Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Later Work and Life

The previous title of this section, “The Development of Psychoanalysis”, is/was more appropriate to its content, most of which is about Freud’s work in the 1890s; there was nothing about his life included apart from his marriage which I have moved to the Early Life section where it belongs – before the Minna Bernays para. This is one of a number of changes I have made which I think makes for a more coherent narrative and timeline. No paras have been deleted though some have been rewritten. oops some refs need attention ! Almanacer (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the ref, and made a few other minor changes in response to your edits. The material on Freud's life clearly does need reorganizing, and I appreciate your efforts, though in a few cases I've done things slightly differently. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sartre's criticism of Freud

I have just reverted a couple of edits by Gtallondon, which added material about Jean-Paul Sartre's criticism of Freud. Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I'll explain exactly why I removed that material. The text Gtallondon added was, "Sartre held that Freud's views were determined by his authoritarian position as analysist [sic], the one who knows opposed to someone without knowledge. This position Sartre believed lacked authenticity." Unfortunately, that material was added before the sentence, "Wollheim and Thomas Baldwin argue that Sartre bases his critique on a misunderstanding of Freud." That made it look as though Wollheim and Baldwin were arguing against Sartre's view that "Freud's views were determined by his authoritarian position", which is not the case; rather, they were arguing against his view that Freud's ideas about the unconscious and repression are incoherent. To prevent confusion, I see no alternative but to remove the addition. I don't believe it fits properly within the legacy section as currently written. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

RJR3333 changed a sentence in the lead ("Interested in philosophy as a student, Freud later turned away from it and became a neurological researcher into cerebral palsy, Aphasia and microscopic neuroanatomy"), by replacing "philosophy" with "law." The edit comment was, "no, he originally planned to study law", implying that the sentence was somehow inaccurate. It was not inaccurate, however, so I have reverted. Freud was indeed interested, among other things, in philosophy, and he did later turn away from it as a subject. That he originally planned to study law does not contradict this: saying that someone was interested in philosophy as a student doesn't mean that he was interested only in philosophy, or that it was his field of study. I suggest to RJR3333 that instead of simply replacing "philosophy" with "law", he find a way of working both details into the lead. They're both important, and the lead can easily encompass both. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits to lead

207.237.79.219 modified the lead, changing "Interested in philosophy as a student, Freud later turned away from it and became a neurological researcher into cerebral palsy, Aphasia and microscopic neuroanatomy" to "Interested in philosophy and classics as a student, Freud later turned and became a physician, concentrating on neurological research into problems of the nervous system, cerebral palsy, Aphasia and microscopic neuroanatomy". While I appreciate what the IP was trying to achieve with this edit (I certainly agree that the lead needs improvement), I don't think that the modified version of that sentence was well written or clear ("Later turned" is very obscure and unhelpful language, and not up to Wikipedia's standards). The IP also changed, "Freud postulated the existence of libido (an energy with which mental process and structures are invested), developed therapeutic techniques such as the use of free association (in which patients report their thoughts without reservation and make no attempt to concentrate while doing so), discovered the transference (the process by which patients displace on to their analysts feelings based on their experience of earlier figures in their lives) and established its central role in the analytic process, and proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer" to "Freud postulated the existence of libido (an energy with which mental process and structures are invested), developed therapeutic techniques such as the use of free association (in which patients report their thoughts without reservation and make no attempt to concentrate while doing so), discovered "transference," the process by which patients transfer feelings originating from relationships with the significant figures in their early lives (especially childhood) to the analyst, and established its central role in the analytic process, and proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled, wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer, due to their unpleasantness". That change involves a different set of problems, including the fact that the material about dreams that was unsourced. I would encourage the IP to improve the section on Freud's theory about dreams with sourced material, instead of making unsourced changes to the lead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Middle name

Is there any source/evidence that his middle name was Schlomo? There are sources showing his Hebrew name (used for Jewish religious purposes) was Shlomo be Yaakov but that is not the same thing as a secular (governmentally registered) middle name... (Rider In The Storm (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

I don't know anything about Freud's middle name. But as a Jew, I can say that Shlomo ben Yaakov, simply means Shlomo, son of Yaakov. It is traditional for the child's Hebrew name (in this case Shlomo) to be derived from the first name of the child. For example if the child was called Anthony, then the Hebrew name could be Avraham. Again, I know nothing on this, but as Shlomo is possibly the most similar sounding name to Sigmund that I can think of, there is a chance that what Rider In The Storm says is true. But, I do not know. HostDavid (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It says in the article: "Freud always considered himself a woman...".

...surely this is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.190.50 (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Political Views

Should a section about Freud's political views be added to the article?--RJR3333 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Freud isn't notable for his political views, so it would make little sense to have a section about them. To the extent that they are relevant, they should be mentioned in the section on Freud's life. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought he was well known for being a Bolshevik sympathizer and supporter of Trotsky. He's associated with the left so I'd kind of disagree with the view that his political views are irrelevant. But I'd have to look more into it to see if I'm right. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Freud was not a Bolshevik sympathizer, and in particular not a supporter of Trotsky. It's true that Freud's writings do mention the Russian revolution and the Soviet Union, but they take a rather detached view of them - Freud was interested in whether Soviet Communism would be a success or not, but he certainly wasn't a communist himself. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

http://mailstar.net/freud-bolsheviks.html The owner of this site cites his arguments for Freud being a Trotskyist sympathizer. The site is owned by a crackpot but he cites scholarly sources. --Special:Contributions/RJR3333 (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a very good idea. 1. It is well-known from Freud's biography, that he initially wanted to study law, to "have an influence on the world". This meant politics. As a younger man, Freud was something of a partisan of Austrian socialism (Social-Dems) and he was seriously abhorred by antisemitism (which he and his father had already suffered--these are mere facts). I believe he had a special fascination for Victor Adler. Reading Darwin and Goethe made him switch to medicine, but still with the same intention of changing the world; 2. His later writings concerning culture and religion (Unbehagen; Totem & Tabu) recuperates this early and lifelong interest; 3. Then there's the story about Freud dedicating one of his books (Why War?) to Il Duce...(via Forzano). But search for yourself... For short, lack of this section is a serious omission.AlterBerg (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Material about Freud's political views should obviously be included, to the extent that it is relevant. There is no need for a section specifically on this subject, however, and you make no attempt to show otherwise. I think it would only confuse the section on Freud's biography to have such a section, so I'm opposed to the idea. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Freud Controversy

Freud has aroused passionate cries of "Freud is dead" and "Freud is not dead" since the inception of psychoanalysis. Expressions of one view or the other are polemical and do not belong in the article, especially the lead. For that reason I suggest that the lead include a neutral description of the litigants in the battle over the validity of psychoanalysis, and I revised the lead in order to try to do that in a balanced way with very clear and specific citations to sources. It is probably in vain to think that reason will prevail in the handling of this topic, but it seems a preferable solution to the two sides rewriting each others' versions of Freud over and over again.Hypoplectrus (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that you have covered the "controversy" about Freud in an even-handed way. I'm not sure that the last paragraph of the lead helps the reader to understand Freud's significance in the field of psychology or his influence on the humanities. In short, you have begun to make the lead more neutral, but there is more to be done to adequately reflect Freud's contributions. Sunray (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I reject your changes. I do not consider the statement, "Expressions of one view or the other are polemical and do not belong in the article, especially the lead", to be an argument or a sufficient reason for changing the lead. Please see the relevant policies: WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. The lead is meant to summarize the article, and it is perfectly proper for it to mention both favorable and unfavorable views of Freud's work. The previous version of the lead was already balanced and neutral, and already had proper citations for all the comments about the validity or lack of validity of Freud's methods and conclusions. Your version, which ends with Freud's assertions that his critics were biased against his theories for emotional reasons, cannot remotely be called balanced (and its use of Freud's own writings as a source for that statement is also unacceptable, since that is interpretation of primary source material). Your version of the lead also removed significant amounts of information without any explanation. I suggest you also see the guideline WP:BRD, which gives advice on how to handle situations in which contributors disagree with each other. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As a further comment, I will note that for each and every fact or piece of information that you wish to remove from the lead, it is up to you to explain specifically why it should be removed. Vague assertions about lack of balance should not be treated as grounds for removing large amounts of sourced material. If Hypoplectrus wishes to remove the fact that critics have called Freud's work pseudo-scientific and sexist (both criticisms are very common) from the lead, it is up to Hypoplectrus to explain why that material should go. If Hypoplectrus wishes to remove mention of the facts that Freud's theories have been marginalized within psychology departments and remain influential within the humanities, likewise Hypoplectrus must provide an explanation of why those facts (important ones, I think) should be removed. If Hypoplectrus has a problem with the sentence, "Freud has been called one of the three masters of the 'school of suspicion', alongside Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, while his ideas have been compared to those of Plato and Thomas Aquinas" (which provides important information about how intellectuals have viewed Freud's work) being in the lead, he must explain what it is. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The final paragraph of Hypoplectrus' version of the lead reads, "Freud's work has aroused controversy since its inception. Philosophers like Karl Popper have asserted that psychoanalysis is not testable, while later academics in the field of scientific explanation, such as Carl Hempel, were satisfied that psychoanalytic explanations were scientific in nature. Adolf Grunbaum criticized Freud's studies of neurotic patients because he thought it possible that Freud had influenced them by suggesting to them what he wanted to hear. Freud in turn was confident that many of his critics rebelled against his ideas for reasons that were more emotional than rational." That is an excellent example of the kind of material that does not belong in the lead. Detailed comments about how individual philosophers have viewed Freud, and argued with each other over their estimates of Freud's work, belong in the main body of the article, specifically the legacy section. The lead should only be concerned with summarizing the most important points. Finally, since Hypoplectrus stated in his edit summary "Replaced references to critics with more factually correct info": I stand by the factual accuracy of each statement that he removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs rejects all my changes and requests justifications. First, apologies if I did not provide adequate transparency to my thought process--I now see that perhaps they weren't--and apologies too for making an overly ambitious change to a lead to which Polisher of Cobwebs has devoted time and attention. I did not intend to be disrespectful. Let me attempt to be clearer and start over and I hope we can have a better conversation about it.

