Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Damasio

I've removed the reference to Antonio Damasio from this article - he was cited as a contributor to "neuro-psychoanalysis", but I've checked several of his books, and they do not use this term. For the record, what Damasio writes about Freud is, "We do not need to endorse the mechanisms proposed by either Freud or Jung to acknowledge the existence and recognize the power of unconscious processes in human behavior." (The Feeling of What Happens, p. 297) From that, it certainly doesn't sound as though Damasio is really endorsing psychoanalytic theory, which was what the article suggested. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cocaine

The section on Cocaine had a rather confusing chronology, with Wilhelm Fliess being introduced too early. Freud's friendship with Fliess did not begin until several years after he had written his cocaine papers. Correcting this led to my reworking the whole section, with full references supplied. Esterson (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating straightforwardly that Freud was a Jew

Sigmund Freud was Jewish. Why is Polisher of Cobwebs reverting that here and here? Sources support that Sigmund Freud was Jewish; that assertion can be stated forthrightly.

The subject of the article is Sigmund Freud, not Sigmund Freud's parents. If Polisher of Cobwebs wishes to add information concerning Sigmund Freud's parents there is a possibility that that can be done.

In support of my edit I provided this citation: "And until the final moment, when, on 23 September 1939, the curtain fell for him, Freud remained a faithful Jew and—to the best of his ability—maintained fidelity to his Jewish identity, as can be seen from the correspondence that is accessible to us.; Freud and Judaism; by David Meghnagi, Sigmund Freud, Mark Solms; Karnac Books, 1993

Going straight to the point—that Sigmund Freud was Jewish—should be noncontroversial. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sigmund Freud was Jewish. That isn't a reason for starting a discussion of Freud's early life by saying, "Freud was Jewish" - it's a gratuitous and completely unnecessary observation, and I can't see that it improves the article in any way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you take a look at other biographical articles to get a sense of how biographies are written. The article about Ronald Reagan, for example, doesn't begin its discussion of his early life by saying, "Reagan was American", or "Reagan was a Christian", or "Reagan was a gentile", or anything of that kind. It's just not how we write biographies. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The point brought out in the edit that I made is that Sigmund Freud was Jewish. You have twice reverted to a version in which the point is made that his parents were Jewish. This is the version that you are reverting to: "Freud was born on 6 May 1856, to Jewish Galician parents…" If you would like to retain the assertion that he was born to "Jewish Galician parents" I would suggest the following: "Freud was Jewish, born on 6 May 1856, to Jewish Galician parents…" Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see above about how biographies are written. We just don't do things the way you're suggesting. And keep in mind that a statement about Freud's parents, in this context, is a statement about Freud. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—you say, "keep in mind that a statement about Freud's parents, in this context, is a statement about Freud." It is a statement that Freud's parents were Jewish. We don't need to suggest that perhaps Sigmund Freud was Jewish. That is reliably sourced. It can be stated outright. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No. That is not how biographies are written here. We don't say "Freud was Jewish" at the start of a section on his early life for exactly the same reason that we don't say, "Reagan was gentile" or "Reagan was American" at the start of the section on his early life. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you reverting to a version that says at the outset that Sigmund Freud's parents were Jewish, and how would you suggest that we say that Sigmund Freud was Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits and went back to the previous version because your changes did not improve the article. If you make similar edits in future here I will revert them too. It's quite clear that Freud was a Jew, so you're seeing a problem where one doesn't exist. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—you say above, "No. That is not how biographies are written here." Biographies, like all articles, are written according to sources. This would be a source that would support the wording that Freud was a secular Jew. "Fin de siècle Vienna's amazing artistic, scientific, and intellectual renaissance was led by a long list of brilliantly accomplished Jews. Many of them no longer practiced the religion but considered themselves cultural Jews. Playwright and novelist Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931), who described the world-weary, erotic emptiness of the era in plays such as Reigen (1897), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), founder of psychoanalysis, remained secular Jews. But many other German Jews converted to Christianity, often as a means of being assimilated into the larger society. Arnold Schoenberg converted to Christianity in 1898, and Zemlinsky probably converted to Christianity the following year. He teasingly referred to Schoenberg's new baptismal name "Franz" in one of his early letters. In fact, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, assimilation through intermarriage, religious conversion, and secularism among Jews became so widespread that when the Nazis came to power in 1933, they felt obliged to devise elaborate categories to define who was a Jew and who was not." Therefore the edit I am suggesting would be: "Freud was a secular Jew, born on 6 May 1856, to Jewish Galician parents…" There is nothing taboo about saying that Freud was Jewish. Jewish is simply an attribute of his identity. Many sources report it. It is a fact worthy of inclusion in our biography. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you make the edit I will revert it, as noted. You're just wrong about how biographies get written, and I'm sorry you aren't responding to arguments. You can expect other editors to revert you as well. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to merely suggest that Freud might have been Jewish. No source has been presented suggesting that he converted to another religion. Nor is any source suggesting that for any other reason Freud should not be considered Jewish. It is not just Freud's parents who were Jewish. The subject of this biography was also Jewish, and it should be obvious that we can say that he was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the same things over and over won't help. We don't need to put a statement like "Freud was a Jew" in the article, particularly not in the early life section; neither do we need to say, "Freud was a man", or "Freud was heterosexual", or "Freud was a native speaker of German", although all of those descriptions of him would also be true. Is there some special reason why you're focusing on Freud being a Jew? He was plenty of other things too. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—I think you should ask yourself why you are accepting of inclusion in our article that Freud's parents were Jewish but not accepting of inclusion in our article that Freud himself was Jewish. Each time you have reverted my edits at this article—here and here—you are reverting to a version of the article which reads "Freud was born on 6 May 1856, to Jewish Galician parents…" And yet you are asking me "Is there some special reason why you're focusing on Freud being a Jew?" A subject of a biography has attributes of identity. "Jewish" is one such attribute. Mention of those attributes helps to build a composite picture of the subject of the biography for the reader. Attributes, of course, have to be sourced—which they are in this instance. Can you tell me why you are apparently willing to include the information that Freud's parents were Jewish but not the information that Freud himself was Jewish?

Note the importance that Freud's Jewishness is accorded by this source:

"At this point it is particularly important for the discussion of Jews in the modern west to take Bhabha's theorization one step further by way of remembering its psychoanalytic origin. Freud was a partially assimilated, mostly secular Jew, but one who always recognized the hopelessness of the attempt at assimilation. Sander Gilman quotes him from a letter to the pregnant ex-mistress of Carl Jung: 'We are and remain Jews. The others will only exploit us and will never understand us.' It was in this atmosphere of ambivalence around assimilation, and Freud's own experience of it, that he thought through the theoretical tenets of psychoanalysis. Gilman argues that there is in Freud's work a 'hidden master narrative about racial difference,' in particular about Jewish difference in Europe. In fact, as Jay Geller notes, 'where Freud proposed psychoanalysis as an objective science of the human, others perceived a "Jewish national affair."' Gilman explains that:

The idea of the hysteric was a central one for the imaginative world of Sigmund Freud, as it was close to his own self-definition. For at the end of the nineteenth century the idea of seeing the hysteric was closely bound to the idea of seeing the Jew—and very specifically the male Jew. For if the visual representation of the hysteric within the world of the nineteenth century was the image of the female, its subtext was that feminized males, such as Jews, were also hysterics, and they could be 'seen'. The face of the Jew was as much a sign of the pathological as the face of the hysteric.

What Gilman is describing is a merging of the discourses of racialised Jewishness and of the hysteric, a merging of which Freud could unconsciously take advantage to think through the psychoanalytic construction of the latter by way of the experience—indeed his own, his family's, and that of many of his patients—of the former. Central to this merging is the importance of sight. Gilman expounds on the importance in late nineteenth-century discussions of the look of the Jew."

Bhabha, mentioned in the above, is Homi K. Bhabha. There is also a Wiki article on Sander Gilman, mentioned in the above. The referred to Jay Geller is mentioned in Freud and religion. Scholarly work treats the fact that Freud was Jewish with significance. The above except is from the book called: "Coming out Jewish: constructing ambivalent identities", by Jon Stratton, who also has an article on Wiki. I think our article could use a mention that Freud was Jewish. That is hardly insignificant. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the infobox. It states clearly and unambiguously that Freud was an Ashkenazi Jew. So you're seeing a problem where none exists. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just had a look, and the infobox doesn't seem to be displaying Freud's ethnicity properly (although it is visible when you're editing the article). The solution to this is simply to fix the infobox, however. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—you have more than once in the above thread compared this article on Freud to our article on Ronald Reagan. Do sources find reason to focus on corresponding aspects of Reagan? I don't know the answer to that but probably not. Probably reliable sources quickly and in a cursory manner make a comment or two on such aspects in relation to Reagan and then move on to factors that they consider more important. Sources are what matter. Any given article is informed by where the emphasis is placed by sources. In my above quoted except from a book by Jon Stratton, we find an attempt to tie Freud's being a Jew to Freud's arrival at theories relating to hysteria. What I am trying to point out is that in sources we find considerable treatment of the fact of Freud's being a Jew in relation to that which Freud is most noted for. Considerable effort is made in sources to explain the arrival of theories of psychology to the factor of Freud being a Jew. Sander Gilman, who in the above argues for the connection between Freud's Jewishness and certain of Freud's theories, is the author of Hysteria beyond Freud; University of California Press, 1993. In my opinion it is unreasonable to ignore sources and the importance those sources attribute to a factor in the life of a subject of a biography. Yes, as you correctly point out—we do not mention that Freud was a "heterosexual" or Freud was a "native speaker of German". But that is for the simple reason that sources place little emphasis on such factors. But when a multitude of reliable sources focus on Freud's Jewishness we are obliged to follow suit. In the case of Freud I don't think these are fringe views. In Freud we find a man who obstinately clung to his identity as a Jew. He did so against a tide of assimilation and conversion. This is not "original research" on my part. I think sources support the importance of Freud's identity as a Jew and his importance as a historical figure. It is way out of place for the article to fail to state straightforwardly that that Freud was a Jew. The aspect of Freud being a Jew is not of peripheral importance to any accounting of the man's historical importance, and our article should find a prominent place for such an assertion. You mention the Infobox. The body of the article is where this should be found. This is part of the biography of Freud—it need not be eliminated from the body of the article. I'm utterly baffled by your resistance to mentioning in the article that Freud was Jewish. Sources all reinforce one another in establishing that Freud was a "secular Jew". In my opinion our article would accurately characterize him as a "…secular Jew, born on 6 May 1856, to Jewish Galician parents…" I find that writing natural, unobtrusive, and succinct. You've reverted more than once to a version in which we learn that Freud's parents are Jewish. This isn't an article primarily about Freud's parents. Freud himself was Jewish—that should be stated. Bus stop (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This reference makes the same point: "Based on his close communication with Freud over a lifetime, Jones (1955) believes that Freud's Jewishness contributed greatly to his work and his firm convictions about his findings. Freud often referred to his ability to stand alone, if need be, without wavering or surrendering his intellectual and scientific discoveries, and he attributed this ability to his irreligious but strong Jewish identity in an antisemitic society, whereby he was accustomed to a marginal status and being set aside as different. "The inherited capacity of Jews to stand their ground and maintain their position in life in the face of surrounding opposition or hostility was highly pronounced in Freud, and he was doubtlessly right in attributing to it the firmness with which he maintained his convictions undeterred by the prevailing opposition to them. That also holds good for his followers, who were for the most part Jews." In fact, Jones goes further and states that when the storm of opposition broke over psychoanalysis in the years before World War II, he was one of only four Gentiles who survived it, in that others gave up, abandoning their affiliation with the psychoanalytic movement. Over four decades, Freud, independently and alone, conceptualized every one of his basic theories and techniques of psychoanalytic treatment. He altered, modified, and revised many of them as he personally gained deeper understanding of what he observed in clinical work with patients and in himself." I think the "Jones" referred to above is Ernest Jones, biographer of Freud. Bus stop (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This article, Sigmund Freud, and the Ronald Reagan article are both biographical articles, which is why I'm comparing them. Freud and Reagan were very different men, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn anything from the Reagan article about how to write this one. It is one of Wikipedia's featured articles (meaning that it's far higher in quality than this one), and that makes it a good example to follow. The Reagan article doesn't begin its discussion of Reagan's early life by saying, "Reagan was a Christian American" - which would be the equivalent of the "Freud was a secular Jew" wording that you're trying to add here. That's not because sources show that being a Christian or an American were unimportant aspects of Reagan's identity but because biographical articles are not written that way. That's the simple point that I've made ever since you started trying to rewrite that part of the article, and I'll go on making it as long as I have to. People's religious, ethnic and national backgrounds are obviously important, but flat statements to the effect that "So and so was a this and a that" aren't how we begin discussions of their lives. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs is right. Let us have an end to this discussion.Motmit (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs and Motmit—it is more important to a biography of Freud to include the information that Freud was Jewish than the information that his parents were Jewish. Polisher of Cobwebs is repeatedly reverting to a version in which it is stated that the parents were Jewish. Sources place more emphasis on Freud being Jewish than on his parents being Jewish. This is one possible wording: "Freud was a secular Jew, born on 6 May 1856 in the Moravian town of Příbor, Austrian Empire, now the Czech Republic." Sources determine the specific form an article takes. Yes, there is carryover from one article to another as concerns the form-factor. But there is no reason to think that one article must march in lockstep with another article. If sources do not emphasize that Ronald Reagan was a "Christian American" then an article on him may opt to leave that information out. Then again that information can certainly be included. These are editorial decisions made on a case by case basis. But I don't think we are free to ignore an overwhelming emphasis as might be found in sources. I have brought sources, above, that go to great lengths relating Freud's Jewishness to the field that he is credited with establishing—psychoanalysis. The above source says that "Based on his close communication with Freud over a lifetime, Jones (1955) believes that Freud's Jewishness contributed greatly to his work and his firm convictions about his findings. Freud often referred to his ability to stand alone, if need be, without wavering or surrendering his intellectual and scientific discoveries, and he attributed this ability to his irreligious but strong Jewish identity in an antisemitic society, whereby he was accustomed to a marginal status and being set aside as different." The "Jones", referred to above, is called in our article on him the "official biographer" of Freud.

