 88.72.16.84 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz. I am removing —:

Traumatical experiences of other type, for example caused by politically motivated and intentional traumatization, she does not pay attention to, as psychoanalysis did neither.

—this statement since Miller published a newspaper article, which was translated to other languages, about the vexation of Iraqi people in prison by the Americans. ―Cesar Tort 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cesar, do you have a link to the newspaper article you mentioned? Austerlitz 88.72.13.150 02:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No: I read one of its translations in Spain’s newspaper El País, which I kept. Do you want the specific info (month, year, title, page)? —Cesar Tort 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes: I do. Austerlitz 88.72.29.66 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Alice Miller: “Irak y los orígenes de la tortura: Maltrato y perversión” (El País, 6 June 2004, OPINIÓN / Debate, p. 13, Translation by News Clips). It’s about Abu Ghraib's prison. —Cesar Tort 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not this one, I guess, which I have taken from Alice Miller's websites, [14], though it is about Sadam Hussein and Iraque, and it is from 2004. Austerlitz 88.72.17.124 P.S. I've seen that you deleted the whole text, Cesar.
No: Karuna8 removed the first paragraph.
The articel you linked is another article, Austerlitz. —Cesar Tort 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, Cesar, have fun with protecting Mom. Austerlitz 88.72.23.88 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz:

I’ve no intent in protecting Miller. I myself added the critical link to Daniel’s essay in this article. Do you remember? And when Miller answered my letter about my proposal to make a journal, I step back because of the Dennis Rodie affair.

If I removed the Saddam Hussein link it’s because it is improper to put it in the opening sentence according to writing etiquette. At any event, Miller’s web site is already linked en the External sites section. If you want to include it anyway, you have to figure out a proper place for the link (I for one cannot imagine where).

―Cesar Tort 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to clean this talk page up

This talk page is for discussion about the Wikipedia article on Alice Miller. It is not a forum for discussing or debating whether she is right, wrong, crazy or a saint. There are plenty of other websites for that. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page for guidelines. I suggest this talk page should be have edited out all that is not relevant or is no longer relevant to the attached article. --Karuna8 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I myself have done the cleanup by archiving the discussions unrelated to the improvement of the page. —Cesar Tort 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Austerlitz: Along with older discussions, I just archived your recent entry. It was unrelated to the improvement of the page. (We can discuss that in Daniel or Dennis' forums if you wish.) —Cesar Tort 11:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Cesar: I think you are kidding, are you not?
Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.184 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thesis about Alice Miller and her work

  • Gertie F. Bögels: Psychoanalyse in der Sprache Alice Millers. Verlag Königshausen und Neumann, Würzburg 1997, ISBN 3-8260-1321-2, (Universität Amsterdam, Dissertation, 1992)

This book is very interesting, and important, but it is not available in english, at least I have not been able to find it until now. But -nevertheless- it should be mentioned here. Austerlitz --88.72.31.227 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz,
I don't know German. Could you please translate what says the book's dust cover or just summarize the content in your own words?
—Cesar Tort 10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cesar,
perhaps I am going to do so one of these days. Since the original has been written in Dutch, I first try to put it on the dutch wikipedia site about Alice Miller. In case it will be translated into english it has to be done from the dutch original.
Austerlitz -- 88.72.31.227 11:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I cannot find the title of the Dutch original any more. Inside a book one can usually find the title in language of the original, but it is not the case here. [15] Most probably this link cannot help neither.
Austerlitz -- 88.72.31.227 11:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, there is also no Dutch wikipedia site about Alice Miller [16], so I'd better just forget about all this.
Austerlitz -- 88.72.31.227 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychohistory

"Drawing upon the work of Psychohistory, Alice Miller has analysed such subjects as Adolf Hitler, Jürgen Bartsch, and many artists such as Pablo Picasso, Virginia Woolf, and Franz Kafka to find links between their childhood traumas and the outcome of their lives."—which book is this referring to? Maikel 20:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For Adolf Hitler it is "For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence" (1983). Not sure about the others. Lumos3 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Jürgen Bartsch is also discussed in “For Your Own Good”; Pablo Picasso in “The Untouched Key” (though Miller doesn’t characterize Picasso as an abused child), Virginia Woolf in “The Body Never Lies” and Franz Kafka in “Thou Shalt Not Be Aware”. Cesar Tort 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Maikel 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted referent