1. In the opening paragraph summarizing who Freud is, references to his ethnic heritage are not particularly relevant. That he was Jewish or atheist, etc., is not what someone wants to know up front when consulting an encyclopedia entry on a major scientific figure or philosopher. If anything a quick reference to "Viennese Jew" would be sufficient, no?

2. Same with his parents' impecunity and his high school grades. Not relevant in my view.

3. Previous statement that "psychoanalysis has declined as a therapeutic practice" requires substantiation. Has it declined? By what metric? According to whom?

4. I found the preceding definition of libido vague and confusing, but if you feel strongly that it should be reinstated, OK.

5. Previous mention of the theory of dreams is awkwardly worded: "proposed that dreams help to preserve sleep by representing as fulfilled wishes that would otherwise awake the dreamer". I noted that in the history Polisher of Cobwebs recommended that this line should be given attribution. The notion that dreams keep you asleep is without question to be found in The Interpretation of Dreams, but it's far from Freud's most important idea about dreams. The main thing is that he postulated that they expressed feelings intelligible to analysis. I provided a citation to his Introductory Lectures.

6. I agree that his theories have been criticized as pseudo-scientific and sexist and I am actually fine with it if Polisher of Cobwebs wants that exact language re-instated. However, I think the criticism needs to be put into the context of the long history of Freud controversy.

7. You're right that Grunbaum has questioned whether psychoanalytic theories are testable. He concluded that they were testable, but that they had not been adequately tested. The previous description of it was misleading. Popper is the main source of the untestability even in principle idea and even Grunbaum explicitly rejects that position as incorrect.

8. On the marginalization of psychoanalysis in psychology departments--not exactly true, since psychoanalysis was never welcomed into academic psychology but was always more closely allied with psychiatry. And it remains influential in far more than just the humanities. It remains influential anywhere there is psychodynamic psychotherapy practiced.

9. The tone of the last paragraph as it was before gives the false impression of a consensus about the status of psychoanalysis; I think it better to acknowledge the controversy with equal weight given to both sides. But I am open to discussion about the best way to address the matter.

10. School of suspicion remarks--if Polisher of Cobwebs wants them reinstated, fine by me. I just thought they tacked away from the main points that belonged in an upfront summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypoplectrus (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

One additional comment on the last statement "Freud in turn was confident that many of his critics rebelled against his ideas for reasons that were more emotional than rational" . Polisher of Cobwebs writes "Your version, which ends with Freud's assertions that his critics were biased against his theories for emotional reasons, cannot remotely be called balanced (and its use of Freud's own writings as a source for that statement is also unacceptable, since that is interpretation of primary source material)." It is appropriate, I think, to use Freud as a source to characterize his own attitude, which is all that was stated in the last line--that he thought his critics were biased. The line does not say whether they were or weren't, it merely states that he found them biased, a fact which is given attribution, sourced to a place in his writings where he says that.Hypoplectrus (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Also please note that I await further comment from Polisher of Cobwebs and anyone else interested before reinstating my changes. Sunray questions whether the controversy material belongs in the lead at all, and I tend to agree that there really shouldn't be more than a mention of the controversy; however, a little more detail on the controversy is in my view preferable to leaving the false impression of of a consensus of marginalization, pseudo-science, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypoplectrus (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not reject all of your changes to the article. I actually meant only that I rejected your changes to the lead; I left those you made to other parts of the article intact, since they don't seem harmful. With that said, let me address your points:

1. Yes, it's relevant that Freud was a Jew. Freud himself considered it important, and so too do his biographers. So, we should mention it. I have no idea how you would know that readers would think this wasn't interesting information. I believe they would.

2. Yes, the facts about Freud's family background are relevant, for much the same reasons that Freud's Jewishness is relevant. The lead needs to cover Freud as a person as well as Freud the thinker.

3. That psychoanalysis has declined is well known, and indeed admitted even by some psychoanalysts. The source used for this statement is Joel Kovel's book A Complete Guide to Therapy, and Kovel is himself a psychoanalyst. This is a fact of great importance to Freud's legacy, and there is therefore every reason why the lead should mention it.

4. The definition of Libido is based on Charles Rycroft's A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Since libido is one of Freud's basic ideas, the lead needs to explain what it is. If you can find a better definition, supported by a proper source, by all means this can be changed.

5. You may have a point, but I believe strongly that any statement about Freud's view of dreams should be based on a secondary source - something written about Freud, and not his own writings. You would have a better chance of making changes about things like this if you try to change the lead slowly - please make one change at a time (so that other editors can consider them on a change by change, edit by edit basis), not a large number of changes at once (since that may lead to all of them being rejected).

6. I don't believe that the wording of your version of the lead gave the accusations that Freud's work is pseudo-scientific and/or sexist proper "context."

7. I am aware of what Grunbaum's views are. There was no mistake in how the previous version of the lead (which I was mainly responsible for) covered them. Actually, that version of the lead didn't mention Grunbaum by name at all; it simply stated that "Critics have debated whether it is possible to test Freudian theories." That is true, and Grunbaum's The Foundations of Psychoanalysis is a perfectly good source for that statement. No statement that Grunbaum shares Popper's views or sees psychoanalytic theories as un-testable was either made or implied in the version of the lead that you changed.

8. Opinions about the truth of the statement that psychoanalysis has been marginalized in psychology departments are not relevant. We go by what reliable sources say. See WP:NOTTRUTH. The influence of psychoanalysis on the field of verbal psychotherapy in general was acknowledged clearly in the past version of the lead.

9. I don't agree with you. I also don't understand the basis of this complaint, since you aren't being clear about it.

10. If you don't have a problem with the inclusion of this material, nothing more need be said. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hypoplectrus' point that details of ethnicity do not belong in the lead. I would add that calling him a "Viennese Jew" would be misleading, at best. Details of Freud's background are well covered in the "Early life" section, and need not be repeated in the lead. The second paragraph of the lead seems to require some serious work to make it acceptable. The definition of libido is, indeed, vague; even misleading. But why is this in the lead? It should be there to show Freud's historical importance. Thus the kind of statement that belongs in the lead would be along the lines of "Freud coined the term libido" and a brief definition of the term, such as "(i.e., the life energies of a person)," then a brief description about the significance of the term. Other terms that Freud defined, such as "transference" should be included with a brief statement about their importance in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. I think that the lead should be completely reworked. We can do that here, if need be. I am hoping that there will not be further reverts. Let's get agreement and then fix it. Sunray (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Stating that someone is a Jew is not primarily a statement about their ethnicity (Jewishness is more complex than that). It is more a statement about their cultural identity. And in Freud's case, it's very relevant information - so I see no grounds for removing it, as you propose. Your comment that "Details of Freud's background are well covered in the 'Early life' section, and need not be repeated in the lead" appears to indicate that you misunderstand the purpose of the lead - its whole point is precisely to summarize and so repeat what is in the article. See WP:LEAD. So the details about Freud's background should stay (obviously they can be reworked or rewritten if necessary, but not removed entirely). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for referring to the MoS regarding the lead. As that guideline states, the lead should "summarize the most important points covered in an article" (WP:MOSINTRO). In practice, details of ethnicity are rarely included in the best WP articles. This article has some problems. I note that it is a former good article. Perhaps we could take a look at some featured articles, and good articles to see how ethnicity is treated. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs asks that changes be smaller and incremental. I get that. I dropped the ball on failing to discuss changes before I edited. But incremental changes can also interfere with a cohesive writing style. I'm assuming that incremental edits are responsible for the fact that the first five sentences in the lead all start with the word "Freud," which reads a bit like Go Dog Go! or something to my ear.