A different placement of this information in the article is a possibility. Are there any suggestions concerning placing this information elsewhere in the article? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source saying that Freud's Jewishness was important to his creation of psychoanalysis, then fine, by all means add it somewhere to the article - but please do not change the "early life" section so that it begins with "Freud was a secular Jew", because biographical articles aren't ever written that way, not at least when we want them to be of high quality. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing compelling us to banish mention of Freud's being Jewish from the "early life section." It is useful to group information on related topics together, and it is already being mentioned in the "early life section" that his parents were Jewish. I will try to add mention that he retained a strong Jewish identity lifelong. I will try to add it after mention that his parents were Jewish. I am not sure that that is ideal, but it may be workable. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you added "Freud remained a secular Jew with a strong Jewish identity lifelong" after "Freud was born with a caul, which the family accepted as a positive omen." That is illogical. Freud's being a secular Jew with a strong Jewish identity had nothing to do with his having a caul. Sentences have to follow each other in a logical way, not be added at random. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The "caul" sentence is of questionable importance. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a well known fact about Freud which figures prominently in the literature on him. So it should be in the article in accord with due weight and WP:NPOV. I've placed the sentence you added in a different location in the early life section; it's now basically OK, but needs more context. Ideally, a statement about how someone remained secular should follow a discussion of how he became secular in the first place. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—the mention that Freud was Jewish should be in the first sentence of the Early life section. It should read "Freud, who was Jewish, was born to Jewish Galician parents in the Moravian town of Příbor, Austrian Empire, now the Czech Republic." There is nothing wrong with that sentence whatsoever, and it is not misplaced. "Jewish" is an identity that was applicable to Freud throughout his life. Mentioning that his parents were Jewish dovetails with mentioning that he was Jewish. These are related thoughts, economically expressed. You have put together unrelated thoughts in one paragraph—that he was Jewish and that he attended a particular high school. Bus stop (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it should not read that way, because such writing doesn't meet the standard of quality we aspire to on Wikipedia. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Freud remained a secular Jew with a strong Jewish identity lifelong" could indeed go somewhere else, but that doesn't mean we put in the first sentence, because, as you've been repeatedly told, that's not how biographies are written. The problem was that you added a sentence without any context to it - it doesn't make very much sense to add something saying that Freud "remained" a secular Jew without an explanation of how he became secular in the first place. The problem would not have arisen if you had considered more carefully what to add before you added it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest putting "Freud remained a secular Jew with a strong Jewish identity lifelong" in the "first sentence". You are attempting to control the article to the detriment of the article, or at least in relation to noting Freud's Jewish background. I have had to bring many sources, above in this thread, just to convince you that including in the article the mention that Freud was Jewish was justified. Now the problem seems to be that you are resistant to smoothly integrating that fact into the article. I am trying to explain, in concrete terms, immediately above, why one sort of wording is preferable to another. Instead of responding to any point I make you are repeating a mantra of "as you've been repeatedly told, that's not how biographies are written." You are saying that something "doesn't meet the standard of quality we aspire to on Wikipedia". If we are going to discuss quality factors we should be doing so in concrete terms so that we understand what one another is trying to say.

This is a perfectly good quality sentence: "Freud, who was Jewish, was born to Jewish Galician parents in the Moravian town of Příbor, Austrian Empire, now the Czech Republic." I suggested it above. You are not citing any reason you find it objectionable. Therefore I think we should use it until something better is suggested. It involves an economical use of words and it combines the two related ideas—of both the parents' and Freud's Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made that change. Please don't revert. The noting of the fact that Freud was Jewish is unobtrusively included with the mention that his parents were Jewish. You have been consistently supportive of noting that the parents were Jewish. There is no particular problem, from a quality of writing point of view, with combining mention that the subject of the biography was Jewish in the same sentence that it is mentioned that the parents were Jewish. It is perfectly natural. At this point it is the most concise way of conveying that information. There is no reason whatsoever for scattering those two related pieces of information in separate paragraphs. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear: I am making a change intended to undo your last edit to that section of the article. This is the paragraph you've left us with:

"Freud remained a secular Jew with a strong Jewish identity lifelong. In 1865, Freud entered the Leopoldstädter Kommunal-Realgymnasium, a prominent high school. He was an outstanding pupil and graduated the Matura in 1873 with honors."

I don't feel that there is sufficient reason to join together that Freud was Jewish with material about his high school education. At the same time I think there is good reason to combine in one sentence that both Freud and his parents were Jewish. Doing so answers for the reader in one concise space the means by which Freud is Jewish—it makes it clear, in one sentence, that Freud is Jewish by birth. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, we have a content dispute. When there is a content dispute, please don't accuse other editors of trying to "control the article." Three editors have commented on this issue so far, and of those two - Motmit and myself - disagree with you. Your view is in the minority; no one else except you thinks the article should be written that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your sentence, "Freud, who was Jewish, was born to Jewish Galician parents in the Moravian town of Příbor, Austrian Empire, now the Czech Republic" is ineptly written and degrades the quality of the article. It in effect identifies Freud as being Jewish twice over; it's equivalent to, "So and so, who was Chinese, was born to Chinese parents...". As noted, Wikipedia articles of high quality simply don't begin discussions of their early lives by mentioning what their religious or ethnic background was, at least not in the way you think we should. We just don't do "Freud was Jewish" or "Reagan was a gentile Christian" or things of that kind. I'm sorry you don't understand what is considered high quality writing here, but that's the fact. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—in fact no other editor agrees with you. Motmit said at 09:48, 6 February 2011 that "Polisher of Cobwebs is right. Let us have an end to this discussion." But that is before you conceded at 19:21, 6 February 2011, that "If you have a source saying that Freud's Jewishness was important to his creation of psychoanalysis, then fine, by all means add it somewhere to the article - but please do not change the "early life" section so that it begins with "Freud was a secular Jew", because biographical articles aren't ever written that way, not at least when we want them to be of high quality." What did Motmit agree with? You have reversed your position on what Motmit agreed with. How do you count "three editors"? What editor other than Motmit do you have in mind? You say, "…no one else except you thinks the article should be written that way." Motmit did not comment on how the article should be written. At the point that Motmit wrote the above you were still arguing that the article should not mention that Freud was Jewish.

The article is not about Ronald Reagan. Nor is it about a "Chinese" person. This article is about a Jewish person. Was he a convert to Judaism? No, he was not. I have composed a sentence that articulates that Freud was a man who retained his Jewish identity after having been born Jewish. Isn't that what we want to say? You are saying that in a less than ideal way. You are placing Freud's Jewishness and his parents' Jewishness in two separate paragraphs. Can you please explain to me why you want to state that Freud was Jewish in a separate paragraph from the one in which we state that his parents were Jewish? Why are you talking about Ronald Reagan, whose associated religion is Christianity? Does one convert into and out of Chinese identity? If we are going to talk about this I think we should focus on the issue at hand.

You say that my writing is "inept". My "writing" in this article is only one sentence long. How is it inept? Can you remedy it? You are insistent that I "don't understand what is considered high quality writing here." Do you think that you can articulate where my writing (of that one sentence) fails so badly? You are not discussing the writing. You are only reverting. Then you are coming to the Talk page to tell me that "that's not how biographies are written". If you recognize the difference between good quality writing and bad quality then please communicate that to me. We are disagreeing over whether one sentence should convey that both Freud and his parents were Jewish or if that one sentence should be broken into two sentences, spread over two paragraphs. Can you explain to me why two related thoughts should be broken up and expressed in two separate paragraphs? Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What Motmit was agreeing with, if you bother to look at the previous discussion was that, 'flat statements to the effect that "So and so was a this and a that"' are not how we begin discussions of the early lives of biographical subjects. Nevertheless, you have continued to try to make this article do that. Please stop. No one supports your point of view, and two other editors oppose it. I explained to you perfectly clearly why your sentence was inept, and don't feel obliged to repeat myself, or to engage in endless discussion with you. Wikipedia is not a chat forum or a debating society. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—you say "What Motmit was agreeing with, if you bother to look at the previous discussion was that, 'flat statements to the effect that "So and so was a this and a that"' are not how we begin discussions of the early lives of biographical subjects." In point of fact Motmit says nothing of the sort.

This is Motmit's post in its entirety:

"Polisher of Cobwebs is right. Let us have an end to this discussion.Motmit (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)"

No one else agrees with you. You refused to even concede that we could mention that Freud was Jewish in the article until after Motmit posted the comment which I have reproduced in its entirety above. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—you are not responding to what I think are reasonable questions regarding the article. For instance, why do you feel we should break up related information not only into two sentences, but into two separate paragraphs? Is there a reason why that is preferable? My own feeling is the opposite: I think all related information should be disclosed at the same time. Freud being a Jew, a logical question is whether he is a Jew by birth or a convert to Judaism. The sentence I have suggested answers that question, and it does so with an economy of words. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am Polisher of Cobwebs. If someone says, "Polisher of Cobwebs is right", I think I can reasonably assume that he agrees with me - and Motmit was referring to my entire comment. I've never said that the article can't say that Freud was Jewish; in fact, it always has done that. If someone has Jewish parents, then they are Jewish, in one relevant sense of the word. In regard to your questions, go look at other biographical articles (I think Albert Einstein, Henri Bergson, Marcel Proust, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Marx, and Ludwig von Mises are good examples, as you appear to be so interested in Jewish identity) and get a sense of how they're written. We don't do things the way you think they should be done, and your "feeling" thankfully won't change that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—please focus on this article. Is there not a question as to whether Karl Marx, for instance, is to be considered Jewish or not? I read in the Karl Marx article that, "Karl was baptized when he was six years old." Did Freud convert to Christianity? Do you have any other reason to think that Freud should not be considered Jewish? Clarity is a prime consideration when writing an article for an encyclopedia. If Freud was Jewish we say he was Jewish. You argued against that for many days. Motmit's comment is to be seen in the light of that. You balked at saying that Freud was Jewish until after the post by Motmit. You insisted that it sufficed to say that Freud's parents were Jewish. In my opinion it does not suffice to merely say that the parents were Jewish in the instance of Freud. That is because sources show that Freud regarded his Jewish identity with a considerable degree of seriousness. His Jewishness is an attribute of his identity that warrants noting in an encyclopedia article. If we are writing with clarity as an ideal we state explicitly that Freud was Jewish. In fact that is arguably more important than saying that his parents were Jewish. The subject of the article is Sigmund Freud. The subject of this article is not the parents of Sigmund Freud. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop—please look at other articles and learn something about how biographies are written on Wikipedia. "He was Jewish" or equivalent statements are simply not how we start discussions of the early lives of people who happen to have been Jews. There's nothing special about the Freud article that means that we have to abandon the standards of writing that apply elsewhere. If you start a campaign to rewrite biographies of Jews so that they do begin with "He was Jewish" type statements, you won't be successful, count on it. Save yourself the trouble and don't even think about trying something like that. A biography needs to start by describing the events of a person's life, not by listing facts about him or her such as "He was Jewish." If the events of someone's life are described properly, listing facts about him or her that way isn't necessary. That is what counts as clear writing.

As for Marx, no, there is no question about whether he should be considered Jewish. It's quite uncontroversial that he was a Jew; that he didn't believe in the Jewish religion is a different question. Are you, by any chance, under the impression that people who don't believe in Judaism don't count as Jews? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—you say, "As for Marx, no, there is no question about whether he should be considered Jewish. It's quite uncontroversial that he was a Jew; that he didn't believe in the Jewish religion is a different question. Are you, by any chance, under the impression that people who don't believe in Judaism don't count as Jews?"

Your own opinions should not get in the way of writing an article. You argued for 3 days (above, in this thread) that it was enough to say that Freud was born to Jewish parents. But it is certainly not enough. The article is not on Freud's parents. The article is on Freud. Sources say that Sigmund Freud was Jewish. If we had to chose between including the information that Freud was Jewish and the corresponding information relating to the parents—we would have to choose to include only that Sigmund was Jewish. The more important thing is saying that the subject of this article was Jewish.

You are wasting your time pondering asides. Why are you concerned for instance with whether Marx "believe[d] in Judaism"? We construct an article most productively by loading it with sourced information in a readable way. It thus becomes a useful resource for a reader.

You are insisting that the information that Freud's parents were Jewish needs to be in a separate paragraph from the information that Freud was Jewish. How does it serve the reader's interests to scatter those two highly related facts between two paragraphs? Do you think the reader is incapable of processing all that information at once? You seem to have an ossified idea of how articles are written. For instance you are repeatedly saying to me "that's not how biographies are written." You seem intent on using this WP:Talk page for discussions of asides. Are we really going to discuss whether or not it was "uncontroversial that he [Marx] was a Jew" or whether or not "people who don't believe in Judaism don't count as Jews"? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've created a separate paragraph to say that he was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned Marx because your comments about him appeared to suggest that you have a confused idea of what being a Jew means. That's a problem regardless of whether you're editing the Marx article or the Freud article. You wrote that, "Freud being a Jew, a logical question is whether he is a Jew by birth or a convert to Judaism." Er, no. In the overwhelming majority of cases, people are Jews because they are Jews by birth, that is, they're seen as being Jewish in a racial sense. Almost nobody who is not Jewish by birth converts to the Jewish religion; it does happen, but it's extremely rare. So the issue of whether Freud was Jewish by birth or through being a convert to Judaism doesn't arise; absolutely no one (except apparently you) would worry about whether Freud became a Jew by birth or through converting to Judaism. Even if there were some genuine uncertainty over that, saying "Freud, who was Jewish, was born to Jewish parents" wouldn't resolve anything, since it doesn't explain in what sense either Freud or his parents were Jewish. It's simply bad writing, in the same way and for the same reason that, "Mao, who was Chinese, was born to Chinese parents..." is bad writing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Content re Freud's Judaism

I created this new section to discuss the specific wording that BusStop and I added to the main article describing Freud's religion/ethnicity. I am virtually never on the same side of ethnic tagging issues as BusStop but happen to agree here because Freud's ethnicity is an important aspect in his life and thought and in understanding him, as he wrote in An Autobiographical Study and the introduction to the Hebrew edition of Totem and Taboo (the content I added to the main article). Full disclosure: I haven't read the exhaustively detailed thread above, but will do so and come back to offer any comments or make any changes based on that material.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop appears not to understand how biographical articles are written. He has complained at great length about my reverting him, but simply hasn't grasped the point that his proposed wording for the article is unacceptable and contrary to how Wikipedia does things. We don't begin articles about Jews with statements like "He was Jewish"; it's not appropriate and it's not good writing. There are better ways of explaining that Freud's ethnicity was important, and looking at other biographies of Jews should show what those ways are. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when we had an editing disagreement over a college president's bio which said "_____ ______, a Jewish American...." I agree that is inappropriate and would oppose that here too. However, I think a short paragraph about Freud's ethnicity and identity further down, as it currently exists in the article, is fine. Do you agree?Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's basically acceptable, though like everything else in the article, it needs much improvement. But any attempt to use wording like, "Freud, who was Jewish, was born to Jewish parents...", at the beginning of the article or anywhere else, needs to be opposed. It's illogical, and simply awful writing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

JW's approach is the correct one. There is a dimension to Freud's life which informs some of his writing and it needed someone who had a genuine interest in Freud's work to develop it. How the text is taken forward and the extent to which it could be merged with the later section is something that may be discussed further. However just marking people out on the basis of race or creed, for whatever motives, seems to be something that three of us agree is undesirable in general and damaging to Wikipedia in particular. Motmit (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Permission to participate.