I eliminated the second referent at the very end of the article since the “Natural Child Project” website, which I love by the way, is already mentioned in the “External Links” section. For writing style purposes, in a short article it is more elegant to have only one referent about the Stettbacher issue than two. Cesar Tort 19:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have essentially moved both links to the "external links" section, because that's what it's for; also, I think it's useful to have a separate links for the "Note ..." text because it saves people having to look it up separately via Google (although, personally, I don't find it that informative). Maikel 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Article expansion

After summarizing the content of Alice Miller’s books in my expansion of the original article, the bibliographical section became redundant so I eliminated it. —Cesar Tort 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding summarises of some of her books but this doeas not remove the need for a Bibliography which provides a full list with details of publisher, ISBN etc . Lumos3 08:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
OK: I agree with your idea of keeping the list of all of Miller’s published books. However, the ISBN numbers look a bit awkward to me. If you click on those numbers and try to find a Miller’s bestseller in non Western countries there appears the message “No matches found”. Is it important to keep the ISBN numbers? It is very easy for any person in the world to purchase any of Miller’s books through Amazon. —Cesar Tort 18:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at any Further reading or Bibliography section in Wikipedia and you will see that it normal practise to quote ISBN. The link then gives the reader the choice of finding the book in a large number of libraries as well as a choice of on line booksellers. Wikipedia needs to practise good citations in order to support its credibility. Lumos3 10:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I did´t know it. I've been less than a month in Wikipedia. Thanks for helping me to improve the article, Lumos3. —Cesar Tort 13:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Horrendous?

I have substituted "gross" for "horrendous" as it perhaps better describes the actuality without implying the readers emotional response to it. Lumos3 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout "atrocious" as "gross" has undergone a shift in meaning. Maikel
Done Lumos3 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Other Alice Miller

I was under the impression that top level links to other people with the same name, like that added here, should only be added if there is an article for that other person. Would the editor who added the statement care to create a stub for Alice Miller (pilot) (assuming she was a pilot) and we could to link that? Otherwise i don't quite see the point. Rockpocket 17:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to leave the disambiguation as it is without creating a new lemma, as I don't think that the Alice Miller "Doppelgänger" rates an article; see also here. Maikel 20:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess my point is that if she isn't notable enough to have her own article, neither is she notable enough to require a notice at the top of another person of the same name's article. Otherwise we could list plenty of people called Alice Miller there! Rockpocket 00:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have linked the entry to the Israeli Air Force article which features more information about that case. Maikel 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think the principle hold that if we cannot justify an article for herself, then there is no need to make a statement about here here, afterall, she affords just one sentence in the Israeli Air Force article. If we followed this principle for every minor character mentioned in every other article, it would be ludicrous, so what makes Miller so special. However, perhaps others could offer an opinion before we make a decision? Rockpocket 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There are many persons with the name of Alice Miller in the world. I doubt the Israeli woman is a sufficiently notable person according to Wikipedia policies. If in the future another editor writes an article about her, disambiguation is justified. —Cesar Tort 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Miller’s comment on this article

Some of the many questions raised above by several editors can be answered by reading her book For Your Own Good, now available online [18]. —Cesar Tort 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job, thanks for sharing. Maikel 17:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Book review The truth will set you free

http://www.primal-page.com/free.htm Reviewed by John A. Speyrer. Maybe one can say that according to Alice Miller the story of Paradise in the Bible is the origin of human misery (perhaps it is). Since there is no mother in that story it is the fathergod to be blamed.c The hope for improvement -according to Alice Miller- is to be found in the parents of Jesus, Maria and Joseph. Here is her story about them: Mary and Joseph - Parents to emulate. A Message for Christmas 2000.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Austerlitz (talk • contribs).