I actually appreciated the level of balance and the knowledge of psychoanalysis in Polisher of Cobwebs's lead, so again I apologize for giving the impression that I wanted to take a hatchet to it. However, I still think the lead could do a better job of focusing on Freud's major contributions to the study of the mind. The biographical detail feels like a distraction, but it's not a huge deal to me. The mention of all the criticisms of Freud seems like a distraction too. But even if the biographical content and the criticisms are left in there, the lead fails in my view to give due weight to Freud's major contributions: the notion that dreams and neurotic symptoms represent intelligible feelings; the notion that the mind can be understood in the same deterministic way that inanimate objects can (psychic determinism); the characterization of the unconscious and its incumbent defense mechanisms. From reading this lead you wouldn't realize that words everybody uses like "defensive," "denial," and "rationalization" derive from psychoanalysis. I would urge a focus on the two pillars of psychoanalysis, psychic determinism and the unconscious.Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To be strictly correct about it, the first sentence in the lead starts with "Sigmund Freud", not "Freud." If you don't like that style and would prefer something else, by all means suggest changes. I do not agree at all that either biographical details or criticism of Freud should be considered "distractions" - they are basic and important matters that the lead needs to cover. I don't have any problem with the discussion of Freud's theories being changed or improved - it's just that it's best that editors discuss these things before making drastic changes. Thank you for being willing to discuss on the talk page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, I appreciate your patience with my clumsiness in attempting a first edit. But I think we're making progress. Let's forget the revision I made and I'll try again. As a next step I will post some suggested amendments on the Talk page for feedback and we'll go from there.Hypoplectrus (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Hypoplectrus' point that "a quick reference to 'Viennese Jew' would be sufficient" in the opening paragraph. I don't think any further elaboration is called for at this early stage the article.

On the subject of Freud's Jewishness, the body of the article contains the sentence:

"Freud was raised by the traditions and beliefs of a Jewish religion; although his attitude towards his religion was 'critically negative,' he always considered himself a Jew."

Freud speaks of having a "critically negative" attitude toward religion in general, only including the Jewish religion with all religion:

"You no doubt know that I gladly and proudly acknowledge my Jewishness though my attitude toward religion, including ours, is critically negative." 04:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)~

Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed the article accordingly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now it is merely misleading. You've changed that sentence to read:

"Freud was raised by the traditions and beliefs of the Jewish religion; although his attitude towards religion was 'critically negative,' he always considered himself a Jew."

The sentence is largely about Freud as a Jew. The reference is to religion in general. There is little justification for almost conflating a reference to religion in general to a comment about Freud as a Jew. My suggestion would be to scrap the sentence. Volumes are written on Freud as a Jew. The above sentence is not representative of Freud as a Jew.

As for the intro, reference to Freud as a Jew should be reduced to merely that he was a "Viennese Jew" as suggested by Hypoplectrus. Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the user who says Freud's Jewish background is not relevant. He was not particularly a supporter of Zionism or other Jewish causes, and his Jewish heritage had no impact on his theories. --RJR3333 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I made this edit. Among the changes I've made is to reduce the mention in the Intro of Freud's being a Jew to just that: "Freud was a secular Jew", including what I think is a good source, a source which explicitly reads: "Freud was a partially assimilated, mostly secular Jew…" Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement that Freud's "Jewish heritage had no impact on his theories" could be, and in fact has been, contested by numerous writers. I would encourage RJR3333 to do more research before making such statements. My only other comment, for now, is that the following statement added by Bus Stop ["According to biographer Ernest Jones (1945) "Freud's Jewishness contributed greatly to his work and his firm convictions about his findings"] should properly have been sourced to Jones himself, and not to the book by Judith Marks Mishne. It's poor form to source a claim about what one book about Freud states to a second book about Freud, when the first is available. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the Christian religions, Jewishness is more than the religion. It is a way of life, a manner in which to filter and assimilate information, a manner in which to conduct intellectual exercises, in particular research. That SF may not have attended synagogue, whether he did or not, is not relevant. He was born a Jew, raised a Jew, and was a Jew. The contribution of his Jewishness to his work is undeniable.

Galfromohio (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that Bus stop has truncated the references to Freud's Jewish background. I agree with the direction of that edit, especially since some of Freud's early critics lumped together his supposed "perversity" and his Jewish background. In consideration of that history, where anti-Semites gave undue weight to his Jewishness, any undue weight about his Jewishness in the lead has the unfortunate effect of repeating the rhetoric of past anti-Semites. For example Peter Gay writes in his biography that "one fundamentalist pastor has denonced him in a venomous anti-Catholic leaflet as 'a Jew who converted to Catholicism' and 'well-known as the world's foremost pervert.' " Gay, Freud: A Life for Our Time, pp. xvi-xvii. I would prefer to remove any reference to his Jewish identity in the lead to avoid an undue weight due to prominence of placement, but I think the edit by Bus stop is a definite improvement.Hypoplectrus (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing we should consider in deciding how to describe Freud's Jewishness in the lead are what reliable sources have said about the subject. To say that emphasizing his Jewishness repeats the rhetoric of anti-Semites only makes sense if you think that emphasizing someone's Jewishness is per se anti-Semitic. I don't believe it is, and Freud, who certainly emphasized his own Jewishness, wouldn't have thought so either. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have followed Sunray's advice to compare the Freud article to other figures of comparable importance that have been rated "good" articles. I looked at Albert Einstein. The lead of Albert Einstein's entry contains no mention of his Jewish heritage and Einstein's Jewish heritage was of far greater consequence in his own life and in world history as Einstein was actively involved with the founding of the state of Israel. Freud, meanwhile, was an avowed atheist who had nothing to do with Zionism or Jewish causes. I believe it's incumbent upon Polisher of Cobwebs at this point to explain why he feels Freud's Jewishness is of such tantamount importance that it belongs in the lead more than Einstein's Jewishness belongs in his lead. I think Polisher of Cobwebs's implication is that Freud's Jewishness caused him to think in an unusual way, but I don't understand that argument. Polisher should elucidate how his Jewishness supposedly affected his work before reverting my edit of the Jewish material out of the lead as of undue weight. It's hard for me to see how Polisher is not making some kind of idiosyncratic value judgment in this case either about Freud or about Jews.Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there, you're making a whole bunch of unreasonable assumptions. For starters, how do you know that Freud had nothing to do with Zionism? What's your source? Freud did not actively participate in the Zionist movement, but he did comment on the issue (see Peter Gay's biography). Regarding my view of Freud, would you please refrain from attributing views to me that I've never expressed? I didn't say that Freud's Jewishness "caused him to think in an unusual way" and didn't want to imply it either. And do please refrain from suggesting that I'm some kind of closet anti-Semite, because that's very uncivil: see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I recall Freud's comment on Zionism was that it was foolish and Jews should concentrate on assimilating into society instead of leaving it. I think he was actually opposed to Zionism. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Freud had a complicated, mixed view of the issue. He did express strong reservations about it, but also said (in a letter) that it had his "strongest sympathies." See page 598 of Peter Gay's biography. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Unconscious/The Unconscious