Dear Polisher of Cobwebs:

What permissions of yours might I require to participate herein? Please let me know, because the "unnecessary changes" logically organised the introductory paragraph: (i) topic sentence, (ii) examples, (iii) reiteration and conclusion. I transposed the "legacy paragraph" to introduce the topics of the legacy; not every reader knows what you and I know about SF. Although I agree with you, please remember the international nature of the Internet, the English Wikipedia is not exclusively American in perspective, perception, and interpretation, because the global Anglosphere is not exclusively American or Brit, hence, full explanations readily provide unambiguous communication that answers the readers' Who? What? Where? When? and Why? questions.

NOTE: whenever such entries over-do the "Freud said. . . ", "He claimed . . . ", "He believed . . . " that writer is not impartial. After all, the subjects are the man and his works, they speak for themselves; the lily requires no gilding.

Let me know,

Best regards, Mhazard9 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You require no permission of mine to edit this article, and I shouldn't need to tell you that. Don't imply that I'm somehow trying to stop you editing; such accusations are quite rude and uncalled for, and false, too. Please see WP:CIVIL. I find a large number of changes you have made to this article (including the lead) to be of questionable merit; I think several of them make the article significantly worse, and therefore I've reverted them. A lead paragraph doesn't have to have a "reiteration and conclusion" - it's a statement of basic facts, not an academic argument or an essay. Furthermore, we don't identify people as "Dr" in the lead.

Also, you removed a large paragraph full of relevant information from the lead for what appears to be no good reason, then (after I restored it) placed it in the legacy section, as if a summary of a section belongs in the section itself! It's precisely because not everyone knows these basic facts that the summary of the legacy section belongs in the lead - not in the "legacy" section itself, where it's simply unnecessary duplication of information and serves no good purpose. Please see WP:LEAD. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To make this dispute easier for others to follow, the material Mhazard9 removed from the lead was this:

'Many of Freud's ideas have been abandoned or modified by other analysts. Modern advances in the field of psychology have shown flaws in some of his theories, while psychoanalysis itself has often been called a pseudoscience. Numerous critics dispute his work, and it has been marginalized within psychology departments. It remains influential in clinical approaches, and in the humanities and social sciences, including Marxism and feminism. Freud is considered one of the most prominent thinkers of the 20th century, in terms of originality and intellectual influence, and has been called one of the three masters of the "school of suspicion", alongside Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche.'

I submit that Mhazard9 should not have removed that material, and that he gave no good reason for doing so. The only reason offered for the removal was "NPOV" (see here), but no explanation was given of why the material is not in accord with WP:NPOV. It should be restored to the article, possibly slightly modified to make it more neutral. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

I deleted the following paragraph from the article.

Peter Medawar, a Nobel Prize winning immunologist, made the oft-quoted remark that psychoanalysis is the "most stupendous intellectual confidence trick of the twentieth century". Ethan Watters and Richard Ofshe write that, "The story of Freud and the creation of psychodynamic therapy, as told by its adherents, is a self-serving myth".

This paragraph was lumped in half way through the sectin Development of Psychoanalysis. It functioned as a non-sequitor without meaningful reference to what came before or after it. It read horribly destroying the logical flow of the article and it just looks like editing with a point of view rather than for elucidation. If criticism is appropriate in this section of the article I think it should be drawn from figures contemporary to Freud and the developments in psychoanalytical thought that the Section is describing. The observations in the paragraph I deleted may be appropriate for inclusion in the article (possibly the lead or conclusion?) but not at the point in the article where they were included.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are planning a major rewrite, please leave the paragraph here. If you are planning an upgrade to this biography, I wish you good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I placed the paragraph there, on the grounds that it made more sense to place it there than it did to place it in the section on Freud's patients. It had originally been in the section on Freud's legacy where, in my opinion, it was quite irrelevant. Freud's legacy concerns his impact, the influence of his ideas for better or worse; Medawar's comment is a criticism of what Freud did while alive, and so is the remark by Watters and Ofshe. This material is clearly relevant to Freud's biography, and can be appropriately placed in the section on his life. I am well aware that it is far from perfect, and that it reads a little awkwardly, but the solution is to improve it, not to remove it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I think the material is really jarring where placed. The Watters/Ofshe quote could probably be better incorporated into the section, but I don't agree Medawar belongs there--he is more in line with some contemporary criticisms of Freud located in the legacy section. In deference to those who spend a lot more time with this article than I do, I am not planning to edit or revert, but thought it worth weighing in on the stylistic/encyclopedic issues. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Watters/Ofshe quote is about the development of psychoanalysis, and obviously belongs nowhere else except in a section about the development of psychoanalysis; its current location is therefore correct, although certainly a better way should be found to include it within that section.

The Medawar quote should not be placed in the legacy section - the legacy section is just that, a section about Freud's legacy and influence. Medawar's comment says nothing about that. The legacy section is not "criticism of Sigmund Freud" and it would be a bad idea to place Medawar there. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that I don't consider the Medawar quote especially significant. It comes from a Nobel laureate, but it doesn't say anything about Freud directly; it's about psychoanalysis, and would be more suitable to Psychoanalysis than to this article. It could probably be removed from the article entirely as undue material, but if it's going to be here at all, it shouldn't be in the legacy section. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As things stand, the section reads as follows:

After establishing a neurologic specialty medical practice, Freud married Martha Bernays in 1886, the grand-daughter of Isaac Bernays, the chief rabbi of Hamburg. In practice, after attempting hypnosis therapy with neurotic patients, he abandoned it as ineffective, and favoured the “talking cure” treatment wherein the analysand (patient) talked through his or her problems with the psychoanalyst; the goal being the location and release of the powerful emotional energy that the unconscious mind had initially rejected and imprisoned. Freud named such psychic action “repression” that impeded the normal functioning of the psyche, and capable of causing physical retardation, described as psychosomatic. Moreover, it was the patient Anna O. who coined the “talking cure” term; she was treated by Josef Breuer, a colleague of Freud. In the field of psychoanalysis, “the talking cure” is considered the clinical basis of psychoanalysis.

Peter Medawar, a Nobel Prize winning immunologist, made the oft-quoted remark that psychoanalysis is the "most stupendous intellectual confidence trick of the twentieth century".Ethan Watters and Richard Ofshe write that, "The story of Freud and the creation of psychodynamic therapy, as told by its adherents, is a self-serving myth".

After the publication of The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), and Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), professional interest in his theories of psychologic development increased, and he accrued a circle of supporters. Nonetheless, he often strongly disagreed with supporters who criticized his theories, the most famous being Carl Jung. Their interpretative disagreement was partly because of Jung’s interest in and commitment to religion — which Freud perceived as unscientific.

I think the removal of this paragraph from the article, or at least this section of the article, would improve it. It breaks up the logical exposition structuring the paragraph. To deal with the second quote first, Watters's and Ofshe's remark is directed at the court histories produced by Freud's followers. It has no relevance in this section unless the implication is that the history of the development of psychodynamics provided in this section is also part of the mythology propagated by Freuds's followers. If the Followers section was expanded to account for the initial dissemination of Freudian theories then this quote would indeed find some relevance there.

Next, I'm not certain as to the importance of the comments of Medawar to an understanding of Freud - there are, in my opinion, plenty of other critics whose evaluation might be more relevant than that provided by an immunologist. However, Medawar was writing in 1975 and his comments are, I think, entirely relevant to Freud's legacy (but not to the legacy section as currently written). They point to a period in time when Freudian ideas were beginning to lose currency on the grounds that they had no empirical or scientific architecture of support. So, in terms of legacy, they reflect the descent in Freud's influence, and hence legacy, that has been a feature, in some forms of knowledge at least, since the mid-1970s-1980s onwards. His comments reflect a growing sentiment and consensus about Freud particularly evident in mainstream medicine and research.

I don't get the observation that these are comments about what Freud did while alive. In fact, I think they both really only have minimalist connection to Freud's activities while alive nor, indeed, do I think that that was the object of their attack. Medawar's attack is directed at a Freudian/Psychoanalytic establishment/status quo in place, if crumbling, at the time when he was writing. Self-evidently, Watters and Ofshe are attacking the manner in which Freud's legacy was constructed by his followers.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to remove the Medawar quotation, go ahead and do so. As I tried to indicate, I don't think it's that important, and it may not meet the test of due weight here. I may possibly remove it myself. I don't agree about Ofshe and Watters, however. I haven't read their book (and I can't easily access it), but in all probability it's directed against both Freud and his followers. The Ofshe/Watters comment is of little use in its current form because it is so vague, but in principle it definitely is relevant in a section on the development of psychoanalysis, since clearly the development of psychoanalysis is exactly what they're discussing. Perhaps Ofshe/Watters could be removed on the grounds that its vagueness makes it useless, but if that were done, then editors would be less likely to produce an improved version of that material, which would be unfortunate. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I can understand what you are arguing about Medawar's comment being relevant to Freud's legacy; but while I see your reasoning, I don't agree with it. It's likely true that Medawar's comment was directed against "a Freudian/Psychoanalytic establishment/status quo", but that's not what the comment itself is about - he may have meant it as a statement about Freud's legacy, but in itself it concerns what Freud did while alive. (And in regard to Ofshe and Watters again, note that critics of Freud trace what you call the "court histories produced by Freud's followers" to Freud himself, so the distinction between them and Freud is a distinction without a difference). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the changes you have made have improved what is a very well written and researched article.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes were partly in response to your comments. On reflection, I think you're right that the Medawar comment can go in the legacy section; it's not that different from some of the material already there. I removed the Ofshe/Watters comment rather reluctantly, but again, I take your point that it's potentially misleading. That material could well be restored if someone can produce an improved version of it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am re-adding a comment from Ofshe/Watters, in the same section. If I've chosen a bad quote please holler. The single sentence that was here before seemed to me just fine, and it was shorter, in deference to the hundreds of other people who might have something to say about M. Freud. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think the sentence you're referring to (correct me if wrong) is "The story of Freud and the creation of psychodynamic therapy, as told by its adherents, is a self-serving myth." Now in reaction to a statement like that, one has to ask, why? Why is the story a self-serving myth, and how, exactly? With such explanations, that material would actually be helpful, but without them, it's just a smug one-liner. I think the new quote you have added is too long and undue weight. If we wanted such long quotations, better material could surely be found. Popper was a much more important critic of Freud than Ofshe and Watters, but there's no quote from him here at all. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs, you removed a quote from them with the comment "removed the Ofshe/Watters comment rather reluctantly" and now you say it was a smug one-liner. And now you say that you think this new quote is "too long" and "undue weight". Kindly figure out what you'd like to say. Can you please provide a comment from Popper? I don't have time to re-read all of Ofshe and Watters's book but I am happy to try to come up with a shorter quote for the reason I mentioned. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I replace the long quote with a shorter one (that has a note in the citation). Here's an alternate: "Although it has yet to be fully understood by the public (or fully acknowledged within the field of psychology), recent Freud scholarship has effectively demoted Freud from a revered physician/scientist with a keen and insightful mind to a shameless self-promoter who committed scientific fraud and deliberately claimed his speculations were proven facts." (pages 16 and 17) That could be shortened to simply, "recent Freud scholarship has effectively demoted Freud". Let me know what you think. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly does that quote mean? If it is not yet "acknowledged" within the field of psychology does that mean that theirs is a marginal non-representative position? Ofshe is a sociologist and Watters is a journalist. Their book, if I'm not mistaken, is against all forms of psychotherapy. How are they authorities to pronounce on this subject? It would be better and fairer I think to source the studies to which they refer. That's a fairly polemical text and I don't think the quote is really adding to an understanding of the subject of the article. Minimally, if it was to be included, one would have to add the context in which these authors are writing. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't actually say they are against psychotherapy. They are only rather outspoken against Freud. They are very positive, for example, about cognitive behavioral therapy. I'm sorry if you disagree. That's just fine. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CBT is different. Mostly because it is amenable to randomised control trials and therefore fits in with an evidence based model of medicine. Also, because of the intellectual background underlying CBT. As a matter of curiousity if nothing else, I would like to see the references they use in support of the statement you quote above. The quotation you've included in the article is different ("Because of the massive investment the field of psychotherapy has made in the psychodynamic approach, the dying convulsions of the paradigm will not be pretty."). I would argue that the actual quote that you have used should probably be included in the psychotherapy section as it seems most pertinent to that topic.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved it, but it stands out like a sore thumb there. The paragraph under science keeps the criticism together much better so I will undo. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, and have shifted the quotation back to the psychotherapy section. It could, if anything, do with more of that kind of content - something about Freud's (real or alleged) responsibility for inspiring recovered memory therapy would be very much to the point, for example. As for the science section, it includes some material that might arguably be better placed in the philosophy section and/or the psychotherapy section. I don't plan to shift that material right away, but too much weight shouldn't be given to its current arrangement. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I was reasonably clear what the problem with the Oshe/Watters "self-serving myth" comment was. The problem is that it lacked context - ie, it contained no explanation of why they think what they do. That being the case, it certainly did come across like a smug one-liner; it sounded a little like a crack from a comedian, but not a particularly funny one. That does not contradict my saying that I was reluctant to remove it: that material, bad as it was in that form, could probably have been turned into something better, but that might become less likely if removed from the article entirely. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree and think that the perspective and context in which comments on Freud and Freudianism are made should be provided. This will make the article more intelligible. Otherwise one may end up with a series of quotes for and against a subject without any particular coherence or interrelation between them. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Freud and Psychiatry

It has been suggested that Freud does not belong in the Category:History of Psychiatry. I think that this is erroneous on a number of levels. Firstly, although trained as a neurologist (and one must remember how interrelated psychiatry and neurology were in the late 19th century), Freud certainly considered himself a psychiatrist. In a letter in 1928 to Istvan Hollos reflecting on the difficulty of treating psychotic patients, he remarked:

I do not like those patients ... They make me angry and I find myself irritated to experience them so distant from myself and from all that is human. This is an astonishing intolerance which brands me a poor psychiatrist

The academic consensus is clear as almost any worthwhile history of psychiatry will include a significant section on Freud and psychoanalysis and their impact on psychiatry. Freud, Freudian doctrine, psychoanalysis and/or psychodynamic psychiatry feature heavily in works such as: Hugh Freeman and German E. Berrios ed., 150 Years of British Psychiatry (volumes I and II); Henri F. Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry (New York, 1970) [perhaps the best history of its type - and written at a point in time when psychoanalytical psychiatry reigned supreme in the U.S.); Mark S. Micale and Roy Porter (eds), Discovering the History of Psychiatry (Oxford, 1994) [has an entire section on Freud and the psychoanalytic strain - a term which accurately reflects the fact that psychodynamics is/was a branch of psychiatry]; Edward Shorter, A History of Psychiatry: From the Era of the Asylum to the Age of Prozac (1997) [a historian who clearer favours modern day biological psychiatry yet devotes a chapter to what he terms the 'Psychoanalytical Hiatus'].