Hi again, Austerlitz, and thanks for the info in my subpage about Miller’s July 2006 recommendation in her web site of Donald Capps’ psychological study of the historical Jesus (which contrasts greatly with the mythical Christ of dogma). Since I know Capps’ views I see that Miller may have had second thoughts about the naive paragraphs about Jesus she wrote in The Truth Will Set You Free. Therefore, if you don’t mind I will remove the link to the now obsolete 2000 essay “Mary and Joseph - Parents to emulate”. That link does not come from Miller’s site. If you want to leave it there, let me know before midnight. —Cesar Tort 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ciao Cesar, I don't understand why you think the 2000 essay to be obsolete, only because you think to know Capps' views not having read his book about Jesus. As you know many writers cherish selfcontradictory opinions in one and the same book and in different books erst recht. But -since the essay is to be found on the site http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/ , and other essays, too- you can remove the additional link on the mainpage. Austerlitz 88.72.4.33 18:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Jan Hunt, not Miller, is the webmaster of Natural Child.org. In Capps’ The Child’s Song: The Religious Abuse of Children there is a 30-page chapter, “The Child Jesus as Endangered Self” that I read two years ago. Capps’ book about Jesus is an expansion of that chapter. I would like to know if Miller still clings to her views that appear in The Truth Will Set You Free (actually Eve’s Awakening: the original European title for the book). Anyway, I may restore tonight the critical link to Daniel Mackler’s essay (see below). This means that there will be a link about the controversy of Miller’s 2000 views of Mary and Joseph. Is that OK with you? —Cesar Tort 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You want to say that according to Capps Jesus has not been perfect? And that Alice Miller in The Truth Will Set You Free claims that Jesus had been perfectly free or any other perfection? I remember that Alice Miller in one of her books cited a saying of Jesus from the Bible talking about people having abused children (that's what I remember), and he said that they should be drowned with a big and heavy stone around their neck (I couldn't find the English word for that stone). And -according to my awareness- Alice Milleer liked this saying and that's why she trusted Jesus , he was against child molesters and perpetrators jugding this to be a crime worth death penalty.
The link to Daniel Mackler's essay, don't put it on the mainpage, please. that's my feeling. Just leave it here. That's my suggestion. It has to be talked about. Austerlitz 88.72.1.68 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
OK Austerlitz: I have removed the link of the small article on Mary and Joseph but won’t reinsert the Mackler link tonight. However, if no objections I may reinsert it next Sunday. By the way, the http://iraresoul.com site where the Mackler essay on Miller appears is the same forum where we can discuss Miller issues (such as the historical Jesus controversy). —Cesar Tort 22:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
OK Cesar: Daniel Mackler's essay is not perfect, most probably he is a therapist/patient, too. But there are many quite valid points in it, I think. That's why I (re)insert the link on the mainpage not waiting for Sunday. Austerlitz 88.72.1.119 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No spam

The link to "An Analysis of the Limits of Alice Miller – biographical criticism by Daniel Mackler" was reverted. The editor who reverted it indicated in edit summary “Rv link spam”.

While it’s true that Mackler’s piece hasn’t been published, I doubt it is spam. Actually, I have read it and can state it’s the result of serious scholarship.

One of the problems with Alice Miller’s critics is that, while she has been much criticized in psychoanalytic circles, it’s extremely rare to find such criticism published in scholarly journals or serious books. The only book by a respected writer I know who has criticized Miller is Ron Rosenbaum’s Explaining Hitler. And even there the criticism is meager: Rosenbaum used only a single page to dismiss Miller’s analysis of Hitler.

Since the Wikipedia article contains virtually no criticism of Miller, for NPOV purposes I believe Mackler’s paper deserves a link in this article. If no objection, I will restore the link tonight. —Cesar Tort 00:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, i support Cesar's position. How is your book coming along, CT? You seem to be very disciplined in your weekends only editing policy of WP. Rockpocket 03:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

MS is fine; just distracted to digest some books before continuing. —Cesar Tort 05:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that Kingbotk posted a “Blp” tag at the top of this talk page. However, though critical, the external link I want to reinsert tonight is respectful to Miller. I quote from the first page:


—Cesar Tort 15:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the article by D. Mackler because it is an unqualified critique. Someone who recommends -- among other absurdities -- "celibacy," "get a good nights sleep," "pray," "socialize" and "have fun" as "self-therapy" to people suffering from the conseqeunces of child abuse sounds cynical and like a traditional black pedagogue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dadreval (talk • contribs) 20:50, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Paintings of Alice Miller

Whoever has put the links to those paintings (two of them), thank you. Austerlitz 88.72.2.186 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the second link of Miller’s paintings (which I had posted) since it didn’t reflect the text’s content; and a redundant mention to Hitler and Bartsch was removed too. Also, I relocated the Korczak award to a better place. —Cesar Tort 01:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

For your own Good

Cesar, I've changed the text a little bit, that is I've added some words. Is this site still on your watchlist? Perhaps I should have looked for discussion with you before adding? But is it not to late. In case you do not agree with the phrase, please let me know. Austerlitz 88.72.20.177 11:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. Cesar Tort 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

standing up against one's therapist

I removed the link [20] since the content has no connection with the claimed subject "standing up against one's therapist".

—Cesar Tort 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted Alice Miller, Cesar, at least her words. Maybe you know her mind better than herself is able to express. [21]
Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.50 21:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't misinterpret anything. The link you posted before directed to another letter by Miller. But now that you have posted the right link, I see that Miller's exact words are not those cited in the article. I'm afraid I've to remove the whole Trivia section. —Cesar Tort 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, no. :Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.161 13:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

archived

Hi Karuna8: I already left a message in your talk page indicating that when you want to remove a post of yours that has been answered it's better to just archive it. But don't worry, it's not big deal and I have already archived it. —Cesar Tort 02:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would like some clarification.

This book is (legally) available online.

What does this mean? Why does the legality of its availability have to be specified?

Is the sale or possession of this book illegal in some places for some reason? Or is the meaning of this statement simply that the text of the book is freely available online for download or reading, and no issues of copyright apply? If the latter, let's find a better way of saying so. I presume it is the latter, but I'm not going to presume to change the line without checking to see whether something else was meant by it. --7Kim 06:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I removed it. —Cesar Tort 07:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was the one who added that, but originally it contained a _link_ to the book as well, I assume someone have removed it. Here's the original text i added (w/o quotes): "This book is (legally) available online here." I'm re-adding this link since I don't see why it was removed. Someone's been making _very_ strange edits me thinks.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Addicted2Sanity (talk • contribs)

Question: Word Choice Implication.

Concerning: "she originally fell for Stettbacher but in the end distanced herself from him and his regressive therapies." Unless Alice Miller specified somewhere that she had romantic feelings for Stettbacher (in which case there needs to be a source) I believe the word 'fell' should be changed to reflect academic appreciation/ acceptance of his ideas and nothing else. I am not going to alter anything since I don't have a lot of knowledge on this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.240.62 (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. I changed it. —Cesar Tort 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Why did you revert? AM doesn't focus on sexual abuse like many pop writers. Her approach is far more broader. The reference to sex abuse should be relocated as I did. Have you read all books by AM in English as I have? —Cesar Tort 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If no objection I'll revert tomorrow. —Cesar Tort 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the section title, focus on the edits not the editor. What is wrong with putting this in the opening? Nobody is claiming she isnt looking at the wider abuse issues too, certainly not me, but this is a part of what she is about, SqueakBox 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
OK: this may be a minor issue. However, since there are many pop books by pop feminist psychologists who write about sexual abuse, isn’t my relocation of your phrase better that putting it in the lead? I mean: the old lead might suggest that Miller is different from her colleagues (in fact she is: Miller criticizes feminist writers on child abuse).
If we allow your lead, it should also mention: physical abuse, emotional abuse, subtle child abuse, etc., which looks a bit awkward to me.
—Cesar Tort 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually we should mention sexual abuse and not the others you mention because it has a separate article, ie child sexual abuse, SqueakBox 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
But you haven't answered my disambiguation concerns. —Cesar Tort 05:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

References added

I have added references. Unfortunately, since in the place that I live for the moment I only have some Miller books in English, I could only add other references by citing the translations of her books in Spanish: it was the only way to include specific pages of quotations, etc. I hope another editor will change that by placing instead the specific pages of the English translations. —Cesar Tort 17:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

81.97.208.103's copyedits

I have removed some of 81.97.208.103's phrases unsuitable for an encyclopedia (perhaps proper for an essay).