Afterwriting changed the section heading "The Unconscious" to "Unconscious". I have reverted that, but my reasons may not have been clear in the edit summary, so I'll explain them here. "Unconscious" by itself is a highly ambiguous term. It has multiple meanings, and it can be used either as a noun or as an adjective, and thus it isn't clear what a section titled "Unconscious" is supposed to refer to. "The unconscious" is a comparatively clear term, however, because it is understood to refer to the Unconscious mind, which makes it suitable for the section heading. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I find the beginning paragraph to be poor. We've now removed the fact that Freud was Jewish, but it's more important to mention that Freud was an outstanding student in high school? This seems dumb. Per WP:MOSBEGIN, the first paragraph should define the subject and "it should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." The current first paragraph doesn't do that; instead, it discusses Freud's childhood. I think that it should summarize Freud's accomplishments and his place in history. — goethean ॐ 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have split the first paragraph into two. The new first paragraph can be expanded. The part about his childhood can be removed, in my opinion. — goethean ॐ 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia aspires to certain standards of quality. It aims to be taken seriously as a work of reference. Given the project's various problems, that's an uphill struggle. It does not actually help if we cannot look at conventional works of reference that, unlike this site, are considered reliable. If you look up "Sigmund Freud" in these books, you will find that "Jewish" isn't the first thing you read. Freud is identified as an Austrian instead. You have the right to your view that it's "dumb" to remove the "Jewish" part, but I strongly disagree with you (and as you can see, I have completely changed my mind on this issue). "Jewish" isn't in the lead of Karl Marx or Albert Einstein; there's no reason for it to be in the lead of this article either. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any gain in Goethean's edit here, and nor, at this time, do I see any valid reason why material about Freud's childhood should be removed. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to summarize the article, and it should, obviously, include biographical material - such as basic facts about someone's childhood. Your edit summary ("splitting first paragraph per talk") also seems inappropriate, since you don't have any consensus on the talk page for making the change. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you examine the introductions to the biographies of other major figures and see how much time they spend discussing the childhoods of their respective subjects. — goethean ॐ 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have indeed looked at biographies of other major figures. Karl Marx is an obvious point of reference, as he has often been compared to Freud. That article (a good-quality article, unlike this one) does have basic facts about Marx's childhood in the lead, such as the fact that he was born into a wealthy middle class family in Trier. That appears to be the type of information you want to have removed from this article, for no adequately explained reason. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I'm not getting through for some reason. The intro to the article on Marx does not discuss whether Marx was a good high school student or not. That's probably because it has very little bearing on the impact that Marx made on history. The intro should follow the example of well-written articles, like those on Einstein, Marx, Wittgenstein, Goethe, etc, none of which go into detail about their subject's high school record. — goethean ॐ 04:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You could have explained yourself more clearly. It sounded like you were objecting to the inclusion of any facts about Freud's childhood in the lead ("The part about his childhood can be removed, in my opinion") - which I think is an unreasonable position. I actually agree with you that the part about Freud's being a good high school student is not especially important. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I dislike the multiple parenthetical statements, which make for a very long and complex sentence, but I can't think of a better way to do it at the moment. I'd like to expand the first paragraph to include info about Freud's place in history. Something along the lines of Auden's "whole climate of opinion" line [1] (which oddly is never mentioned in the article!) — goethean ॐ 04:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead does already include a fair bit of information about Freud's place in history. It explains that Freud created the field of verbal psychotherapy, a major historical contribution. It explains that Freud has been seen as a figure similar to Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. It explains, also, that psychoanalysis remains influential on the humanities, but has declined as a psychotherapy and has been marginalized in psychology departments - basic, relevant, and properly sourced information that needs to be there per WP:NPOV. Auden's comments about Freud would be fine for the legacy section, but I'm very doubtful that they would be a good addition to the lead - they're pretty corny. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I agree that how he did in high school is not relevant. I'd like to see the pseudo-science reference removed, and that psychoanalysis has declined or been marginalized, or at least make that sentence more specific – psychoanalytic techniques are widely used in England, for example. I'd also like to see only (or mostly) specialist academic sources being used. I agree that the lead should include Auden's "whole climate of opinion" line, though not necessarily in the first paragraph. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Any comment on whether the fact that Freud was a (secular) Jew should be mentioned in the intro? I find Freud's Judaism to be central to his identity, from the development of psychoanalysis, to Freud's search for an Aryan proponent of his work and the Freud-Jung relationship, to the fraught public reception of psychoanalysis, to Moses and Monotheism, to his move to London amidst the Nazi anschluss towards the end of his life. POC says that since other encyclopedias do not mention it in the intro, we shouldn't either. I do not find this persuasive, and see no reason why Wikipedia should emulate the content of Britannica or other tertiary works. — goethean ॐ 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I could go either way on that issue. I think if I were writing the lead, I would add that he was Jewish, because he regarded it as important, and it certainly informed his thinking, not to mention that he had to leave Austria because of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes...I think that it should be in, but I won't make too big of a fuss over it. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'd like to ask what specifically you see as being the problem with the pseudo-science reference? That can certainly be reconsidered, but it is a very common criticism of Freud's work, and I'd like to know what the rationale would be for removing it. Just to be clear about it, the lead isn't meant to suggest that psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science, simply to make it clear that some critics have seen it as one. Similarly, I view the part about the decline of psychoanalysis as being relevant - that statement is supported by a work by a psychoanalyst, no less, and though it could be rewritten, I'm not sure I understand what the grounds would be for removing it. If other editors like Auden's comments and want to mention them, then by all means let's do that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that we would do well to consider how print works of reference describe Freud. I realize that Wikipedia isn't a print encyclopedia and that we don't have to do something just because print encyclopedias do it, but identifying Freud as a Jew in the lead would be inconsistent with articles such as Karl Marx and Albert Einstein, and that seems like a questionable thing to do. I'm not sure how Freud's being a Jew is more important than Marx's or Einstein's Jewishness. If the lead were to discuss Freud's work and then break with Jung, which it arguably should, then that might be the context in which Freud's being a Jew should be mentioned. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes (diff). I added that he was a psychiatrist, that psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry, I retained the sexist/pseudoscientific criticism, and that it is marginalized in university psychology departments (we should really add "in the United States," which is what the study is about, but so far as I know it's the same elsewhere). I bundled some references, so we don't have footnotes in the middle of sentences. And I've ended the lead with the quote from Auden, so we don't end on a negative note. I also made a few copy edits to the rest of the article, mainly changing "Freud" to "he," because his name was repeated rather a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think many of your changes are an improvement, but I'm not sure at all about the psychiatry stuff. Freud's professional background was in neurology, not psychiatry as far as I'm aware, and standard works of reference typically call him a neurologist, not a psychiatrist. It seems a little strange to be adding that Freud remains influential within psychiatry when we have a reliable source - Shorter - saying that the influence of psychoanalysis within psychiatry has declined drastically since the 1970s. And per WP:NPOV, I don't think it should be a matter of particular concern whether the article "ends on a negative note" or not - we should simply try to reflect the material in reliable sources, and arrange it logically. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Its influence within psychiatry may be on the wane, but it remains influential, as the source I used (Robert Michels) makes clear. [2] Until relatively recently you more or less had to be a psychiatrist to become a psychoanalyst, and most psychiatrists who became therapists undertook psychoanalytic training and psychoanalytic therapy themselves. This began to decline for various reasons (cost and length of treatment being a major one), but it continues to exert a significant influence. Which source are you using that says otherwise? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For psychoanalysis having declined as a therapeutic practice, the article is using this as a source:

Kovel, Joel. A Complete Guide to Therapy: From Psychoanalysis to Behaviour Modification. Penguin Books, 1991 (first published 1976), pp. 96, 123-132, 165-198.

Does anyone know what the correct page number is, and what it says? Also, it would be good to have a more up-to-date source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The page number for the decline of psychoanalysis is page 96, in Kovel: "Freud was a transformer of Western culture, hence his influence is incalculable. It certainly far exceeds whatever particular impact the therapy founded in his name may have. Whatever the fate of Freudian psychoanalysis as an institution - and it has already sunk to a relatively minor role so far as actual therapeutic practice goes - Freud with his methods and central insight remains the progenitor of modern therapy." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the page number. I don't think the source is correct on that point. I think using a source from 1976 about the influence of psychoanalysis in 2012 is problematic, so we should perhaps start to look around for a more recent one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think your edits have improved the lead a great deal. I appreciate Polisher of Cobwebs having recruited SlimVirgin to help--it has--but he persists in underrating the importance of Freud to psychiatry, perhaps because he is unaware of it. The current director of psychiatry residency training at Columbia University Medical School is a psychoanalyst, for example. Doesn't that fact alone reflect the influence of Freud in high places in psychiatry? Polisher of Cobwebs is correct that many psychiatrists have rejected Freud, but that is part of a 100-year controversy. A negative lead does not reflect what reliable sources say, it reflects the negative pole in the debate. Here are a number of other more recent references to the psychiatric and neuroscientific literature on Freud and psychoanalysis and a little of what they say. I think it important to note that Freud is still highly influential to American psychiatry as well as English psychiatry. Some of the references below reflect that.

1. Wallerstein RS. Psychoanalytic treatments within psychiatry: an expanded view. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002 Jun;59(6):499-500.

This is written by the same psychoanalyst and psychiatrist mentioned in Polisher of Cobwebs's Shorter reference. It was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2002. He notes that psychoanalysis dominated American psychiatry from the 1940s to the 1960s followed by a swing of the pendulum toward the dominance of psychopharmacology followed by "the current, truly uneasy search for some integration of these disparate conceptual directions." p. 499

2. Gabbard GO. Sigmund Freud, 1856-1939. Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Feb;161(2):232.

This is a two paragraph summary bio of Freud by a psychiatrist, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004. You should be able to link through to the full text of it here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754770. It acknowledges the controversies surrounding Freud but takes a positive tone and mentions that recent neuroscience has begun to confirm the theory of repression and other Freudian ideas. That is not an idle claim. See next reference.

3. Custers R and Aarts H. The Unconscious Will: How the Pursuit of Goals Operates Outside of Conscious Awareness. Science 2 July 2010: vol. 329, pp. 47-50.