In fact a quote from Shorter's text is apposite:

Psychoanalysis was able to exert such enormous influence on American psychiatry not because the number of full-time analysts was so large but because analysts wrote the textbooks, staffed the university departments, and sat on the examination boards. In 1953 of 7,000 U.S. psychiatrists only about 500 were psychoanalysts. Yet the influence of analysis ranged far beyond these numbers. From the 1940s to the 1970s, American psychiatrists, generally speaking, were not psychoanalysts as such but were psychoanalytically oriented.

The infiltration of psychiatry by analysis accelerated in 1952 with a joint report of the American Psychiatric Association and the national body of medical educators, the Association of American Medical Colleges. Everybody now agrees, the report said, that a competent psychiatrist has to understand "the principles of psychodynamics," including "Freudian concepts." ... As Karl Menninger noted in 1953, "Gradually the dynamic concepts have gained complete supremacy." (Dynamic was a code word for psychoanalytic). [...] ... by 1966, a third of American psychiatrists had received some kind of psychoanalytic training, and 67 percent said that they employed "the dynamic approach" with their patients.

If we search for the term "Freud" in the journal History of Psychiatry we find that it occurs 321 times; the term "Kraepelin" (Emil Kraepelin is one of the most significant figures in the history of psychiatry) returns 224 hits; "psychoanalysis returns 270 hits.

Freud is part of the history of psychiatry.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neurology and psychiatry may have been closely connected in the late 19th century, but that doesn't make someone a psychiatrist simply because he was a neurologist. And it is futile to base an argument about what categories should be added to this article on stray quotations from Freud. The quotation FiachraByrne offers is brief, and arguably out of context - it is not clear how serious Freud was in calling himself a psychiatrist, and whether he meant it literally or only as a figure of speech. One could argue that this quotation actually shows just the opposite of what FiachraByrne is trying to show - in saying that he was a "poor psychiatrist", Freud might have meant that he actually wasn't a psychiatrist at all. Frankly, it doesn't matter what Freud called himself, it only matters what reliable sources say about him, and they don't call him a psychiatrist. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a misconception to think that because Freud is discussed in histories of psychology or psychiatry, that that makes him a psychologist or a psychiatrist; it is possible to influence the development of psychiatry without actually being a psychiatrist oneself, and that is what Freud did. Edward Shorter is clear that Freud wasn't himself a psychiatrist or the main influence on psychiatry, see, eg, his A History of Psychiatry, p. 100: "It is Kraepelin, not Freud, who is the central figure in the history of psychiatry. Freud was a neurologist who did not see patients with psychotic illness." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's shocking to find that, once again, someone is so ignorant as to offer a *translated text* as if it -- and even *one word from it*! -- can be used as automatic, knock-down evidence for something ("This is an astonishing intolerance which brands me a poor psychiatrist"). If Freud actually used the word 'Psychiater' there, he would undoubtedly have been using it in a generic sense ('psychological healer'), not a specialism-defining one ('psychiatrist').

Seriously: the *deep* illiteracy and the awful lack of sheer intellectual *hygiene* people display by such behaviour makes me very pessimistic about the wiki project. How can we stop people stuffing this kind of rubbish into every crack they see? Pfistermeister (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The argument in essence is not as to whether Freud was actually a psychiatrist or considered himself one. Rather, it is whether Freud properly belongs in the Category: History of Psychiatry. It is my argument that he does because of his enormous impact on psychiatry in the 20th century. One only has to pick up any standard psychiatric textbook from the period 1950-1970 to see clearly how Freudian theories - if medicalised and biologised - were internationally prevalent in the field.

I have, I think, demonstrated that Freud is granted enormous importance in any standard history of psychiatry. Such being the case, he belongs in a category devoted to the history of psychiatry.

Shorter himself, because of his own bias towards biological psychiatry, is guilty of a type of presentism. However that does not change the fact that it is impossible to talk of a history of psychiatry in the twentieth century without reference to Freud. I agree that Kraepelin, among others, was a more significant figure in psychiatry than Freud. I don't see why that should exclude Freud.

Moreover, Freud himself was very keen to propagate his ideas within mainstream psychiatry. Hence his delight with the linkage that Bleuler provided with him to institutional psychiatry at the Burgholzi institute. One might also consider Freud's impact, through Bleuler, on the modern diagnostic category of schizophrenia.

Psychoanalysis, and by extention Freud, are an intrinsic part of the history of psychiatry in the twentieth century. To judge this for yourself I invite you to consult periodicals such as the Journal of Mental Science where you will even find Freudian theories used to justify the practice of leucotomy.

As to the hysterical commentary of Pfistermeister, which appears to be a signature of his style of engagement, I will merely state that I would be interested to see the original untranslated text if he can locate it.FiachraByrne (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

...if I am Moses, then you are Joshua, and will take possession of the promised land of psychiatry, which I shall only be able to glimpse from afar

— Sigmund Freud to Carl Jung, January 1909

Freud clearly wanted to colonise psychiatry, and he partially succeeded. FiachraByrne (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what is intended in any case is to create a Category: History of psychodynamic psychiatry to which Freud and other relevant parties and theories could be added and which would be a subcategory of Category:History of Psychiatry. Would this be more acceptable Polisherofcobwebs?FiachraByrne (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would personally prefer that categories related to psychiatry not be added to this article. As Freud was not a psychiatrist, he should not be categorized as such. I grant that you have a case that a history of psychiatry category should be added because of Freud's influence on psychiatry, but again, I wouldn't want to add that category myself. Talk page discussion is needed to see if consensus can be established around this issue. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A category is just a way of organizing information for retrieval. I think Freud is a relevant finding in a search on History of Psychiatry for the reasons given by Fiachra and would agree the category be added. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding him to the history of psychiatry is not actually categorising him as a psychiatrist nor is it asserting that Freud is to be understood only in relation to mainstream psychiatry. Rather, it is a recognition of his historical importance to psychiatry which, in the twentieth century, cannot be overstated. Similarly Egas Moniz, a neurologist and the inventor of the leucotomy (lobotomy) procedure, while not a psychiatrist is properly included in the history of psychiatry because he made such an important intervention in the field. Likewise with the Hungarian neurologist Meduna who invented shock therapy in psychiatry. Further, the Category:History of Psychiatry will be subject to further subdivision (i.e. Category:History of biological psychiatry, etc) which will reflect the various intellectual traditions and contributions of those included. In addition, and relating to this article, I think there should actually be a section detailing the impact of Freud and Freudian theory on psychiatry. 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead

Hello. I don't think that more than one sentence of criticism belongs in the lead of a biography. But I think this biography needs such a sentence desperately. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead in its current form is obviously unsatisfactory; it should be about two or three times as long. I agree that there should be some mention there of the fact that Freud has been criticized; exactly how much should be open to discussion. See the section "permission to participate" above for some relevant comments. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the convention is on such matters but if the lede is supposed to summarize the article as a whole - which it does not do now - I think that that leaves plenty of scope for adding different viewpoints. Personally, I think the first and most pertinent point to add is that of the waning of the influence of Freud and Freudianism since the 1970s. Then you could give a whole range fo reasons for this which should amount to a summary of the criticisms of Freud and Freudianism contained in the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that people post their suggested revisions of the lede here so that it can be discussed before posting?FiachraByrne (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Until relatively recently, the lead had a second paragraph that read as follows:

'Many of Freud's ideas have been abandoned or modified by other analysts. Modern advances in the field of psychology have shown flaws in some of his theories, while psychoanalysis itself has often been called a pseudoscience. Numerous critics dispute his work, and it has been marginalized within psychology departments. It remains influential in clinical approaches, and in the humanities and social sciences, including Marxism and feminism. Freud is considered one of the most prominent thinkers of the 20th century, in terms of originality and intellectual influence, and has been called one of the three masters of the "school of suspicion", alongside Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche.'

I do not propose that we should restore that material in exactly that form; much of it is backed up by sources in the article, but not all of it, and there's perhaps slightly too much criticism there. However, that paragraph does have some useful material that could be adapted into a new paragraph, which should include (but not be limited to) the following points:

'Freud has been called one of the three masters of the "school of suspicion", alongside Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. He provided the basis for the entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy. Psychoanalysis has also been influential in the humanities and social sciences, including Marxism and feminism. However, it has been called a pseudoscience, and has been marginalized within psychology departments.'

But again, I'm not proposing exactly that wording (which can be refined), only suggesting something along those general lines. The sentences could go in a different order, or be written rather differently, if that would look better. More important than the exact wording is what shouldn't be included - we should keep out the "Many of Freud's ideas have been abandoned or modified by other analysts" part (useless if we don't specify which ones) and "Modern advances in the field of psychology have shown flaws in some of his theories" (also uselessly vague, and even weasel words). 'Freud is considered one of the most prominent thinkers of the 20th century' may seem obvious, but doesn't appear to have a source, so that should also stay out. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I like your rewrite and how the lead would then end. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% satisfied with it myself - which is why I stressed that I only wanted something along roughly those lines. It might be better to arrange things a little differently, perhaps more like this:

'Freud provided the basis for the entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy. However, psychoanalysis has been called a pseudoscience, and has been marginalized within psychology departments. Psychoanalysis has been influential in the humanities and social sciences, including the theories of the Frankfurt School and French feminism. Freud has been called one of the three masters of the "school of suspicion", alongside Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche.'

That arrangement would keep the material about the therapeutic side of psychoanalysis together at the beginning of the paragraph, and the material about Freud's broader influence and significance together at the end. In the interests of being as clear and specific as possible, it would be better to specify that Freud has been influential on the Frankfurt School specifically rather than simply "Marxism", and by the same token, we need to specify which kind of feminism Freud has been influential on. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's fine although I prefer it the other way around. The whole first paragraph and the first part of yours are complimentary to Freud. I like the negatives worked into the end. But anything is better than what's there now. You could say "second and third wave feminism" I think. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, solely "second wave feminism" because that covers just about everybody the article quotes. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be happy adding anything more to the lead right now; it's going to take a bit more thought and work before something is agreed upon. The feminism part is tricky - Freud has clearly been an influence on some kinds of feminist theory, but not on others, so we need to find the right term. "Second wave feminism" sounds too broad to me - we'd want something narrower like "Freudian feminism" or "psychoanalytic feminism", although both those terms are pretty clunky. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Polisher, I would encourage you to add your first revision of the deleted paragraph. It may not be a permanent solution, but, in the present, it would constitute a substantial improvement. We can treat it as a provisional paragraph and change down the road. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not 100% happy with my first suggestion, nor with my second suggestion either, so I'm a little reluctant to add anything; I might want to spend more time considering what could be added. But there's absolutely nothing to stop either you or SusanLesch from adding either version of the proposed paragraph to the lead if you want to; I certainly don't object, since anything added can be revised further as required. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Religion section: tag

This section seems to be pretty well referenced. Is it ok to remove the tag calling for citations from reliable sources?FiachraByrne (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The religion section is problematic. It is sourced entirely to Freuds's own works, primary sources. There is a considerable danger of original research when using primary sources that way; see WP:NOR, which I think has something on this. Given the enormous amount that has been published about Freud, it should not be at all difficult to find suitable secondary sources - which are what a section like that should be based upon. I would ask that you not remove the tag without first rewriting the section. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the author of the section and will be back to add some more third party sources. WP:PRIMARY however, says that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." I have a problem with the idea that we cannot refer to nonfiction works for their clear assertions but must rely on third parties to tell us what they mean. This leads to the paradox that a book can be a reliable source for the statement, "X is true", but not for the statement "Author Y believes X". For example, one might be able to cite "Totem and Taboo" as a reliable source in the article on totemism, but not for its own content in the Freud biography. I really don't think WP:PRIMARY intends that result. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the description of Freud's theories is sourced (in those cases in which it is sourced) to secondary sources, which is the best practice. The 'religion' section is the only section sourced to primary sources, and I hardly see it as acceptable. I would never dream of writing a section that way myself. I'm not going to just remove it from the article, but, in accord with common sense, it should be rewritten based on secondary sources. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Now sourced from secondary sources. I've removed the tag. Having now done a little superficial reading on the subject I think there's the potential to add many more interesting items to that section. But that can wait for the moment. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting this article to "good article" status

I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I seem to have some accidentally made this article my main preoccupation. I'd like to try and get this page to good article status. I've read the criteria but I've no real-world experience as to what is actually required of a good article. I think that it would be good to get a quick survey of what this article requires for improvement so that we could tackle whatever issues the article has in a collaborative and coordinated manner. Personally, I'd like to continue extending the followers section so that something of the dissemination of Freudianism might be accounted for. Also, and perhaps in relation to the followers section, I really would like to add something about Freud's impact on psychiatry. It seems a bit anomalous that there's so little reference to that.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this article is near good article status yet; too many things need to be done. The section on Freud's theories needs to be sourced properly. I would suggest Richard Wollheim's Freud as a good book to use there; I based the description of the death instinct theory on it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that while there's a good basis there it is not yet close to GA status. That's why I think it would be useful to work out what we might need to do collectively to get it there - such as properly sourcing the sections on Freud's theories. I also think that there is a structural problem in the way that the article is structured. In the movement from biography to the exposition of his ideas to legacy there is a degree of repetition. Would it be preferable to integrate the biography and theory section? In this manner, his theories would be presented chronologically and could in fact structure sections of his biography. The biography could be detailed and there would be no need to retrace eras of his life already covered - as happens now in the article. Criticism could also be integrated in this section but limited to the contemporary criticism at the time. Latter and modern day critics could be reserved exclusively for legacy section. Also, I think that it might be critical in the legacy section to take something of an overview of how Freud biographies have been shaped and the context of their concerns. That is, the manner in which a battle erupted over the definition of Freud - as genius or charlatan etc - between adherents and detractors - and that it is perhaps only in the last 10 years as the influence of Freudianism has continued to wane that less partisan and polemic biographies have emerged. Also, of course, the context in which inner circle propagated an image of Freud (e.g. Ernest Jones, etc) and the role of the Freud estate.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It might well be a good idea to restructure the article as you suggest, but it would be a difficult undertaking; I don't feel inclined to try myself. My only other comment would be that there's a need for some flexibility in how we organize things - it might turn out to be a good idea to restrict latter and modern day critics to the legacy section, but not necessarily; there are many different ways that material like that could be included and that may have to be worked out in the process of editing rather than done according to a strict plan. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There used to be the same problem with Marx. We should have one article that is a solid biography of Freud (and drawing a lot more on Peter Gay and other historians), and another article on Freud's work. I don't know what to call it (Psychoanalytic theory should include post-Freudians and not just Freud) but there are over 20 volumes to the complete works of Freud and I do not believe that this include correspondence or autobiographical material, so we should be able to figure out a way to have one article dedicated to the history of the theory, as opposed to the history of the man. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a page article entitled Psychoanalysis and, although a bit of a mess, it does something similar to what the Marxism page does. Peter Gay is a fine historian and he had relatively good access to unpublished material. I don't have a copy at the moment but I'll pick up one shortly. At the moment I'm liking George Makari's Revolution in Mind, although I'm only reading it as extracts from Google books. I agree that the concentration should be on the biographical elements. For this to make sense, of course, his work should also be brought into discussion but, unlike a pure treatment of his ideas, it should be related to the variety of contexts that informed his work. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The "unconscious"

Susan added the following quote to the end of this section: Ethan Watters and Richard Ofshe write, "There is no scientific evidence of...[a] purposeful unconscious, nor is there evidence that psychotherapists have special methods for laying bare our out-of-awareness mental processes."