I have also removed 81.97.208.103's phrases that I've not seen in Miller's thought (anti-American pronunciations regarding the war in Afghanistan for instance).

Cesar Tort 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Daniel Mackler essay

I just wanted to say that Dadreval did the right thing when he removed the mackler essay. I honestly dont think mackler understand millers thinking at all and I think we should let the essay _stay_ removed. By wikipedia guidelines inaccurate material should _not_ be included. If mackler has _some_ valid points maybe he should write a new essay... I would appreciate other editors thoughts on this. Addicted2Sanity 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read Daniel Mackler's essay in full, but having read other material on his website, including comments elsewhere on Alice Miller (whose work I've also read), I'd say he makes some valid and original points. Even if one could argue that he misunderstands Miller, would that be reason enough to remove the link? To me it seems more fair to link to at least one critical review of Alice Miller -- especially insofar as Mackler offers an original perspective -- unless you can establish that Mackler's essay is really "inaccurate". Therefore, I propose to restore the link (http://iraresoul.com/alicemiller.html). --216.9.16.183 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Mackler is one of the handful individuals in the whole world who has fully grasped Miller’s legacy. Although I dislike some parts his essay (specifically, the speculation about sexual fantasies that Miller might have felt toward her Mongolic child), I see no valid reason to remove it. Keep in mind that in his forum Mackler has written a rebuttal of a hostile book review of Miller’s latest book (in English). In fact, if you see Mackler’s posts in that forum you’ll see that his grasp of Miller’s thought is superb.
I would go so far as to suggest that Miller is a kind of mentor in absentia of Mackler. It’s quite common that freethinkers assimilate what they consider the valid part of their mentors and, when they reach maturity, reject what they consider the weak parts. I believe this is the case of Mackler. Miller publishes letters of her many sycophants in her website. But she doesn’t allow critical voices to be heard —even though such voices have Miller in the highest regard!
Furthermore, according to WP policy NPOV, it is perfectly ok to balance an otherwise uncritical article of Miller with some critical content. Yes: I agree with 216.9.16.183 that the link to the essay should be reinserted in the externals section. (If the essay is published in the future in an ISBN book, it may even be discussed in the main article.)
Finally, I encourage 216.9.16.183 to register in WP and argue his/her case more fully than I can do. Registration is free; very easy and you will automatically see in your watchlist which appears after registration if this article, or another favorite article in your list, has been edited recently by other editors.
Welcome, 216.9.16.183, and I hope we’ll hear from you soon.
—Cesar Tort 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The core of Alice Miller's writings is that she chooses the side of the children, and only their side. I suggest we put back the link to Daniel Mackler's critical essay because he addresses elements of Alice Miller where she doesn't choose the side of the child. Nowhere in Daniel's essay, he abandons the side of the child. If anyone thinks he has, please mention it here. Just stating that he's inaccurate without pointing out what and where he's wrong, isn't the wikipedia thing.
Immortale (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. I'll restore the link. —Cesar Tort 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've removed the link again. It doesn't appear appropriate for inclusion, based on both WP:EL and per WP:SPS (part of WP:V). It's a self-published essay by a writer who is not a recognized authority and is not published elsewhere by third parties. I checked on Google Books and Google Scholar and his name gets no hits, so he's not been published or mentioned there. Even a regular Google search doesn't offer anything significant that I could find.
I have nothing against Daniel Mackler, but it's not up to us to decide what he wrote is right or reasonable, we need to follow the policies. If I missed something that shows it does meet WP:RS, please provide that info. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What Jack says makes sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mackler may very well have som good points but if you want to link to them from the wikipedia he's going to have to write a _new_ essay containing only the valid ones.