These neuroscientists published this study in "Science" showing evidence of the unconscious and suggest that it is confirmatory of the Freudian idea. See also this study from "Science" showing a cognitive neuroscience basis for the unconscious. Depue BE et al. Prefrontal Regions Orchestrate Suppression of Emotional Memories via a Two- Phase Process. Science 13 July 2007: vol. 317 no. 5835 pp. 215-219.

I am not trying to debate the validity of his work but rather to show that prominent mainstream journals, scientists, etc. continue to pay heed to Freud and that psychoanalysis continues to be practiced in important medical centers. I have already cited Eric Kandel's views to the same effect above. The Auden quote is necessary; it helps to note the enormous impact of Freud on the culture. Auden is but one example of major cultural figures overtly influenced by Freud and who observed his overt influence on the culture. You could also mention Edward Bernays, Kafka, Marquez, etc.

Hypoplectrus (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On the decline of psychoanalysis, both in general and within psychiatry in particular, please see Edward Shorter's book A History of Psychiatry (published in 1997), especially chapter 8: From Freud to Prozac. By the way, I appreciate your point about the problems potentially involved in using an old source, but I'm not sure why you think it's wrong (or why that matters, per WP:VERIFY), and I believe more recent sources would say much the same thing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Science" Section is Biased and Unauthoritative

Some progress was made in restoring balance to the lead. Apart from the first few lines, however, the "Science" section remains totally biased, with hardly any commentators from within psychiatry or within the sciences and almost all the sources after the first lines being avowed Freud-bashers and old references as well. It's silly that an immunologist is quoted and called out for his Nobel prize while a neuropsychiatrist Eric Kandel (also a Nobel laureate) is ignored, no doubt due to the fact that the non-scientist writer(s) of this section never heard of Eric Kandel. The immunologist's comments should be stricken--unless psychiatrists are now considered authorities on immunology and vice versa.

If the "Science" section is to remain what it now is--a free-for-all of voices in the controversy over the scientific status of psychoanalysis--then the Kandel quote I posted in previous sections should be added to the "Science" section in a prominent position. But I don't really understand why the "Science" section has the title "Science," as it really is just a log of criticisms of Freud from weak unauthoritative sources. It should be called "Criticism."

I once again suggest that criticisms of Freud be broken out into a separate section or even a separate article so that this article can do the job of explaining who Freud was and what he did without polemical interference. Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Freud is a controversial and divisive figure. I'm sure that, no matter what the article said, someone would complain that it was biased. It's in the nature of controversial subjects that you can't write articles about them that will please everyone. All I know is that I've tried as hard as I can to edit this article in a neutral and fair way, properly representing both favorable and critical views of Freud. If I haven't included commentators from within psychiatry, that is not the product of some insidious bias against psychiatry on my part, but because psychiatry per se is not one of the subjects that most interests me. The science section is about equally divided between supportive and critical views. I don't see any major problem with it, and nor do I see any reason why Medawar's (famous and well known) comments should be removed. Medawar's being an immunologist means that he knew something about science and medicine, and that is relevant to assessing the scientific merits of psychoanalysis. As a general note, removing sourced material just because you disagree with it is no way of producing a proper article, and neither is including material in a "prominent" position just because you like or agree with it. Such behavior can be considered POV pushing (please see WP:NPOV, if you haven't already). It would make little sense to rename the Science section "Criticism" because criticism of Freud can be found throughout the legacy section (and it belongs there, if we want a useful and informative article). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you don't see any problem with it, you didn't see any problem with the biases in the lead either, and yet even the outside editor you called in didn't agree with you. You admit that "psychiatry per se is not one of the subjects that most interests you." If it doesn't interest you, and you know little about it, what are you doing lording yourself over the Sigmund Freud page? Do not counsel me about Wikipedia politesse when you have reverted every edit I made to this page. Since you seem to know something about criticism of Freud from within the humanities, why don't you work on a section called "Criticism of Freud from Within the Humanities"? If you can't find a way to allow someone who IS interested in and knowledgeable about psychiatry to contribute edits to this page, then what can I do but go back to the grown-ups to try to enforce a rational solution? And I will. But before I do, I welcome suggestions from other more collaborative editors for how to deal with Polisher of Cobwebs and his ownership of this page despite a total lack of scholarship regarding psychiatry.Hypoplectrus (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Constantly accusing other editors of "bias" is not a useful way of approaching disputes over content. You aren't a brand new editor any more, Hypoplectrus, and you should be familiar with policies such as WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You complain that I have reverted every edit you have made to this article. You are wrong, as I did not revert you when you removed mention of the fact that Freud was Jewish from the lead (and I actually now agree with you that it doesn't belong in the lead). You may consider it "rude" of other editors to revert your edits, but I'm afraid that's too bad - reverting edits is not by itself considered "rude" on Wikipedia, and editors emphatically are not expected to accept other editors' changes to articles simply for the sake of politeness (we assess their changes based on their merits). Your edit summary here ("Added Eric Kandel quote to Science / Legacy section. Given that User:Polisher of Cobwebs is going to revert this edit, please note that I have merely added a sourced quote for the time being and not attempted to remove anything"), is extremely rude, however, and in fact a direct personal attack on me. You could be blocked if you continue to make such comments in edit summaries, and you should apologize for it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

To address your other points: I don't believe that this article should have a section called "Criticism of Freud from Within the Humanities", because I think that's a foolish and verbose title to give a section of an encyclopedia article. The titles of article sections should be short and straightforward. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

cuestionamiento a freud.

Es posible que freud llegara a conclusiones interesantes,pero tambien es cierto que la psicologia freudiana es bastante adsurda por lo siguiente,y todo esto dicho desde un punto de vista imparcial.freud basaba el psicoanalisis en el sexo,segun freud,la libido y sus desajustes dan origen a muchas patologias etc..por aquella epoca sus teorias podian tener su razon de ser,pero a dia de hoy,todo eso deberia estar mas que obsoleto,esta mas que demostrado que muchos pacientes no se ajustan a los patrones de freud,de hecho la inmensa mayoria,todo esto corroborado por otros psicoanalistas mas brillantes como erik front o´david cooper,por mencionar algunos..psicoanalistas por aquella epoca habia muchos lo que pasa es que freud sobresalio´mas que otros, no porque seria mas brillante,si no´porque pertenecia a la clase burguesa.achacar al sexo todo tipo de desajustes es de lo mas adsurdo que he oido,sin comentarios. peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.105.247 (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

hay que poner en conocimiento tambien,que freud era cocainomano y experimentaba consigo mismo.yo tampoco estoy de acuerdo con que a dia de hoy las bases de la psicologia,sigan siendo la freudiana.no creo que sea conveniente tratar a nadie de forma sexual, cuando su problema deriva de otras cosas que no tienen nada que ver con el sexo.cuidado antes de hacerle una terapia ha un paciente si se le trata de este modo, es facil que no vuelva por la consulta y salga enfadado.Para finalizar leyendo las opiniones de esta seccion,si,freud era judio pero nacido y residende en austria,aunque eso no tiene mayor relevancia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.105.247 (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

la interpretacion de los sueños.

En realidad el precursor de la interpretacion de los sueños no fue´freud,pues ya las civlizaciones antiguas como los nativos americanos por poner un ejemplo,ya le daban interpretaciones a los sueños,cuando auguraban una salida de caza por ejemplo.por otra parte cundo freud hace mencion a que en el incosciente esta´la base de la consciencia y de la personalidad,es aventurarse demasiado,pues hasta ahora siendo honestos, nadie ha podido demostrar esto ni el propio freud.de hecho hay psicoanalistas actuales que no le dan ningun sentido a los sueños, pues piensan que no tienen ningun fundamento. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.105.247 (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

La psicologia freudiana es de lo mas adsurdo que he leido en mi vida, por eso decidi no hacer una carrera de psicologia clinica,junto con la religion.lo que no entiendo es que a dia de hoy todavia haya profesionales que crean en ello;pues hay otras corrientes,porque tiene que ser freud el centro de la psicologia convencional? aunque afortunadamente cada vez tiene mas detractores.los buenos terapeutas que trabajan en estados unidos que son los mejores a dia de hoy,desde luego que no se basan en freud.descartado tambien por muchos intelectuales,las teorias de edipo y electra,asi como todas sus invenciones,al parecer freud era un enfermo sexual,que nos queria pasar sus problemas al resto de la humanidad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.105.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

pseudociencia..