What I'd like to know is what is the current scientific status of the unconscious as conceived in psychoanalysis? Is there anyway we could source this rather than Ofshe and Watters?FiachraByrne (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no one way in which psychoanalysts conceive the unconscious, so your first question doesn't really have an answer. As for sourcing criticism of the unconscious, there are plenty of other sources that could be used besides Ofshe and Watters - a more distinguished writer called Jean-Paul Sartre critiqued the notion of the unconscious back in the 1940s, for instance. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sartre would be excellent as a near contemporary critic. However, as neuro-psychoanalysts seem to making a variety of claims in relation to the biological basis of the unconscious as conceived by Freud I think it might be relevant to see how this literature is interpreted in the wider neuroscientific discipline.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quote in case it helps: -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In his book Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre rejects "all notions of the unconscious (with Id, Superego, and Ego) as well as any idea of psychological determinism functioning in terms of a basic libido, will to power, universal Oedipus complex, and the like, all of which Sartre regards as secondary structures."

I think the real issue here is what one means by "science." Another is what one mans by "the unconscious." Freud's topological models are of the mind, not of the brain, and he never argued that they have a material basis. If neurologists and others are studying the brain, there is no reason why one should ever expect them to find evidence of the unconscious. Sartre was writing as a philosopher, which hardly means he was wrong, but it does show that the question of whether there is an unconscious or not may not be the kind of question brain scientists can answer. Waters is a journalist and Ofshe a sociologist. I think we are much better of if instead of using a word like "scientist" so vaguely, we be as precise as possible. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Purely in my personal opinion, it doesn't make a difference whether we refer to philosophical or to scientific criticisms of the unconscious - the one is as good as the other, in principle. The issue is whether there's any necessary reason why we should refer to popular writers like Watters and Ofshe, or to any number of other figures whose views could be mentioned - is there a logic to it, or are we only suiting ourselves? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism should elucidate the topic and, personally, I don't think Watters and Ofshe are the best choice. However, I do think neuroscientific/neurocognitive treatments of the unconscious are relevant, although perhaps not in this section, as there has been a consistent trend among some present day psychoanalysts to find vindication for the concept of the unconscious, and other Freudian or Freudian derived concepts, from the fields of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. This appears to be motivated by an attempt to defend Freudianism from the depredations of more empirically grounded disciplines. So it might be relevant to explore the status of those claims. As to Freud's own ideas about biology and psychoanalysis or about the mind and the body I'm not exactly clear but he seems to have held to a form of mind/body parallelism that sees the mind as dependent on the brain. He also made statements concerning his belief that ultimately psychoanalytic concepts would be found to be based on neurophysiology. See also his Project for a New Psychology (1895). Typically it is stated that he abandoned this project because the neuroscience of his day was inadequate to the task. Some argue that he moved out of this frame of thought altogether while others argue that it haunts the whole Freudian project. There are also frequent references to the science of psychoanalysis and to the clinical encounter as a laboratory for generating data on the unconscious. Interestingly, there also numerous references to Freud's general antipathy to philosophy and his fear that psychoanalysis might be regarded as a form of speculative philosophy (which doesn't necessarily mean that his own theory of mind wasn't necessarily a philosophical one). He's hardly a hardcore biological reductionist and the positions don't appear to be static but ... there are claims there to be investigated. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On Sartre, it also appears that he misread Freud and conflated the topographical (consciousness, preconscious, unconscious) and structural (id, ego, superego) mental models.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I'm not sure but the quote is from Hazel Barnes, his translator, in her introduction (I'm saying that just to be clear, not to say you're in error in any way). Polisher of Cobwebs, regarding "is there a logic to it, or are we only suiting ourselves?" I add Watters and Ofshe because I have the book out (because of the discussion above on "Deleted paragraph") and because nobody else we have yet quoted challenges the idea of the "unconscious". As I said in my edit summary "feel free to move or remove" (maybe I ought to have said feel free to "replace"). Slrubenstein, I don't think anyone has to be a "scientist" in order to make use of or quote a scientist's work. That's the beauty of it. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that "scientist" is pretty vague, and that we need to be sure to find the most reliable sources and represent them accurately. Journalists are often unreliable when reporting on science - so why not find publications by actual neuroscientists or cognitive psychologists if we want to represent their views? And if a sociologist is referring to research made by researchers in other fields, it is still the view of a sociologist. I just want these sources represented clearly and well. We should not add sources simply because they contain within them a view we think ought to be in the article. We should instead first ask what are the significant views, and then what are the best sources that represent these views, and then work with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@Susan - OK. In my opinion, I think that that quote would be most relevant on a section on the reception of Freud in France. I think, personally, that this article should have a section on his international reception in the US, UK, Brazil (big Freudian country apparently), France, Germany, and Europe more generally. By the way, don't take what I said about Sartre as gospel, that was just from one pro-Freudian secondary source. But psychoanalysis in France would be an interesting topic what with Lacan and people like that. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sirubenstein. Merely sticking praise or criticism in to achieve balance won't produce a good article. We need to represent the most authoritative and relevant opinions of Freud and his work in an accurate and fair way. The purpose of the article is not to convert or demystify but to inform. We should allow the read to arrive at his or her own conclusions. We don't have to lead them to a conclusion on Freud. In the first instance that means providing a clear exposition of Freud's life, his theories and the context of his life and the wider context within which his theories developed and what he was responding to (it might also be useful to try and account for the reason that Freudianism became so popular. Thus, it's in that kind of context that one could discuss his use of case histories and how they differ from what actually occurred in the clinical encounter. This might be preferable to quoting from someone in a decontextualised way that Freud was a fraud or a charlatan. Likewise we need to select the best sources for those quotes. Further I would be wary of using Eysenck as source for biographical detail simply because his book on Freud is without footnotes and appears to be entirely based on secondary sources. In regard to Offshe, he does have an expertise in relation to false memory syndrome. Does he have anything interesting to say in regard to Freud and false memory syndrome? Possibly, he might be an appropriate source for that? Otherwise one could include a representative sample of such works as evidence of the wider cultural response that Freud continues to provoke.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Austria after the anschluss

There seems to be a bit of a disagreement as to how to refer to Austria after it was incorporated into the Third Reich in 1938. The text referred to Freud fleeing "Nazi Germany". This was then changed to "Nazi Austria". I just changed it now to "Nazi-occupied Austria". I think you could also creditably refer to Freud fleeing the "Third Reich". Personally, I think "Nazi-Germany" just sounds wrong and is misleading.

Austria was incorporated into the Third Reich and became the province of Ostman. However, many countries were also incorporated into the Third Reich during the war but we don't refer to Nazi Poland as Nazi Germany although it was part of it.

The terms Nazi Austria and Nazi-occupied Austria are both used to refer to Austria during this period. I prefer the latter term because, although the Anschluss was popular in Austria and passed by plebiscite (not a secret ballot) it was backed up by force. However Nazi Austria seems to have more usage.

Google scholar returns 230 articles for the term "Nazi Austria" and 114 articles for the term "Nazi-occupied Austria"

Either way, there's little point getting into an edit war over such a tangental point.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Austria was part of Germany during this period, so "Nazi Germany" was correct - although Nazi-occupied Austria is also acceptable, and correct on a different level. "Nazi Austria" may be a widely used term, but not as widely as "Nazi Germany", and it reads awkwardly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Nazi Germany is technically correct. Austria was incorporated into Germany. But it is potentially misleading and ambivalent as to his actual location prior to his fleeing to England. Also Nazi Austria reads horribly and does not convey the actual situation - i.e. an annexation backed by force if with a large degree of public popularity. Nazi-occupied Austria seems the best choice to me.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Descendants

I propose that there should be a small section on Freud's descendants, given that a fair number of them have become noteworthy in their own right, e.g. Anna Freud, Sir Clement Freud, Lucian Freud, Bella Freud and Lord Freud who is currently a junior minister in the British government. Jordi22 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Except for Anna Freud I'd keep it very short. Anna Freud, because of her relationship to her father and his work requires more space. But it should focus on Anna Freud really only in relation to her father and his work. Nothing else.

Jacques Van Rillaer

As Polisher of Cobwebs has already indicated the quote from van Rillaer in the section on the unconscious is improperly sourced. I can't find this quote anywhere other than pages that have downloaded this article. I don't think van Rillaer is published much in English in any case (at all?). He's taken up a number of positions against Freud so the quote looks plausible and it could be a translation from a third party.

However, absent a proper source, and William James, it should go.

Jacques van Rillaer's book does talk about the unconscious (l'inconscient) in his book Les illusions de la psychoanalyse - stating, much as the quote indicates, that the unconscious had a long pre-Freudian historian, although he does not mention William James in this context.

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=u03RKpBfg_4C&pg=PA270

He also states that the best source on this question is Ellenberger. As some of us have access to Ellenberger we should probably use him here to make much the same point.

I'm a little busy at the moment so can't really contribute to the article for a few more days.FiachraByrne (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Psychosexual Development

I intend to modify the following paragraph (sorry this will not be brief, as it requires considerable explanation):

Freud originally posited childhood sexual abuse as a general explanation for the origin of neuroses, but he abandoned this so-called "seduction theory" as insufficiently explanatory. He noted finding many cases in which apparent memories of childhood sexual abuse were based more on imagination than on real events. During the late 1890s Freud, who never abandoned his belief in the sexual etiology of neuroses, began to emphasize fantasies built around the Oedipus complex as the primary cause of hysteria and other neurotic symptoms. Despite this change in his explanatory model, Freud always recognized that some neurotics had in fact been sexually abused by their fathers. He explicitly discussed several patients whom he knew to have been abused.[82]

82. Gay, Peter. Freud: A Life for Our Time. London: Papermac, 1988, p.95

Here is my critical examination of the above sentence by sentence:

1. What Freud actually posited in 1896 was that a precondition for the psychoneuroses (hysteria and obsessional neurosis) was an unconscious memory of sexual molestation in infancy (up to the age of four).

2. He did not abandon the theory because it was insufficiently explanatory, but because in late 1897 he lost faith in his improbable theory that every single one of his current eighteen patients (as reported in "The Aetiology of Hysteria") had repressed memories of infantile sexual abuse.

3. At that stage he did not note that he had found cases in which apparent memories of childhood sexual abuse were based more on imagination than on real events. In fact he never specified any individual from that time for whom the alleged infantile event was imaginary rather that authentic.

4. Freud mentioned two patients, not "several", who had been sexually abused (actually one was attempted abuse), but these were not relevant to the seduction theory as they were girls in their teenage years. They were reported in Studies on Hysteria (1895), published before Freud postulated the seduction theory.

5. The seduction theory was never about fathers, who were not specifically mentioned in the 1896 seduction theory papers.

6. The reference given at the end of the above paragraph is Peter Gay (1988), but Gay follows the traditional story as told by Freud in his late retrospective accounts, and this story has been shown to be self-servingly false. Gay writes (pp. 92-93) of the supposed infantile traumas: "Now these relevant events, as patients after patients remembered them for him, were sexual traumas – whether the result of glib persuasion or of brutal assault – undergone in childhood." However in recent decades several authors who have closely examined the three 1896 seduction theory papers have shown that the story that the patients recalled the alleged abuse incidents is false. Freud himself wrote in "The Aetiology of Hysteria" that the patients "have no feeling of remembering the [infantile sexual] scenes" he endeavoured to get them to "reproduce" by coercive techniques, and that they "assure me emphatically of their unbelief" (Standard Edition vol. 3, p. 204). As Israëls & Schatzman note (1993, p. 24): "In Freud's own 1896 version, no patients told him such stories" [i.e., as the traditional story has it]. And as Eissler writes (2005, p. 115), the clinical methodology Freud was using in 1896 (including coercion), "reduced the probability of gaining reliable data to zero." Yet it is was this dubious "data" that features in the traditional story as evidence for patients' alleged fantasies of early childhood sexual abuse.

References:

Cioffi, F. (1998 [1973]). Was Freud a liar? Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 199–204.

Schimek, J. G. (1987). Fact and Fantasy in the Seduction Theory: a Historical Review. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, xxxv: 937-65.

Israëls, H. & Schatzman, M. (1993), The Seduction Theory. History of Psychiatry, iv: 23–59.

Esterson, A (1998). Jeffrey Masson and Freud’s seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths. History of the Human Sciences, 11 (1), pp. 1–21.[[1]]

Eissler, K.R. 2005) Freud and the Seduction Theory: A Brief Love Affair.. Int. Univ. Press, pp. 107-117.

My proposed revised paragraph is as follows:

Freud originally posited that the presence of repressed memories of infantile sexual abuse was a universal precondition for the psychoneuroses. He privately abandoned the theory in September 1897, giving several reasons to his friend Wilhelm Fliess, including that he had not brought a single case to a successful conclusion. In 1906, while still maintaining that his claims to have uncovered sexual abuse events from infancy in 1896 remained valid, he postulated his new theory of the occurrence of infantile unconscious fantasies. He incorporated his notions of unconscious fantasies in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), but did not explicitly relate his seduction theory claims to the Oedipus theory until 1925. Notwithstanding his abandonment of the seduction theory, Freud always recognized that some neurotics had experienced childhood sexual abuse.

Esterson (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, if reliable sources give different accounts of or interpretations of events, it's a good idea to mention all the main ones, qualifying them as the views of the sources. This is the point of WP:NPOV. I'm sure that the sources you mention would be considered reliable, but so too would Peter Gay's book; see WP:SOURCES. I'm not trying to stop you from changing the article, just noting this as something to be aware of. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Though it's not directly related to the subject of this thread, there has been discussion on some other issues that would benefit from your input. Currently the lead of the article consists of a single paragraph. There has been discussion of adding a second paragraph describing criticism of Freud; see "Criticism in the lead", above. Any comments you could offer on this would be helpful. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You write: " I'm sure that the sources you mention would be considered reliable, but so too would Peter Gay's book; see WP:SOURCES."