Cesar Tort, as you very well know, both Alice Miller and Barbara Rogers are furious because of the inclusion of Macklers essay. We shouldn't, of course, allow them to control the page but we should at least take their feedback seriously. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't like Mackler's speculations about the purported sexual fantasies of Miller toward her daughter. However, if he manages to publish his essay in a book or a journal, we cannot impede that another editor includes it per WP policy. —Cesar Tort 09:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge _any_ inaccurate material can be excluded from articles, regardless of how they were published. But should that ever happen we can ask someone higher up in the hiearchy to settle it for us. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For your own good

Why do people keep removing the link to "For your own good"? There's nothing wrong with it. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because it should not be within the main text per WP style policies, but at the end of the article, as it is today located. —Cesar Tort 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know WP had a policy like that. I wanted to have it there so people would find it. Addicted2Sanity (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Phantom entries courtesy of the Wikiproject template

In looking at the different parts for the page, I've been able to determine where the problem originates. Apparently the Template knows to look for a Comment page. If it finds one, it will transclude it into the talk page for the article. Easiest solution may be to rename the comment page.--Coro (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes: I suspected that. Since you created that page, could you please nominate it for deletion? Moving it would only complicate the redirect "courtesy" even further :) Cesar Tort 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This may come as a surprise, but the history of that page indicates that you were its original creator, and made most of the edits. All I did was find it.:)--Coro (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've already added a {db-owner} template there. —Cesar Tort 22:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mackler's essay, Round 2

This is a response to the above [archived] posts about Dan Mackler's essay:

Mackler has already a book contract with Routledge in London, and he is publishing a book —peer-reviewed— with a psychiatrist. In fact, they are co-editors/co-authors. The book is on the therapetic treatment with the severely mentally ill and it should be coming out in the Fall.

Furthermore, a whole book by Mackler on Miller has just been released three days ago.

Therefore, since NPOV requires that all sourced views be represented, I've included a "criticism" section which mentions this book. This time there's no reason to revert.

201.103.127.241 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mackler's Essay was published by Annosidus Independent Press February 11. Of course clicking on the ISBN or Google it doesn't give it the necessary info yet. But contact The Swedish Royal Library if you want a confirmation of its existence instead of deleting it because it doesn't show up on Google. There are other channels to get your necessary info. And what's the deal between Google and Wikipedia anyway? Google is a commercial company, which only indexed a part of the internet. Maybe some people should start Googlepedia instead. Immortale (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Immortale is responding to an edit summary by Jack-A-Roe complaining about the isbn number. I am relocating his/her post to this section. In another edit summary Jack-A-Roe wrote:
  • "Deleting statement that describes a book and does not address the topic of Alice Miller. All it says it that the book is critical of her flaws. What flaws? What page of the book?"
All through the book! That is the subject of the book. Do you want that I expand the section explaining Mackler et al criticism of how Miller has treated some people in real life? Please do not misunderstand me. Miller is IMHO a discoverer of a new continent in the psychological world. I believe she will be recognized as such in the future. But like the rest of mankind she is all too human. The book focuses on the weak aspects not with the purpose of character assassination but, believe it or not, to give more credibility to her discoveries. —Cesar Tort 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who keep removing Mackler's criticism on Alice Miller, this is the place to discuss any arguments. I've put the critique back because it's relevant to the entire article. Immortale (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a couple times already - there's a section in the talk page archive about it. The book does not appear to be a reliable source - there are no G-scholar or G-book hits for the author at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The forum mentioned way below seems to have closed down, but here is a new one. It mentions Mackler's essay which has been a subject of dispute in this talk. 83.231.23.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

Why do I have a feeling either you ARE Mackler or a close friend of his. Not everyone in the world is going to agree with Alice Miller and we can't document any Joe Schmoe's essays or books on here. If somebody RELEVANT had some criticism(s) then we could include that but Daniel Mackler is NOT relevant. Fatrb38 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually no: I am not Mackler. On the contrary: enjoy the updated critique of Mackler. 62.32.131.156 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
And even better: watch this YouTube video Daniel Mackler - chicken?. 83.231.92.98 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
More YouTube videos have been uploaded criticizing Mackler. This is one of them. 201.124.71.74 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add blogs or YouTube videos to articles. And if you don't plan to, don't advertise them on talk pages either, WP is not the right place. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