En la busqueda de mejorar el articulo,es el proposito y sin entrar en valoraciones personales que puedan infringir las normas de la enciclopedia;aporto lo que se´del tema:creo que el articulo es bastante bueno y no habria mucho mas que añadir,salvo que a dia de hoy la psicologia freudiana esta´considerada una pseudociencia,aunque en europa occidental sobre todo, siga siendo la panacea de la psicologia clinica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.105.247 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

yo tambien creo que es una pseudociencia,he leido mucho sobre freud y a estas alturas,no creo en adsoluto nada de sus teorias ni de sus discipulos, ni que realmente descubriera algo real;por eso opino yo tambien que es una pseudociencia.Lo que no se puede es hacer de la libido y el sexo en general,la colunna vertebral de la mente humana,eso es una herejia cientifica,la mente humana,va mucho mas alla de todo eso.No entiendo como puede haber terapeutas que crean en ello..o´igual fingen que creen... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.105.247 (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

His life, his family, his personal biography generally

Freuds personal and family life and personal biography are completely ignored here. That's huge hunk of important information. If not added here, it should be added somewhere, perhaps as a separate article. His personal and family life had tremendous effect on his work.

Poihths (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Label Applied Due to Unresolved Bias

As I have repeatedly noted and argued at length on the Talk Pages, this article is not neutral, particularly the lead and the legacy section. Critics of Freud are given undue weight and in general there is too much editorializing. I would assert that good Wikipedia articles about scientists and philosophers, even those about thinkers who have numerous critics, do not spend this much time featuring objections and do not place photographs of critics on their pages. Even Adolf Hitler's page is free of irrelevant photographs of his critics and conquerors, as is thinker Martin Heidegger's, even though critics have good reason to label him a Nazi. The pages on Karl Popper and Frederick Crews, for example, are appropriate spaces for these critics' views to be expounded in detail or for their photographs. On the Freud page, critics ought to get a mention, but they should not be given space comparable to subject matter that expounds Freud's thinking or details his biography. Comments in praise of Freud could be thinned out if they did not have to counterbalance all the negative editorializing. The controversy over Freud deserves its own section or page, perhaps, but it is of secondary importance to the Freud page and needs to be given explanation instead of the present welter of confusing 'for' and 'against' votes which have the effect of trying to participate in the conflict rather than objectively describe it.Hypoplectrus (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

POV Dispute Label

As I have repeatedly noted and argued at length on the Talk Pages, this article is not neutral, particularly the lead and the legacy section. Critics of Freud are given undue weight and in general there is too much editorializing. I would assert that good Wikipedia articles about scientists and philosophers, even those about thinkers who have numerous critics, do not spend this much time featuring objections and do not place photographs of critics on their pages. Even Adolf Hitler's page is free of irrelevant photographs of his critics and conquerors, as is thinker Martin Heidegger's, even though critics have good reason to label him a Nazi. The pages on Karl Popper and Frederick Crews, for example, are appropriate spaces for these critics' views to be expounded in detail or for their photographs. On the Freud page, critics ought to get a mention, but they should not be given space comparable to subject matter that expounds Freud's thinking or details his biography. Comments in praise of Freud could be thinned out if they did not have to counterbalance all the negative editorializing. The controversy over Freud deserves its own section or page, perhaps, but it is of secondary importance to the Freud page and needs to be given explanation instead of the present welter of confusing 'for' and 'against' votes which have the effect of trying to participate in the conflict rather than objectively describe it.

(Apologies for the repeat post, there was an error starting a new section)Hypoplectrus (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And as I have repeatedly noted, with an article about a controversial person like Freud, someone is always going to feel that the article is not neutral, regardless of what it says. I won't remove the "neutrality disputed" tag, but as an experienced Wikipedia editor (I've been here for more than two years now, and I've seen a lot) I can tell you that it won't make any difference. The "neutrality disputed" tag may remain there for a long while, before the dispute that resulted in its being placed there is forgotten, probably without the article having been changed significantly. That's what usually happens in these cases. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding content, I would encourage you to develop consensus on the talk page before hacking out great chunks of it. I'm not sure shifting it to a different or a new article would be a workable solution. I suggested myself once that that could be done, but there was no support for that proposal. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you and I agree that criticism should be isolated in its own section or article and no one else comments, then why not do it?Hypoplectrus (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't very greatly care whether the legacy section (which is not a "criticism" section, since it includes positive as well as negative views of Freud) is kept in this article or turned into its own article. The fact that there was no support for turning it into a separate article when I first proposed that leads me to suppose that most editors are content with the status quo, and for that reason I'd support keeping this material in the article for now. You could place a request for comment if you think the material should be moved elsewhere. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Domhoff

Hypoplectrus is attempting, through edit warring and without talk page discussion, to remove the following sentence from the article: "More generally the dream researcher G. William Domhoff has disputed claims of specifically Freudian dream theory being validated." He alleges it to be a contradiction (because "generally" conflicts with "specifically"), and claims not to be able to understand it. I have to say, that is the strangest reason I have seen any user give for removing properly sourced material from an article in some time. The terms "generally" and "specifically" would logically contradict only if they are applied simultaneously to the same thing. The sentence Hypoplectrus is trying to remove does not do this. "More generally" simply means, as anyone who considers the context of that sentence in the paragraph of which it is part, that this criticism of psychoanalytic theories is additional to the other criticisms of psychoanalytic theories mentioned in the paragraph. "Specifically" indicates that the claim that Freudian ideas about dreams, as opposed to ideas about dreams that one way or another involve unconscious processes, have been supported by research. No contradiction exists. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:3O, I have to agree with PoC that this sentence as it stands is appropriate. Hypoplectrus, if you disagree, please use the WP:RFC process to attract a wider audience. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not attempting to remove the sentence by edit warring. I'm attempting to remove it. You are attempting to keep it in. The back and forth of edits between us is the edit war. It takes two to tango. Would you consider changing it to: "Psychologist G. William Domhoff rejects Freudian dream theory." That would be less confusing and better worded.Hypoplectrus (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. That would be a fundamental change to the sentence's meaning, and you've done nothing to show that such a change would make the material more accurate. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Additions / Amendments to Lead 6.11.12

After following the proposed Bold / Revert / Discuss cycle to the letter, we are now in the discuss phase re: some possible changes to the lead. It appears there was some consensus about reducing the footprint of Freud's Jewish heritage in the lead--in my view an improvement, as I say above in a longer note that includes more of my reasons for thinking so.

Generally speaking, what goes into the lead has extra weight due to "prominence of placement" (see the Neutral Point of View page [[3]] under "Due and undue weight" if you're interested in WP's characterization of factors that can create undue weight). That's why I'm particularly interested in getting the lead to this important article right.

One of the things I like best about the lead as it is now (Polisher of Cobwebs informs me that the current version is mainly his / her work) is that it appropriately credits Freud as founder of psychotherapy, which deserves weight in the lead because it is one of the most broadly visible results of Freud's work and it is also indisputable. I do find the wording "verbal psychotherapy" a bit idiosyncratic versus the more common "talking therapy" or "talking cure." I also think a brief definition of what psychotherapy is sheds enormous light on Freud’s contributions without getting into controversial territory.

I would like to see the following sentence added to the lead, perhaps bottom of the first paragraph or the top of the second: "Along with Josef Breuer, Freud invented modern psychotherapy, in which a patient seeks relief from depression, anxiety, fear, obsessional behavior, or other symptoms by talking to a therapist who helps the patient better understand his or her motivations, behaviors, feelings, and conflicts." I think this description gets at Freud's significance with a minimum of technical jargon; it will require emendation to the sentence that currently refers to "verbal psychotherapy."

The most problematic passage in the lead is this one: "Freud's theories have been criticized as pseudo-scientific[3] and sexist,[4] and they have been marginalized within psychology departments, although they remain influential within the humanities.[5] Critics have debated whether it is possible to test Freudian theories.[6] Some researchers claim evidence exists for some of Freud's theories.[7]"

Everything in the passage is true (except that Freud was never central in academic psychology in the first place), but it is not terribly neutral because of undue weight given to many criticisms without any contrasting views to balance it (again see the NPOV page [[4]] under "Due and undue weight"). The only statement in support of the validity of Freud's work in the current lead--"Some researchers claim evidence exists for some of Freud's theories.[7]"--temporizes quite a bit by using "some" twice and by using the word "claim", which the NPOV page specifically calls out as a word to avoid because it is a covert "expression of doubt." (See NPOV page [[5]] under "Words to watch.")

I would thin out the criticisms (which now include 'pseudo-scientific,' 'sexist,' 'marginalized,' 'debatable whether it's testable') and strengthen the support (which now mentions only that some critics make a (dubious) "claim" that some of Freud's ideas could be correct). This would avoid undue weight to the criticisms in the lead.

The line that says Freud's theories have been marginalized in psychology departments but remain influential within the humanities clearly misleads the reader into thinking that Freud now belongs to the humanities and not the sciences. I'd consider changing the line to "they remain influential within the humanities and psychiatry."