I accept your point, of course, on reliable sources, though I would point out that three of the citations I give (on which I could have relied entirely) were from peer-reviewed journals, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, History of the Human Sciences, and History of Psychiatry. I don't dispute for one moment that Gay's book is a reputable source, though I could document (with citation of original sources) a long list of errors and significant omissions in the book. One instance relates to the event in question, the seduction theory episode, where Gay repeats the traditional story (deriving from the last of Freud's ever-changing retrospective reports), writing that "patients after patients remembered them [the infantile sexual abuse events]". This is directly contradicted by what Freud himself wrote in "The Aetiology of Hysteria" (1896), as I quote above: "the patients have no feeling of remembering the [infantile sexual] scenes", and "they assure me emphatically of their unbelief". In contrast to Gay, Israëls & Schatzman base their statement "In Freud's own 1896 version, no patients told him such stories" on what Freud actually reported in 1896. So do we put Gay's erroneous statement on a par with Israëls & Schatzman's (and others) who cite what Freud actually wrote when he reported his clinical findings in 1896? This is a genuine dilemma that I shall obviously have to find a way round when I amend my proposed substitute paragraph.

In relation to your second paragraph, on the single lead article and the discussion "Criticisms of the lead", I'm deeply into writing on an entirely different subject at the moment, but I'll see if I can find time to check this out.Esterson (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up to the above. I would be grateful if other editors would give their opinions on my proposed replacement paragraph. Here it is again (slightly modified), with the reference citations spelled out:

In 1896 Freud posited that the presence of repressed memories of infantile sexual abuse was a universal precondition for the psychoneuroses. [Freud (1896), Standard Edition, vol. 3, pp. 203, 211.] He privately expressed his loss of faith in the theory to his friend Wilhelm Fliess in September 1897, giving several reasons, including that he had not been able to bring a single case to a successful conclusion. [Israëls, H. & Schatzman, M. (1993). "The Seduction Theory." History of Psychiatry, Vol. 4, pp. 47-58.] In 1906, while still maintaining that his claims to have uncovered sexual abuse events from infancy in 1896 remained valid, he postulated his new theory of the occurrence of infantile unconscious fantasies. [Esterson, A. (2001). "The mythologizing of psychoanalytic history: deception and self-deception in Freud's accounts of the seduction theory episode", History of Psychiatry, vol. 12, pp. 335-39.[[2]]] He incorporated his notions of unconscious fantasies in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), but did not explicitly relate his seduction theory claims to the Oedipus theory until 1925. [Schimek, J (1987). "Fact and Fantasy in the Seduction Theory: A Historical Review." Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, xxxv, pp. 958-59.] Notwithstanding his abandonment of the seduction theory, Freud always recognized that some neurotics had experienced childhood sexual abuse.

I'm unclear how (or indeed why) I should include Gay in this paragraph. After all, his report of Freud listening to "his patients' lurid recitals" of infantile sexual abuse (p. 94) is directly contradicted by Freud's own report in 1896 that when they come for analysis "the patients know nothing about these sexual scenes", that they have no feeling of remembering the scenes and assure Freud "emphatically" that they don't believe in the events he claimed had happened to them (on the basis of his analytic interpretative technique of reconstruction and reproduction). ["The Aetiology of Hysteria" 1896, Standard Edition vol. 3, p. 204] (Freud viewed the patients' disbelief as an indication of "resistance".) In other words, the very basis of the Gay's account (pp. 93-95) is contradicted by Freud's own report in 1896. Esterson (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to your proposed change; other editors may want to comment, however. I was not necessarily suggesting that Gay ought to be included, only noting that doing so would be one possible approach. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll wait a couple of days to see if anyone else wants to come in on this.Esterson (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Esterson's new paragraph is pretty good, but of course we should continue to include Gay. We include him because his is a significant view. We do not evaluate the credibility of secondary sources based on our examination of prinmary sources, that violates NOR. We include notable sources like Gay because they are notable. But it is good tio include other views, especially when they add precision. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a good revision I think. In regard to Gay, he may in general be thought to be a reliable source but clearly on this point his account has been superceded by more recent scholarship. If Gay was to be included in this section it should be in terms of a general historiographical note - e.g. Traditional accounts have held that ... but more recent research has shown that ..., etc. NOR should not come into it as this revision is based on secondary sources that have revisited the primary material. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. FiachraByrne: I think your suggestion is a good solution to the problem. I'll amend the proposed paragraph appropriately.Esterson (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne makes a reasonable point. It is great to see people reaching a compromise. This is how Wikipedia ought to work! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ofshe and Watters

An editor is making repeated attempts to change the wording of the article from "Ethan Watters and Richard Ofshe write, 'There is no scientific evidence of...[a] purposeful unconscious, nor is there evidence that psychotherapists have special methods for laying bare our out-of-awareness mental processes'" to "American Journalist Ethan Watters and Professor of Sociology Richard Ofshe claim, 'There is no scientific evidence of...[a] purposeful unconscious, nor is there evidence that psychotherapists have special methods for laying bare our out-of-awareness mental processes.'"

None of his changes are helpful or constructive, and I oppose all of them. WP:WORDS, the relevant style guideline, is clear that this use of "claims" is not neutral or helpful; "writes", which was the previous wording, is in contrast both standard and appropriate. Guidelines do permit of exceptions, but only in situations where consensus exists for an exception; the editor trying to make this change has not attempted to create any such consensus (or discussed anything on the talk page), and I am therefore simply going to revert him, when the three revert rule permits. And as I attempted to explain to the editor, the nationalities of Freud's critics are not relevant. Whether Watters and Ofshe are American or British or Chinese does not make a difference to what readers think of their criticisms. So I shall be removing such irrelevant details. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I already stated that I had no objections to changing it back to "writes", which I just did. You seem to be missing the point entirely. The issue is that two people who are not psychologists are calling Freud's theory out so to speak; not based on any actual empirical evidence, but merely on a claim that they found no evidence to validate said theory. So if this is even going to be considered valid enough criticism to be used in the article, it needs to be properly attributed. Their nationalities don't matter, but their educational background and professions are very much important. LokiiT (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For this article, details like this are - at least in most cases - irrelevant clutter. It's an article about Freud, after all, not about Ofshe and Watters. Readers either care about their professional backgrounds or they don't; if they care, they can easily read the article about Ofshe and Watters; if they don't care, there's no point in adding the information anyway. There are plenty of other non-psychologists mentioned in the article whose professional backgrounds we don't mention - eg, the article doesn't state that Karl Popper was a philosopher. So why make an issue out of Ofshe and Watters? They're much less important than Popper. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is a two-way street. I do not need consensus to add something so minor and uncontentious to the page; if you disagree with this edit (so vehemently, which makes me suspicious), then we need to form consensus on whether the edit should stay or go. This does not give you the right to revert my edit. If you want to ask a third party via WP:Third opinion, go for it. Otherwise, please stop trying to exert ownership over the article. As for Karl Popper, perhaps it should be noted that he was a philosopher and not a psychologist. LokiiT (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

With the single major exception of upholding BLP, where consensus can be over-ridden in the interests of protecting living people, consensus is always required on Wikipedia. You are the one trying to make the change, so it's up to you to make your case and create agreement on the talk page; if you can't do that, the article will stay as it was before you tried to make the change. If anything is evidence of trying to own an article, it's suggesting that consensus is not needed or can be disregarded.Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't have an understanding of wikipedia policy. Just because you don't like my edit, doesn't mean you have free reign to revert it. Also, your comparison with Popper is invalid since he indeed did earn a PHD in Psychology. One thing I'd really like to know is why you're so opposed to such an absolutely minor, trivial, insignificant change. What's your deal? LokiiT (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You show every sign of reverting my edits because you don't like them, so a comment like "Just because you don't like my edit, doesn't mean you have free reign to revert it" is profoundly rude, as well as stupid. We all have to obey the same rules here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You aren't making edits. You're unjustifiably reverting mine. So of course I'm not going to like it. Why won't you answer my question? Why are you so opposed to this insignificant edit that you'd risk a block over it? Do you want to hide the fact that this criticism is coming from non-psychologists that badly? Or is it some sort of compulsion related to WP:OWN wherein every edit needs your explicit approval? LokiiT (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts are edits, and there's no "of course" about not liking being reverted - I've been reverted numerous times by other editors, and my own response has usually been to shrug and move on. I think of that as grown-up behaviour, myself. I did answer your question as to why I disagreed with your change; try re-reading my comments. It simply happens that I don't believe that listing the professions of Freud's critics is useful or desirable - if we list it for Ofshe and Watters, then by logic we should list it for everyone else too - which would make for bad writing and needlessly clutter the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion here, that I violated 3RR, I don't believe that's the case. I count three reverts within 24 hours. The previous revert was at 07:12, 5 June 2011, which was more than 24 hours before 23:22, 6 June 2011. Technically, I believe you may have violated 3RR, but I'm not going to report it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no misunderstandings about what you wrote, but you still haven't explained why you'd risk a block over something so seemingly trivial. Your actions don't seem very consistent with your ideas of grown-up behavior. Why not ask for a third opinion at least? Perhaps because you know I'm right? As for 3rr, the only reason you aren't going to report me is because you know you'll be blocked as well - moderators don't seem to care much about technicalities; edit warring is edit warring. Perhaps we both do need some time to cool off. What do you think? LokiiT (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your first revert within 24 hours (complete with the suggestion that you "don't need consensus") was here, your second (with a false, inflammatory accusation of article "ownership" against me, even though you've reverted as many times as I have) was here, your third was here and your fourth (accusing me of violating 3RR) here. So while we're both guilty of edit warring, technically you have violated 3RR, not me. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think you are right. I think you are wrong, both in your position on the content dispute, and in your behaviour in initiating an edit war. Everything you've accused me of doing, I can equally well accuse you of doing. You should have taken things to the talk page immediately when you were first reverted and tried to create consensus instead of reverting back and suggesting that you "don't need consensus". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you're repeating yourself? If you're going to report me then go ahead and do it instead of talking about it. Just don't be surprised if you also get blocked. LokiiT (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The first of the two comments above wasn't me repeating myself - it was me pointing out that you violated 3RR, and listing the edits concerned. While we could both be blocked, there would be a slightly better case for blocking you, as you're technically in violation of 3RR, while I am not. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

All right. I don't think an argument over who's the bigger edit warrior is going to help anything here. Neither one of you has come out of this little tiff looking like the ideal editor. As it is, this is, if I may be colloquial, a pretty lame dispute. First, LokiiT, I understand that you're attempting to clarify the statement being made. I think that you've taken it a little far in assigning more importance to a single-line quote than there is. It might have been a little more productive to think about making suggestions on how to relocate the quote or create a viable paragraph on criticism of Freud's theory of the unconscious. Just reverting Polisher's changes wasn't going to get you anywhere, and claiming you don't need consensus for anything never makes you look good. On the other hand, Polisher, I can see you've been a vested contributor to the article, and it's plain you have some very specific opinions about how the prose should read. I can understand that; I enjoy certain phrases myself. But the change LokiiT's trying to make is seriously uncontroversial. He feels that those sources need to be identified, and I have to agree. As it is, that quote is plopped down, without explanation, context, or build-up, as the last sentence on the section of Freud's theory of the unconscious. The bare minimum it requires is an identification of who these people are who get to render the last word on Freud's theory in his own article. It's my opinion that the whole section should be rewritten and this criticism incorporated into the body of the text. As it is, the book is contentious, the statement's contentious, and any editor would be well within the rights of common sense to want to identify said persons as non-psychologists (and, indeed, the case of Watters, a non-academic) right off the bat. To be perfectly frank, I have no idea why you're even contesting this. It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion in the dearth of better contextual phrasing, and a minor concession, sacrificing little in prose style or article balance. He's already compromised over the use of "writes" and removal of the nationalities, both of which I agree with your points on. Be satisfied with that. I can't see you winning an argument anywhere that including their professions is destroying the article, and besides which—this isn't about winning. I suggest the two of you bury this one as I've left it and work on improving the article as a whole, perhaps by writing a new paragraph or section on criticism as a whole. Find some sources together and find some common ground. I'll be happy to help. —— chro • man • cer  19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to provide some context here, it wasn't me who added the quote from Ofshe and Watters in the first place - it was SusanLesch. As I recall, she had second thoughts about adding it and removed it; I restored it. It's not the kind of material that I would have been likely to add, though it seemed to me that, on balance, it did belong in the article. I can understand the objection that it's potentially misleading to mention Ofshe and Watters' view without mentioning that neither of them is a psychologist; the trouble is that it's also potentially misleading to mention that Ofshe is a sociologist and that Watters is a journalist since, if you do that, it implies that Ofshe's criticism of the unconscious is based on his expertise in sociology and Watters' criticism of it is based on his experience as a journalist, which seems strange, to say the least. Perhaps all this shows is that the material doesn't really belong in the article, at least not in that section. LokiiT might have done better to argue for removing it entirely, perhaps to a new article, eg, Criticism of Sigmund Freud. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Lame dispute indeed. LokiiT (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) My default position is that more information is always better for understanding, not less. As it is, I think right now the potential harm is minimal. You are right, however, when you say you don't think it belongs in the article: this is a quote from a book that's essentially a polemic against psychotherapy. There is a main article that the section links to: Unconscious mind. We could do with a short mention of their book there. I will also mention, though I'm not going to formally !vote on the matter, that I think separating the legacy section is premature. There's a lot there that belongs in a biographical article, and I think separating that much information will shrink the utility of this article, which as it stands, is a very fair summation of his life and work. — chro • man • cer  21:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as removing the content goes, I wouldn't object as I find the criticism dubious to begin with, especially since this is a biography. Ironically, coming in out of nowhere and removing text from an article usually sparks disputes, so I opted for attribution instead. It was just something I passingly noticed, I certainly never intended for it to be such a big issue. LokiiT (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no necessary objection to removal either - which goes to show that it's better talk about changes first. And to Chromancer: I'm well aware that spinning off the legacy section into a new article requires discussion first, to determine whether or how it should be done. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Legacy section

I propose to turn the "Legacy" section of this article into an independent article, Influence of Sigmund Freud or Influence and legacy of Sigmund Freud, perhaps. The current "legacy" section should be reduced to a link to the new article. In my view there's already enough material in the legacy section to justify spinning it off that way. Since Freud's influence was so large and so much has been written about it, much more material of a similar nature could be added, which would greatly increase the length of the article. At a certain stage, it would grow so large that giving the material its own article would be the only appropriate way of dealing with it. WP:Summary style is the relevant guide.

Note that while I consider it inappropriate to list the professions of Freud's critics in this article, I wouldn't necessarily object to it in an article specifically about Freud's influence. There are several problems with the way people's professions are listed here. The first is that there is currently no logic to it. I pointed out that if we're going to list Ofshe and Watters' professions, then logically we should list everyone else's professions too. The only response from LokiiT was that, "your comparison with Popper is invalid since he indeed did earn a PHD in Psychology", which isn't a serious comment, since average readers cannot be expected to know anything about Popper; if people don't know what to make of Ofshe and Watters' criticisms without knowing their professions, the same must also apply to Popper and everyone else.