I did not see any criticism section on this article, and one is needed. I think there are writings out there that criticise some of her work for leading to false memory production, and the break up of families. Of course, everybody likes her position of protecting children from child abuse, but some question the mechanism she uses to explain it, and there is a question of testability of her ideas, as there is in other psychoanalytical branches. It's worth looking up- I came across some criticism in print, but can't remember. Just a suggestion. 71.105.67.251 (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes: I've seen some (flawed) criticism in a book by Ron Rosenbaum; and an admin of the German Wikipedia posted in talk:Friedrich Nietzsche that a few sources in German criticize her. However, she doesn't promote false memories. In fact, in a couple of her books she doesn't seem to like therapy at all. When you find the reliable sources you can add them. —Cesar Tort 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning

The article says "In our culture "Sparing the parents is our supreme law" wrote Miller." This is not clearly expressed, according to my opinion. She writes somewhere that the commandment to obey to the parents is to be found all over the world in human culture. The expression "in our culture" makes the understanding of this sentence to depend on the respective identification of the reader. Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.225 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz. I haven't heard from you. I reverted the Stettbacher's sentence since it only makes the paragraph unecessary long. But on the other hand I modified the article according to your advice above ("In our culture"). Regards, Cesar Tort 15:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cesar, I am glad that you agree with me because of the culture thing, but, nevertheless, I disagree with you about the Mehr/Stettbacher thing. I sometimes feel as if you try to protect mamma Miller from any/everything that might be discomfortable to her; do you?
I am going to reinsert it, darling. I am so not-sorry.
Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.149 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't be rude. Miller is not a sort of "mommy" for us and you know it very well.
Insert whatever you want, but this stuff is almost irrelevant for a short article such as this one. We should better focus in Miller's discoveries. I'll go on a long wikivacation soon. It would be nice if, after editing these articles for more than two years, you finally register in Wikipedia with a user name so that yo may have the watchlist privilege and take care for this article on a daily basis. (BTW, have you read my final and last post in Dan Mackler's forum? I got mad with all of those guys and won't talk to them --ever.) Cheers. —Cesar Tort 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Cesar, greetings to you. The book of Mehr is worthwile reading, and in case people want to read it in order to check whether they can understand Miller's enthusiasm for Stettbacher because of that book, they should know the title.
Yes, I've read your final and last post in Dan Mackler's forum. Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.149 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I see... Cesar Tort 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What? Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.219 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I had in mind your comments on Mehr's. If you register in Wikipedia we could communicate better in your forthcoming Wikipedia talk page. —Cesar Tort 16:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. --Austerlitz
Nice try. Learn how to register and we might take you seriously. Fatrb38 (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
oh god,. :Austerlitz -- 88.75.198.162 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"See also" removal

Can't we talk here why somebody considers ignorance to be an irrevelant link to this article's page? Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) [22] [23] What to do with it here? Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC) And another one [24] Best wishes, Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As said above and in my edit summaries, it would help a lot if you register and indent your posts for a neat talk page and proper discussion. —Cesar Tort 20:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and how and why do you think so? Austerlitz --88.75.221.174 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What about inserting this letter?

[25] Yes, or no? or does it depend on the circumstances? Austerlitz -- 88.75.210.76 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Book

  • [26] Has it got an English edition?

It can be added.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.240 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • [27] Here Miller says that her last book is called "Free From Lies".
Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.240 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Exact decease day

Why all these changes back and forth - there was an initial error (12th) here, which made it even into the Sunday Times of South Africa. I corrected it on the 23rd. Then someone stumbled by, re-errecting the error based on that South-African "source". But why would such a far-off source know better than her German publisher?

Then finally there comes the White Knight with the best source of all - her own website: So do you really believe that she put in her own date of death?

Wouldn't your time be spent better correcting the Sunday Times of South Africa, where the error is still online ([28])?

Here my initial correction: (cur | prev) 19:55, 23 April 2010 84.191.156.160 (talk) (19,075 bytes) (date of death changed from April 12 to 14, as reported in the German Wikipedia, quoting German media, who cite her German publisher Suhrkamp)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.183.205 (talk • contribs)

I have corrected the date to April 14, as per the obituary in The New York Times, which I've added to external links. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple tags ok?