To further remedy this misleading characterization, I would like to see Eric Kandel's views included in the lead. For those who don't know, he is the neuroscientist who won the Nobel in medicine in 2000 for elucidating the biological basis of learning in the Aplysia sea slug and is the author of the classic neuroscience text used at every top medical school in America, "Principles of Neural Science." As such his views on the scientific relevance of psychoanalysis ought to carry more weight than those of Richard Webster, who is not a scientist, and more than Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg, neither of whom even has a Wikipedia page, unless Greenberg is the saxophone teacher described here [[6]].

Kandel wrote a review of the state of psychiatry at the end of the twentieth century in the "American Journal of Psychiatry" in which he criticized psychoanalysis for failing to update its methods but also asserted that "psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind."

I suggest adding the following line: "Renowned neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Eric Kandel wrote at the end of the twentieth century that 'psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind.' " Ref: Kandel ER., “Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: a new intellectual framework for psychiatry revisited.” American Journal of Psychiatry 1999; 156(4):505-24.

Including Kandel's view is appropriate given his stature and would balance out the current criticisms, none of which come from within the field of neuroscience.

Because this was a long post, I'll summarize the changes I propose:

Revise "verbal psychotherapy" to "talking therapy" with brief definition, which I have written out above

Revise "remain influential within the humanities" to "remain influential within the humanities and psychiatry"

Reduce number of criticisms to avoid "undue weight"

Add comment from Eric Kandel with citation (see above). He is a much more significant commentator than any currently cited in the lead, has offered a concise review in support of psychoanalysis, and he is a non-polarizing, mainstream science figure with a balanced view of psychoanalysis that includes support and criticisms.

I await feedback from other editors before proceeding with edits.Hypoplectrus (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording "verbal psychotherapy", to which Hypoplectrus objects, is directly from the source used, Donald H. Ford and Hugh B. Urban's Systems of Psychotherapy: A Comparative Survey. It's from page 109, and the full sentence in which it occurs reads, "The entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy has been built upon his initial work", the "his" referring to Freud. I see no reason to change that wording, and in fact changing it would falsify the source. A better change might be to add more sources to the lead to indicate more clearly what the wording is based upon. If you want to add something about Breuer, you need to find a proper source for that (and be careful to avoid synthesis of sources). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As for your complaint that the lead is unduly critical of Freud, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. The predominant view of Freud's scientific work is a negative or critical one. You may think the lead is too critical of Freud, but probably other people would think that it wasn't critical enough, since it doesn't simply state all these criticisms of Freud's work (that it's pseudo-scientific, etc) as fact. Whether the mainstream negative view of Freud is justified or not is a totally different question, and one that we aren't here to discuss, as Wikipedia is not a debating forum or a chat site. Yet that negative view does exist, and we need to reflect it properly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your objections to the sentence, "Some researchers claim evidence exists for some of Freud's theories": Yes, I agree that it may be awkwardly written. However, the two "somes" in the sentence are there in the interests of strict accuracy. Not all researchers would claim that any of Freud's theories are supported, those who do (Fisher and Greenberg are the "some" in question) are careful to qualify their support for Freud, extending it to some of his theories but not to others. I don't very much care whether "claims" or some other word is used here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus complains that, "The line that says Freud's theories have been marginalized in psychology departments but remain influential within the humanities clearly misleads the reader into thinking that Freud now belongs to the humanities and not the sciences". Why "misleads"? To a considerable extent, it is now true that Freud belongs to the humanities rather than the sciences. Whether that ought to be the case or not is an irrelevant question here; it happens to be true, and it's also supported by a reliable source, a New York Times story. That Freud remains influential within psychiatry I greatly doubt - on the contrary, many psychiatrists are very hostile to him. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to including "Renowned neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Eric Kandel wrote at the end of the twentieth century that 'psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind" in the lead. He may be a Nobel-prize winner, but that's still one man's view, and it's clearly WP:UNDUE to include it - just as it would be WP:UNDUE to mention any of the extremely negative things said about Freud and psychoanalysis by equally eminent authorities. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you summarize your points, I will also summarize mine:

No, we should not change "verbal psychotherapy" to "talking therapy".

No, we should not change "remain influential within the humanities" to "remain influential within the humanities and psychiatry"

No, we should not reduce the number of criticisms

No, we should not add the comment from Eric Kandel

Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Now it gets interesting. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, bro, and tried to compromise in good faith. I notice you are not extending me the same courtesy in the slightest. I am adding the sourced Eric Kandel quote to the lead, as it is more than appropriate that someone who appreciates Freud's work also be allowed to comment on it in the prominent lead section, being the Freud page and all. The WP:NPOV guidelines, I gently remind you, counsel against your removing sourced material even if you disagree with it. This is not only sourced material, it's reputable source material from the Nobel laureate who is also the leading neuroscience educator of the last several decades, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Feel free to add your most savage attack from Hans Eysenck or Richard Webster since the last paragraph of your lead is already quite clearly decided on a negative and critical attitude to Freud, as you yourself have indicated is what you think appropriate. One of each of the opposing quotes along with a comment on the longstanding Freud controversy would be far more neutral than what is there now. Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not your bro. Your suggestion that I am not compromising in good faith is wrong - I have refrained from reverting some of your edits to the lead, and grant that they may be improvements. If you cite Eric Kandel's views in the lead, I will remove them. Adding a quote about how wonderful psychoanalysis is, while leaving out possible quotes that take the opposite view, is POV pushing. WP:NPOV does not say that sourced material can never be removed - there is no such rule, and in fact WP:UNDUE shows that sourced material can indeed be removed, if it doesn't meet the test of due weight. You seem to think I share the views of Hans Eysenck and Richard Webster. My only response is that it is foolish and destructive to leap to conclusions about what other editors do or do not believe. You are perfectly right that I think the lead should be "critical" of Freud, if what you mean by that is that I think that the critical views of Freud that predominate in reliable sources should be properly represented. That's the appropriate and encyclopedic way of dealing with things. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's on you to add a quote if you think a counterbalance is needed to the one I have added. I don't think any such counterbalance is required given the unduly critical tone you have established and are defending with great vigor. I repeat, WP does indeed counsel against removing reputable sourced material in disputes, but you really know that. Your statement that Eric Kandel "may be a Nobel-prize winner, but that's still one man's view" does not invalidate my properly sourced reference to his valuable commentary. I am in no way POV pushing--you are of course pushing the critical view when the body of the article itself does not present a unanimously critical picture but a mixture of different viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypoplectrus (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to read WP:UNDUE? And maybe WP:VERIFY too, since you added unsourced nonsense about how Freud's theories remain influential in psychiatry - something that hasn't been true since the 1970s. Try reading Edward Shorter's A History of Psychiatry, he's good on this subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Hypoplectrus is continuing to push the Freud-is-an-important-influence-on-psychiatry line, here is Edward Shorter on the subject, from the book I mentioned: "In the background of the evolution of the DSM series lay the ongoing decline of psychoanalysis. DSM-IV dropped the term neurosis because the new task force realized that it now had enough votes to get away with it. As psychiatric historian Mitchell Wilson said of the psychoanalysts in the 1970s, 'The balance of power within American psychiatry had been shifting under their very feet. What had been the new, modern psychiatry only two decades earlier had become...an encumbrance too unwieldly for [1970s psychiatry] to bear.'" And there's much more where that came from. If Hypoplectrus thinks that Kandel somehow shows that Freud is still an important influence on modern psychiatry, he can produce his source and quote the relevant passages. We need to know just what his claims are based on. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here again is Shorter, discussing the decline of the influence of psychoanalysis on psychiatry: "Old hands were shocked at the changes. When Robert Wallerstein was a resident at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Topeka, Kansas (then under the sway of the Menninger Clinic), psychoanalysis was, ' the road to the treatment of mental disorder. ' His residency training consisted mainly of sessions in depth psychotherapy. In a resident's average workweek of 40 hours, 20 would be given to 'individual psychotherapeutic work with patients.' Twenty hours a week times 50 weeks times three years equaled '3000 hours of psychotherapy during the residency training period.' Since 1949, noted Wallerstein, there had been vast changes in the training of young psychiatrists. In a typical four-year residency today, the major rotations are 'no longer psychotherapy focused but rather are drug-management focused.'...In the passage of psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy from 50 percent to 2.5 percent of the graduate curriculum may be traced the decline and virtual demise of psychoanalysis within psychiatry." From Shorter, pages 306-307. That is so different from the material Hypoplectrus added that I think he owes us an explanation. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My small addition to your lead was: "Renowned neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Eric Kandel wrote at the end of the twentieth century that 'psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind.' "

Ref: Kandel ER., “Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: a new intellectual framework for psychiatry revisited.” American Journal of Psychiatry 1999; 156(4):505-24.