Just as importantly, the simple fact of listing people's professions is not helpful to readers unless it's made clear specifically what their profession had to do with the criticisms they made. What does Ofshe's being a sociologist have to do with his criticisms of Freud's theory of the unconscious, for example? In an article specifically about Freud's influence, it might be possible to explain this, but it can hardly be done in this article, which is why I'm strongly opposed to it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. This one should be a biography and I can see that the other material is gaining too much ground. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re popper: I understand your argument, but it brings us to an even more important question. Should any criticism with questionable authority appear in this article? If said criticism extends beyond that of an amateur's opinion/observation (which is what Ofshe and Watters are), then similar sentiments should be found originating from more authoritative sources on the subject matter, shouldn't it? Ideally the reader could just assume that all criticism is that of an expert/professional psychologist, so we wouldn't need to systematically list what is and isn't for reader discretion. LokiiT (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you and I and the other editors here are the amateurs. Not any of those who published works in WP:RELIABLE sources to criticize Freud. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If a religious fundamentalist gets an anti-Darwin book published, does that alone make him an expert and authority? LokiiT (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish people cannot be psychoanalyzed?

Did freud say that irish people cannot be psychoanalyzed? If he did not who did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.133.179 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ordinary nazi

I hope you agree it was a very strange sentence in the Sigmund Freud-article about a man who was "not an ordinary nazi". First of all, it is POV, second of all, incorrect. Does such a thing excist as "an ordinary nazi", is it next to "an ordinary communist" or an "ordinary Talib"? Either it is rephrased or it is removed. Polozooza (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this does not seem like a very profitable topic to discuss. The bottom line is that nothing is "POV" if it is sourced properly; if the material in question does not properly reflect the source used, then by all means let's change it, but otherwise there's no problem here. Particular phrases or expressions are not "POV" simply because one editor may disagree with them; that's not what "POV" means; rather it refers to comments or opinions that don't reflect the sources. The point is that Sauerwald, a Nazi, was willing to help Freud, a Jew. For a Nazi, that's highly unusual behavior, so it's necessary to give readers some context that helps explain it. The edit by you that I reverted removed that context, namely the information that while Sauerwald “had made bombs for the Nazi movement, he had also studied medicine, chemistry, and law.” It also removed the relevant ref, , that supported this and other statements in the article. Your change was made in good faith, but it needed reverting, or at least modifying. I'm sure there may be some way that the material can be reworded, but please don't remove the relevant information about Sauerwald's background, and especially not the ref. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the wording is just a bit strange, that's all. If you ask me, chemistry and making bombs has something to do with each other, for instance. ;) And why would a "typical nazi" not study medicine? Also, why would it even be mentioned, it could be mentioned in the source only, in the reflist, yet not in the section. It has nothing to do with Freud, but with an entirely different person. The phrase "typical nazi" is rather odd anyway. A bit like writing Stalin wasn't a "typical communist" because he collected poststamps or something. Has no place in an article about Freud, not Sauerwald. If Sauerwald was so interesting and unique, he should be given his own article. Polozooza (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have some proposal to reword that passage, then let's hear it. The information itself is clearly relevant, however, so please don't remove it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that the information has been removed by Slrubenstein, but with respect, I believe it is relevant. I would ask that Slrubenstein explain his reason for removing it more fully. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how it is relevant. If it so relevant then write an article on Sauerwald. Or add it in the reference, instead of in this section of the general article. It could simply be written in an explanation at the reflist, which I believe would be more appropriate. Of course, in different wording. Polozooza (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What is relevant is that he helped Freud escape. Any other claims about the man belong in an article on the man, not Freud, this is obvious - we do not go off on every tangent when writing a good article. By the way, when it comes to the question of whether the man is an ordinary Nazi or not, I do not think a newspaper writer is a good source. A biographer of the man, or a scholar on Nazis, is a reliable source on claims about who is a normal or unusual Nazi. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the material is relevant, but I won't restore it, since other editors seem to be opposed. Anyway, the matter is not a crucial one. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am glad, Slrubenstein, that I am not the only one who found this a rather strange "fact" to mention. Polozooza (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Freud's abandonment of hypnotic techniques (such as they were)

I just made an edit to clarify Freud's abandonment of hypnosis. It is important that the reader know that it wasn't just a matter of Freud opining that hypnosis was "ineffective" as the original text suggested. I also included an external reference for this. (Mrzold (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

So would someone like to explain why this was reverted? Just stating that Freud considered hypnosis to be "ineffective" is not very informative. I don't mind a re-edit, but an explanation would be nice. Mrzold (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay well ... I'll be trying another edit of this a litte later (this time logged in and signed) and see what happens. Mrzold (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with restoring the more precise language. Freud's relationship to hypnosis was complicated and interesting enough for several books to have been written about it; summarizing this as him reaching a conclusion that was "ineffective," while not totally inaccurate, really doesn't paint a clear picture. csloat (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- well said. And thanks to whoever did the edit that I see today. It wasn't me; I've been much too busy with other things. It's a pretty good and fair summation of that chapter of F's life. Mrzold (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Van Rillaer

I'd like to thank Analytikone for restoring the quotation from Jacques Van Rillaer. Just to provide some background, I removed the quotation some time ago because it was wrongly sourced (to William James' Principles of Psychology). I don't have any objection to the quotation itself, however, and am happy to see it restored, this time with the proper source. I have nonetheless removed the "contrary to what most people believe" part from the start of the quotation since 1) this makes it too long, 2) it's unclear how Van Rillaer could know this, and 3) it takes us too far away from the subject of the article, namely Freud. The article is about Freud, and not about whatever fallacies or misunderstandings people may have concerning him. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reflections on War and Death

A simple search with google shows thousands of entries. The book is published both on paper and other media and available online. It is mentioned in many other works and books. It must mean that it is worth something. It is a fact that Freud wrote Reflections on War and Death and that the work is not unknown and disregarded. Then IMHO should be mentioned. I do not understand why my two attempts to add this book in this article are always rejected. User:Polisher of Cobwebs, evidence of number of editions available or published is a more solid base than your personal opinion of 'minor work'. Instead of brushing things away, help finding a proper place to insert them. --Mpaa (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Reflections on war and death, though it was published as a book, is mainly seen as an essay, and it is only one of many minor essays by Freud. Since Freud was such an influential figure, it's not surprising that many other works and books mention it, but that doesn't make it one of Freud's more important or significant works - it isn't, and it misinforms readers to suggest otherwise. If you disagree and think it should be considered a major or significant work by Freud, then please find a source to back up your position.

If you really want to list it as one of Freud's works, then do so - I wouldn't dream of reverting you again. But not as a major work, thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. That was the reason why I added the 'Other work' section after you pointed out is not a major work. I will recreate that section inserting it (if you think there is a better way to call it or place, do so). It sounded a bit strange that in the article there are tens and tens of books written by others on Freud and we do not instead list his own work. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The further reading list at the end of the article shouldn't be taken so very seriously. It represents only the books that strike me as most interesting or most relevant, and I'm sure other selections would be possible. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"established sexual drives as the primary motivational force of human life"

I'm very sure this isn't part of modern psychology therefore it is incorrect to say that Freud established it if it is no longer considered to be the case. I recommend changing "established" to "claimed". Gringo Madre (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that that kind of change to the wording accomplishes anything. If anything, it probably makes the article worse. See WP:WORDS regarding the use of "claim" and "claimed" - it comes across as a way of suggesting that Freud was wrong or was unreliable. Perhaps he was, but it's not the purpose of the lead to use language that implies that, per WP:NPOV and other policies. I suggest that it would make better sense to be concerned with whether Freud did actually believe that "sexual drives" were "the primary motivational force of human life" - where does Freud specifically say that? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea whether he actually thought that. The statement is uncited. How about "hypothesised"? Gringo Madre (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need citations in the lead if there is a citation somewhere else in the article. I don't favor "hypothesised" - it would sound too awkward. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd tend towards "awkward" over unverified. Gringo Madre (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I only saw this discussion after amending "established" to "postulated that". Reading the above, I hope it will be agreed that the latter is more accurate than the former. Esterson (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect. Gringo Madre (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Freud believe that sexual drives were "the primary motivational force of human life"?

He certainly believed that the repression of sexual instincts was fundamental to human development, both for individuals and society, e.g., "The reactions against the instinctual demands of the Oedipus complex are the source of the most precious and socially important achievements of the human mind; and this holds true not only in the life of individuals but probably also in the history of the human species as a whole" ("Psycho-analysis", 1926, Standard Edition 20, p. 268.) Again, from An Outline of Psychoanalysis (1940), "the sexual urge...is destined to exercise a decisive influence on our life"; and "many of the highly valued assets of our civilization were acquired at the cost of sexuality and by the restriction of sexual motive forces" (Standard Edition 23, pp. 151, 201). Esterson (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph on neuro-psychoanalysis

RJR333 has added [28 August] the following to the paragraph on neuro-science under Science: "Freud is no longer relevant to psychology in academics i.e. at universities [ref.] although many therapist still use Freud's methods."

In my view this sentence (with the reference) would be more appropriately placed elsewhere. I suspect RJR333 placed it here as a counter-balance to statements such as "Other clinical researchers have recently found empirical support for more specific hypotheses of Freud such as that of the "repetition compulsion" in relation to psychological trauma. [ref.] The theory of ego defense mechanisms has received empirical validation, [ref.]…" A more balanced wording, I suggest, would be "have recently claimed" and "have purportedly received clinical validation", respectively. In other words, the paragraph should not present neuro-psychoanalytic contentions as validated when in fact they are controversial. Neuro-psychoanalysts such as Mark Solms claim validation of Freudian notions on the fallacious basis that resemblances between a phenomenon and Freudian theory is a validation of the theory, e.g,:

"When [neuroscientist Jaak] Panksepp stimulated the corresponding region in a mouse, the animal would sniff the air and walk around, as though it were looking for something… The brain tissue seemed to cause a general desire for something new. ‘What I was seeing,’ he says, ‘was the urge to do stuff.’ Panksepp called this seeking. To Mark Solms of University College in London, that sounds very much like libido. ‘Freud needed some sort of general, appetitive desire to seek pleasure in the world of objects,’ says Solms. ‘Panksepp discovered as a neuroscientist what Freud discovered psychologically’.” (Fred Guterl, Newsweek, 11 November 2002, "What Freud Got Right") See: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2004/freud-returns/]

So, according to Solms, the "urge to do stuff" in animals is a validation of Freud's libido theory!

See also Frederick Crews: "Two years ago….Fred Guterl wrote a rather sensational cover story about 'What Freud Got Right,' relying heavily on the testimony of the neuroscientist Mark Solms, who purported to find the neurobiology of dreaming to be strongly supportive of Freud’s notions. What Mr. Guterl neglected to mention was that Solms is a psychoanalyst, an editor of Freud’s writings, an official of the Anna Freud Centre, and an ardent public advocate whose views about psychoanalysis-&-dreaming are by no means shared by his scientific colleagues, who find them amusing at best. On a deeper level, Mr. Guterl failed to understand the point I have made above: that resemblances between a given phenomenon–e.g., dreaming–and a given theory in no way constitute a triumph for the theory." http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2006/i-newsweek-i-and-the-undead-freud/ Esterson (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The addition by RJR3333 was unnecessary. The science section already contained material noting that Freud occupies, at best, a rather marginal place in current psychology. RJR3333 used a 2007 story from The New York Times, but the NYT article was in fact already used in the article, and it only confuses things to use it twice. If you wish to rephrase the section on neuro-psychoanalysis, then by all means go ahead and do so. You suggested version probably is more neutral. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph on neuro-psychoanalysis: further discussion

I refer to the following sentence in the paragraph on neuro-psychoanalysis under "Science":

"Other clinical researchers have recently found empirical support for more specific hypotheses of Freud such as that of the 'repetition compulsion' in relation to psychological trauma." [Reference: Daniel Schechter, Gross A, Willheim E, McCaw J, Turner JB, Myers MM, Zeanah CH, Gleason MM. Trauma Stress (2009). "Is maternal PTSD associated with greater exposure of very young children to violent media?" Journal of Traumatic Stress,22(6), 658–662.]

http://www.mdecgateway.org/olms/data/resource/8669/Is%20Maternal%20PTSD%20Associated%20with.pdf

1. The article is about the effects of viewing violent media on mothers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I fail to see why this should come under the topic of neuro-psychoanalysis.

2. In the article the notion of "repetition compulsion" is discussed in the final comments: "Freud’s 'repetition compulsion' (Freud, 1920/1955), namely an effort to 'master' posttraumatic fear by autonomous control of traumatic reexposures, may help us to understand maternal behavior."

This vaguely worded suggestion (and it's nothing more than that) hardly merits the claim that the study gives empirical support for Freud's notion. To my mind it has been dragged in gratuitously to provide a theoretical underpinning otherwise absent for the apparent association between maternal violence-related PTSD severity and the amount of time mothers spend watching violent media. At the very most, the results might be stated as "consistent with" a Freudian notion, though the notion itself is so woolly when applied in this context that I don't think it even merits being called an explanation. Given in addition the authors' caveats (e.g, "the results, though not conclusive", "the relationships... remain to be explored further with larger samples, controlling for psychosocial variables"), the claim that the study provides "empirical support" for Freud's 'repetition compulsion' notion is an overstatement. Esterson (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now checked another sentence in the neuro-psychoanalysis paragraph, and again it seems to have no direct connection with neuro-psychoanalysis:

(i) "The theory of ego defense mechanisms has received empirical validation [ref. Barlow, DH & Durand, VM. Abnormal psychology: an integrative approach (5th ed.). Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005, pp.18-21]"

I have checked the relevant pages in Barlow and Durand and there is nothing here relevant to neuro-psychoanalysis (or indeed to neuroscience).

(ii) "and the nature of repression, in particular, became one of the more fiercely debated areas of psychology in the 1990s. [ref. Robinson-Riegler, G & Robinson-Riegler, B. Cognitive psychology: Applying the science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education, 2008, pp.278–284.]"

The long-running debate on repression is not specifically related to neuro-psychoanalysis. I have not been able to check the cited pages, but from the wording of the sentence it would seem they relate to the debate about repression rather than to neuro-psychoanalysis. (I have checked the academic credentials of the two authors, and there is no mention of neuro-psychoanalysis being among their interests.)