Now that at least two admins, who are far more knowledgeable of WP policies than me, have this article on their watchlists may I ask: Do we really need so many tags above the lead (e.g., it doesn’t look pov or OR, does it)? Cesar Tort 01:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for those tags. The editor who added them has not done any work on this article and has not commented on the talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a shortage of secondary or tertiary sources, so a tag of some kind might be in order. Drive-by tags aren't necessarily wrong. It could be the ones in this case might have referred to an earlier version of the article; it's tough to say without going through the whole history of the article and talk page, which is why it is indeed more helpful for taggers to comment on the talk page (but it could be they did and it was deleted or archived). It does look like there's been a tendency to delete works critical of Miller, but that's just an impression from the edit history page. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The real problem, as you can see in the 2008 archives, is that Daniel Mackler published his criticism in his own blog, and a friend of Mackler self-published it (or rather printed a few hard copies of it with an ISBN number): hardly RS according to Wikipedia standards. I understand that not even Mackler has a hard copy of this edition! However, I remember that in another Wikipedia article (I believe it is Nietzsche but not sure) a German wiki admin who also edits in the English wiki mentioned some real sources critical of Miller. I have no problem at all to add critical RS on Miller. We just need to find those sources (maybe in German). Cesar Tort 04:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
These are separate questions. If critical information has been published in reliable third-party sources, it can be included. Mackler was self-published, as Cesar mentioned, so could not be used. I don't know of any reliable source information that was deleted from the page. The tags indicated a dispute or problem with the content of the article, and that does not appear to be the case, so they are not needed. The article is not a debate, it's just a description of the person and her work. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article retrieved by a friend

How I Found Alice Miller, and Lost Her --88.75.211.16 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely fascinating article. Thanks! But I would leave to other editors the decision to use this info (or not) in the biographical seciton. --Cesar Tort 21:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"But I would leave to other editors the decision to use this info (or not) in the biographical seciton." Yes. but why? (Article by Jane Isay, writer and editor) --88.75.207.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
see also Jeffrey Masson for more information.
--88.75.93.35 (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Did Masson write an article on her decease? If so an URL would become handy. Cesar Tort 14:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No. Look here what he wrote: a response to that article. Private Drama Alice Miller was an authority on childhood trauma, but she stayed mum about her own By Daphne Merkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.212.179 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Here's what Masson said a couple of days ago:

May. 4, 2010 at 2:05 pm Very interesting article! You are definitely the fox in Isaiah Berlin’s terms, Daphne, and always fascinating to read. One small correction: I did not “suspect” she was Jewish; she told me she was Jewish. She talked about it in great detail with my then wife, Therese Claire Masson, who was also Jewish, and also from Warsaw (she was a child in the Warsaw Ghetto). Although they spoke in Polish most of the time, I sometimes joined the conversation, as I have always been fascinated (obsessed others would say) with the Holocaust. When Alice Miller asked me to do an interview with her for a European publication I gladly agreed, and all went well until I asked about her life in Warsaw and how this may have had an impact on her views. After all, I claimed then, and still do, that any analyst who ignores the trauma that is the Holocaust, is shirking his or her duty. Surely trauma lies at the very heart of Freud’s psychoanalysis. She blew up, and began to cry. How could I join the long list of people who had abused her? I had no idea what she meant, and she would not explain, but from that moment our friendship suffered and never recovered. I still feel puzzled, because I know she agreed with me about the importance of trauma, and in fact had come to Berkeley to spend a week with me talking about it before I wrote my book, The Assault on Truth.

--Cesar Tort 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder where the information comes from that Alice Miller migrated to America in 1946. In the German Wikipedia entry, it is not mentioned. -- Matthias48 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The German Wikipedia entry has her based in Switzerland in 1946. Something about her own early life, including something on how she survived the Holocaust, would also be interesting. (Compare with the German entry, which has some information on this). Norvo (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Add "Acting out"?

Add "Acting out"? 99.181.132.99 (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No please. 189.136.161.166 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_Miller_(psychologist)/Archive_1&oldid=1136508943"