I shall delete the sentence in question, and also the previous sentence, discussed immediately above. Esterson (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

In case anyone is wondering why I've reverted several recent IP edits as vandalism (for example here): the IP edits seem to be introducing deliberate factual errors. It was Ernest Jones Freud first told about his cancer, not Otto Rank. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gay's account is consistent with Ernest Jones's account in his biography, vol. 3, pp. 94-95 (British edition). Since relations between Freud and Rank were strained at that time, it would have been highly unlikely that he would have told Rank before close colleagues like Jones. Esterson (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)'

Reimut Reiche, Germany

Reimut Reiche is a German psychoanalist who calls himself: Freudian analyst. In the early 1970s he wrote: Sexuality and Class Struggle.87.163.148.174 (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reimut_Reiche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.148.174 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is being suggested that there should be a brief referencee to Riemut Rieche on the Freud page, I'm not clear why he is specifically worthy of inclusion, given the immense number of persons who are psychoanalysts and have written (directly or indirectly) on the subject. Esterson (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Freud today

Is it ok to add to the introduction that Freud's theories have mostly been disproven and he's sort of irrelevant to contemperorary psychology or is that wrong since its in the later part of the article? I personally feel it should be in the intro but I don't know if I'm right. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be OK to add something to the lead about Freud's theories being disproven, but we have to be careful about exactly what. It would need to be properly sourced and qualified - which particular theories are we talking about, and who says that they're disproven? I removed the text you added ("He was very influential in early psychology but today has been marginalized") not because the lead shouldn't mention criticism of Freud (it certainly should) but because your wording isn't clear enough. It's a very general and vague kind of statement, and I doubt that the article's sources back it up properly. The science section does mention that psychoanalysis occupies a marginal position in psychology departments, but it wouldn't necessarily be reasonable to summarize something to that effect in the lead. It's more of a statement about psychoanalysis than it is about Freud per se, so it might be more appropriate in the lead of Psychoanalysis. A source dealing specifically with Freud would be preferable. It would be good idea to work something out on the talk page before adding anything more to the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june99/freud_crews.html Here Crews says that Freud's ideas are "as a research paradigm...pretty much dead". Perhaps this would work as source in the lead?--RJR3333 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to find another source, a book or an article. An interview with PBS isn't as appropriate as published academic material. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also I tried to include Eysenck's quote from The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire where he said "what is new in Freud is not true and what is true in Freud is not new". You removed it I think but isn't that a nice summary of Eysenck's point against Freud. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look, you'll see that the Eysenck quote is in the article, in the legacy section. I removed it from the place you added it because the same quote doesn't need to be in the article twice. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Freud always was and remains a contentious figure. We need to be careful in distinguishing between different dimensions of Freud's work, and different communities that judge it. For example, although many lay-people think of theories as right or wrong, or even just beliefs (e.g. all those people who say "evolution is just a theory") but in some sciences, theories are not right or wrong, they are useful or not useful. There are a great many sholars in the human sciences that still consider Freud's theories very fruitful, even if specific things he wrote are wrong. This might sound like an oxymoron to some, but the fact remains: there are many scholars who are simultaneously highly critical of Freud and yet who consider him to be of continued importance. Institutionally, many lay-people confuse psychoanalysis, psychology and psychiatry, but these really are three different things, and pyschoanalysis never neatly fit inhto mainstream academic institutions. Freud insisted that psychoanalysts also be MDs, but a lot of practicing psychoanlysis were not trained in universities; institutes for the training of psychoanalysts existed outside of universities - and predictably people working within universities (in medical schools of psychology departments) often dismiss FDreud entirely ... yet, in other instituts he remains foundational. In the US and UK a certain reading of his approach to therapy became very trendy in the 1950s and it is true that Freud's 1950s appeal has largely evaporated. The dominatnt model for therapy in the US is now cognitive behavioral - but this shift did not simply occur because scientists concluded Freud was wrong, it occured in part because insurance companies will pay for only 10 sessions and psychoanalysis cannot occur in that period of time, so the funding of mental health care determined that a therapy that was designed to work in a short period of time would come to replace Freudianism. But if you go outside of insurance-company funded mental-health care, you will find that there are still a great many practicing therapists, some trained in medical schools, some in social work, but all with additional training from independent institutes. Freud has importance outside of psychoanalysis, in anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and comparative literature freud's theories are still taken very seriously. Coincidentally I just finished reading Vincent Descombes' Modern French Philosophy (translated into English,published by the very prestigious Cambridge University Press). According to him, Freud, along with Nietzsche and Marx, are the leading intellectuals who inspired a great deal of vital work in the 1970s onward. Now, what would it mean to say "Nietzsche was wrong?" A lot of things Nietzsche said were wrong. Yet, many of his ideas remain the starting point for much important work not just in philosophy but throughout academe. Same with Marx, same with Freud. I know people in psychology departments who do not understand this. Their lack of comprehension is important not because it helps us decide whether Freud was right or wrong. It is important because it shows just how divided contemporary academe is.

Universities - as centers of research - are divided by variuoius lines, in addition to the life sciences, social sciences, and humanities, which are often recognized insitutionally (through different colleges or faculties) there is also the divisions between positivists, interpretivists, and critical theorists, which are not recognized institutionally. There is also the distinction between structuralists and post-structuralists. Scholars located on different sides of different lines will have (1) very different ways of using the word "theory" and (2) very different approaches to Freud.

If we are going to say that "Freud was wrong" we need to do two things, to comply fully with NPOV. First, we need to be clear about degrees of "wrongness." Darwin happens to have been wrong about some aspects of the transmission of inherited traits, but biologists do not think that this example of being wrong invalidates the theory of evolution by natural selection. So we need to distinguish between people for whom his being wrong about x means he was wrong about everything, versus people who think that his being wrong about x does not invalidate other aspects of his work. Second, we need to be clear about different uses of Freud. There are some medical schools or psychology departments where one will never read or talk about Freud, his work is considered mumbo-jumbo. But there are other scholars - in other departments at the same university, or in psychology departments in other universities where Freud is still valuable. There is a third thing, I am not sure how best to express it, but it has to do with different kinds of fault lines. Freud and Jung notoriously broke with one another and if you read there work you will think that you have to take one side or the other. But from the point of view of a cognitifve-behavioralist, Freudians and Jungians are just two flavors of the same food.

Claims about his being right or wrong really have no meaning unless we put them in their context. My point above is that the context is pretty complex, and whenever we add any criticism or praise we need to be sure to put it in its proper context. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking

Almanacer has initiated an edit war over linking. It's an unfortunate development; the appropriate thing for him to have done would have been to have taken the issue here as soon as he was reverted. Almanacer began this by linking Freud family to family here. Anyone who looks carefully at that revision of the article will see that it already contained a link to Freud family from family, in the section on Escape from Nazism, specifically the sentence "In June 1938, Freud and his family left Vienna aboard the Orient Express train." So Almanacer was adding an additional, unnecessary piped link. If the word "family" should be linked that way, it should be the first occurrence only, and neither the reference to Freud's family in the Escape from Nazism section that was already linked nor the reference to Freud's family that Almanacer linked was the first occurrence. The first occurrence of "family" in the article is in the sentence, "Freud was born with a caul, which the family accepted as a positive omen", which is why I linked to Freud family there. Almanacer, I accept that your editing is in good faith, but frankly you need to look more carefully at what you are doing, and listen to other editors. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Almanacer continues to revert without attempting to discuss matters, most recently here. Almanacer's edit summary is, "the talk page has a request for info on family members. Hence the link. What is your problem?" Almanacer, the problem is that Freud family was already linked in the article before you needlessly added an additional link. Freud family is linked exactly once in the version of the article I prefer, and pointlessly linked twice in the version of the article that you keep reverting back to. Please stop this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the delay in joining this discussion but I’ve been trying to work out what’s been going on with this link. When I added the Freud family to the Early Life section there was no other such link in this section. The link in the passage about the caul was added later. I hope the edit I have now made helps. I think there are reasonable grounds to have a second link to Freud family in the Escape from Nazism section because, as the page details, the composition of the family household has changes substantially in by 1938. Almanacer (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK. WP:REPEATLINK. There is no need for more than one link to Freud family, and the fact that "the composition of the family household has changes substantially in by 1938" is irrelevant. I can't even work out what you're trying to say. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OK let's leave it at the one link, unpiped is better, I think. I will add some text to the Escape from Nazism section to explain the family circumstances in 1938. Sorry if previous post were unclear. Almanacer (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Early Life revision needed?

The initial section "Early Life" contains details that seem out of place. The item on his rumored relationship wi th his sister-in-law is mentioned without prior mention of his marriage; the notes on his smoking and subsequent cancer might be better linked to his death; the extensive examination of his Jewishness and the separate section on his experience of cancer seem over-detailed for an encyclopaedia article.

As always though, what there is here is interesting and useful and I appreciate the effort that has gone into it. --174.7.25.37 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud is currently not a listed as a good-quality article. It isn't surprising, then, if some details seem out of place, or the organization appears arbitrary (that's partly the result of compromises between editors with different ideas about how the article should be written). By all means, suggest ways in which the article content could be better organized or arranged. It would be better to reorganize things than to simply cut back on detail, however. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Influences

An IP editor has just added Aristotle and Plato as influences on Freud. I won't revert right away, since I'm not sure the addition is wrong, but it seems to me that both Aristotle and Plato are rather remote and indirect influences on Freud; Plato is mentioned only briefly in The Interpretation of Dreams, and at the very end, which isn't what one would expect if Plato's 'influence' on Freud were direct in nature. Comments? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominate Article for Deletion

Freud is not relevant anymore and most of his theories have been disproven. So perhaps this article should be nominated for deletion. --99.162.49.216 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic reasoning. Nominations may be made at WP:EPICFAIL. Keep up the good work! :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Freud is obviously of major historical importance quite regardless of whether any of his theories are correct or not, something which we aren't here to discuss. Suggesting that the article should be deleted is disruptive. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I do hope the sarcasm was clear in my response to the troll (who previously had made similar remarks on two unrelated pages): He deliberately made a suggestion which did not even come close to a valid reason for an AFD discussion, so I deliberately gave him directions to a place (WP:EPICFAIL aka WP:TROUT aka WP:WHACK!) which does not even come close to a valid forum for one. Not that I endorse troll-feeding, though. I mean, sure, I gave the guy a fish... butcha gotta remember what the real wiseguys have to say about that. :-) Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tim Callow said Freud has no relevance whatsoever please delete this article and focus on something relevant instead. --99.50.130.135 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And if Tim Callow told you to jump off a bridge, would you? Anyway, I never heard of Tim Callow, so I guess he has no relevance to Wikipedia. Freud is still widely assigned in universities, so people who want to learn more about knowledge will need to have a chance to learn more about Freud, so every major encyclopedia will continue to have articles on him. Maybe it is you who have no relevance to Wikipedia? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool story bro csloat (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

IP is blocked...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your sarcasm came through Cosmic Latte, at least not to me, and I am relieved to hear that's what it was! I guess this section has to remain for some reaason of openness, but in my opinion it should be deleted. It is simply absurd and this section a waste of space. Freud is notable. QED. This section is not. LookingGlass (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The section will be archived in due course, like all talk page content, and the space it's taking up currently isn't really an issue. It's at least a little helpful as it records the comments made by an abusive IP, helpful to those who want to track other edits it may have made - so it would be best to leave as is. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Family Tree

Why is there no mention of Freud's descendants, many of whom are leading lights in their own fields? Matthew Freud, Bella Freud, Clement Freud, Lucian Freud, Emma Freud and David Freud are a few that spring to my mind although I am sure there are more.

I'm not advocating a large section to be devoted to the family, but surely some mention should be made of them, even if it's only a line or two with a link to a dedicated family tree page. (oops, forgot to sign!) LookingGlass (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that references should be added, but also suggest the section on PR be deleted and replaced by a similar link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LookingGlass (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See Freud family which is linked in the Early Life section. Agree re Public Relations.Almanacer (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Public relations

This section should be deleted as it is essentially a stub of an article on another person. Its content should be replaced by a link to other pages in wiki that detail it. Although his nephew's work might be a matter of interest it is no more pertinent to Freud, and perhaps even less so, than the work and interests of his other relations, all of whose claims to notability must surely stand on their own merits, no matter how they might or might not have been influenced by him. As alluded to above under Family Tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigmund_Freud#Family_Tree the article could perhaps benefit from a small section placed under Early Life, providing the links to other family members and the pages that relate. LookingGlass (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the material is pertinent to Freud, but only indirectly. It's not really crucial material for this article, and I have no special objection if you want to delete it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

Depictions in media should be inserted, like that made by the character played by de Niro in Analyze This.--86.125.191.182 (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That would need a source. And I'm frankly not sure that a popular culture section would be a good idea anyway; it might be better to simply link relevant items in the see also section - which is what I have done. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Freud's marriage

I've just reverted an addition to the article by Adishwiki. The addition began, "In April, 1882, after a day’s work at the Vienna Institute of Physiology, a young Freud returned home to find Martha Bernays peeling an apple and chatting with his family at the family table. He immediately felt compelled to court her. Whereas before he rushed to his room upon his arrival, he now decided to join the table to talk to everyone. Every day after this, Freud sent Martha a rose with a sweet note attached to it. Two months later, during dinner with the family, Martha pressed Freud’s hand under the table, and after four days, they were engaged." In my opinion, that's a clear case of WP:UNDUE weight - the kind of detail that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. The style of writing also seems sentimental and inappropriate. I am a little sorry to have to simply revert Adishwiki's contribution, because I do think that there is some material in their edit that might usefully be added to the article, but it would have be carefully looked at to determine what material should go in and what should stay out. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Libido and Sexual Drive

As defined by Jung, libido is the primary motivational force of human life, not sexual drive. Libido is the total energy of the psyche. It is life energy and contains many parts, including the sexual drive. Sexual drive is just the sexual drive, it is contained in the libido.

From the Freudian Theory of Hysteria(1908) by Carl Jung page 18: When Freud speaks of sexuality, it must not be understood merely as the sexual instinct. Another concept which Freud uses in a very wide sense is "libido." This concept, originally borrowed from "libido sexualis," denotes in the first place the sexual components of psychic life so far as they are volitional, and then any inordinate passion or desire.

This is what is being changed(the second paragraph, first sentence):

Freud postulated that sexual drives are the primary motivational force of human life

And it is being changed to:

Freud postulated that the libido is the primary motivational force of human life

Peoplez1k (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an accurate quotation from Jung's The Freudian Theory of Hysteria, but I think Jung should be treated with some caution as an interpreter of Freud. In any case, I don't think Jung supports the claim that Freud saw "libido as the primary motivational force of human life" - that's not what the quotation actually says. Neither the claim that Freud saw "sexual drives" as the primary motivational force of human life nor the claim that he saw "libido" that way is properly sourced, so probably neither claim should appear in the lead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that the claim that Freud saw "libido" as the primary motivational force of human life doesn't appear in Charles Rycroft's entry on the subject in A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Do you have a source that says that Freud saw libido that way, using those actual words? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)