The explanation is that Eric Kandel is a, if not the, leading authority in neuroscience today and he spoke of the vital place of psychoanalysis in psychiatry in a 1999 review of the state of mind science published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which is published by and for psychiatrists. Reference above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypoplectrus (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not good enough. Your addition stated that Freud and psychoanalysis remain influential in American psychiatry. I produced a source stating the exact opposite. I was looking for quotations from Kandel - just where does he say that psychoanalysis is still influential on psychiatry, and how does he reconcile that with other sources that flatly state the opposite? Please remember that for editors who don't have access to your source, we simply have to go by your claims about what it says. You could have dealt with that by discussing in more detail what Kandel says, and in fact you have to, under the circumstances, since what you're saying sounds so implausible. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding your edit summary here, ("correcting inaccurate impression of Freud's irrelevance to modern psychiatry"), the lead didn't in fact say anything about Freud's relevance or irrelevance to modern psychiatry. In fact it didn't mention psychiatry at all. Are you under some misapprehension about what it is? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We had gone back and forth about Freud's relevance to modern psychiatry. You say he is irrelevant, a viewpoint which is already represented in the lead you wrote. And I would like to add that there are scientists like Kandel, Nobel laureate in neuroscience and author of the standard textbook of neuroscience used in medical schools, who think he is relevant. I would like to add to the lead that there are teaching hospitals with a psychoanalytic outlook like McLean which is very influential and affiliated with Harvard Medical School.Hypoplectrus (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The viewpoint that Freud is not relevant to psychiatry was not represented in the lead. That's because the lead did not mention psychiatry. I ask again whether you know what psychiatry is. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And how, might I ask, is that a constructive question? You have referred me to the pages on civility, which is almost dizzying to think about. It seems to me this "dialogue," if it ever was one, has completely broken down. Meanwhile, I find the following statement among your most perplexing. You wrote above: "I have refrained from reverting some of your edits to the lead, and grant that they may be improvements." Which edits of mine would those be that you left intact and consider to be improvements? Because I am not aware of any. Hypoplectrus (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it a constructive question? Let's go over it again. You alleged in an edit summary that the lead gave the impression that Freud is irrelevant to psychiatry. I pointed out that the lead did not mention psychiatry. You dodged the point and tried to change the subject. Given that response, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that you may suffer from some confusion about what psychiatry is. To return to Kandel: his comments are undue in the lead, and will be removed, either by me or by other editors. The problem with quoting Kandel is simple: he is only one of many, many people who have expressed opinions about psychoanalysis. It would be appropriate to mention Kandel in the lead and quote his views only if there were some reason why his opinions about psychoanalysis were more important than those of the many other authorities who could be quoted instead. There is no such reason. The only grounds you've given for quoting Kandel appears to be that you, personally, like what he says. That's a crummy, utterly unencyclopedic reason for including anything. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see which of your edits to the lead I have not reverted, you can, of course look at the article's revision history.

Hypoplectrus wrote above: "The explanation is that Eric Kandel is a, if not the, leading authority in neuroscience today and he spoke of the vital place of psychoanalysis in psychiatry in a 1999 review of the state of mind science published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which is published by and for psychiatrists. Reference above."

Polisher of Cobwebs response: "I was looking for quotations from Kandel - just where does he say that psychoanalysis is still influential on psychiatry, and how does he reconcile that with other sources that flatly state the opposite?"

Here is what Kandel himself wrote (in the same 1999 article) on the declining influence of psychoanalysis in psychiatry in the United States: "As a mode of therapy, psychoanalysis is no longer as widely practiced as it was 50 years ago. Jeffrey [citation, American Psychoanalyst 1998] claims that the number of patients seeking psychoanalysis steadily declined by 10% a year over the last 20 years, as has the number of gifted psychiatrists seeking training in psychoanalytic institutes" (Amer. J Psychiatry 156:4, 1999, p. 520). Esterson (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Early Life

The first paragraph of the section "Early Life" ends with the sentence: "According to his biographer Ernest Jones (1945), Freud's Jewishness, though he was a secular Jew, contributed significantly to his work.[11]"

However the citation reference is not, as one might expect, to Ernest Jones himself, but to a book by Judith Marks Mishne, The Evolution and Application of Clinical Theory (1993), and is without a page reference. Nor is the date accorded to Jones (1945) related to his three part biography, the volumes of which were published in 1953, 1955 and 1957. (According to his Wikipedia entry, there is no book by Jones with the publication date 1945.)

A cursory check of Jones's biographical volumes does not find confirmation of the contention that he stated that Freud's Jewishness contributed significantly to his work. More specifically, the 27 page chapter XIII "Religion" in volume 3 does not include such a statement. I have also checked, using the indices, the biographies of Freud by Clark, Gay and Breger, and can find nothing along the lines of the above contention. If no such evidence is provided by other editors, I shall delete the sentence in question. Esterson (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, here, delete it. In addition to questions about its accuracy, I find the discussion of Freud's "Jewishness" vague to the point where I do not understand what is specifically meant by it.Hypoplectrus (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I also have no objection to this material being removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Final lead paragraph

Just noting that I restored the original order of this, where we end with the Auden quote. [7] The point of the structure was to start that paragraph with the criticism (pseudoscientific etc), then to add "regardless of the scientific content ...," and continue with Auden's view. Someone had reversed this order, and it didn't read so well, so I switched it back. I also removed the "school of suspicion" sentence as it wasn't explained and isn't self-explanatory. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to your changes. So long as you're here, SlimVirgin, you might want to comment on some of the other issues currently under dispute. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's quite hard to follow what the issues are, but I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Freud and feminism

I have blocked the IP who was repeatedly removing sourced info from the article. It is my impression that the feminist critique of Freud's work is a major and a notable aspect of the subject. If there is a consensus here that this is not the case, we can look at removing the section. Any comments? --John (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now semi-protected the article until a consensus can be reached here. --John (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the relevant policy is due weight, rather than notability. Feminist reactions to Freud and psychoanalysis are obviously an important part of his legacy, and much has been written about them. One could argue that the entire legacy section should be turned into a new article, but simply removing the material on feminism, while leaving everything else intact, seems extremely strange, and I don't think there's any justification for it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Influenced list

In the edit field for this article, the following message is visible over the influenced list: "Please include only people involved in mental health care here, not philosophers, cultural theorists, artists, novelists or other people influenced by Freud. There are far too many of them to list here, and it serves no useful purpose to try." Nevertheless, in total disregard for this, a user has added Harold Bloom and "Frank Kafka" (sic). I won't remove them right away, but neither Bloom nor Kafka was involved in mental health, and neither belongs on that list, for the reason in the message. If the user who added these names wishes to change the criteria for the list, I suggest he develop a consensus the criteria should be changed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to list the overall most prominent people influenced by Freud rather than only listing people involved in mental health care, which gives the impression that Freud's influence does not extend outside of psychology. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. There should, however, be some definite criteria for the list, otherwise it would become too long. It might make sense to restrict it only to people mentioned in the legacy section, which currently neither Bloom nor Kafka is. I think Kafka at least should be removed from the list; I'm very skeptical that he was "influenced" by Freud in any significant way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine. — goethean ॐ 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

POC, this will obviously come as a shock to you, but go to any biography of Kafka and look up Freud in the index. You will then learn still more new and exciting facts that have escaped the attention of your beloved Freud-bashers--in this case, Freud's seminal influence on Kafka, which Kafka states explicitly in his diaries. You say "I'm very skeptical that Kafka was 'influenced' by Freud in any significant way." Clearly, you are unfamiliar with Kafka's biography, much as you are unfamiliar with psychiatry, by your own admission (see above). So why do you express skepticism when you have no reason for it? It seems symptomatic of your biased conviction that Freud's legacies are all "negative" as you put it above. Meanwhile, the article's woefully inadequate "Legacy" section needs a subsection on Freud's substantial influence on modern art and fiction.Hypoplectrus (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This Kafka bio does mention Freud, but does not present evidence for a seminal influence. — goethean ॐ 21:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus, if you want to add a section on Freud's influence on art and literature (or indeed literary criticism), then go ahead, if you have sources for it. Adding such a section would have been a better use of your time than pointless edit warring, or placing useless "neutrality disputed" banners on articles. But unless there's actually good evidence that Freud was an important influence on Kafka, he should be removed from the "influenced" list. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

goethean, your link does more than mention Freud. It explicitly states Freud's influence on Kafka. It says, "Kafka had long ago acknowledged Freud as an influence on The Judgement and he had taken an interest in another Austrian psychoanalyst, Otto Gross...." The Judgement was the creative breakthrough for Kafka, the story where he settled on the method that would characterize all his later work. Don't you think that your source refutes PoC's statement "I'm very skeptical that Kafka was 'influenced' by Freud in any significant way." ?Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs: Do you still want to remove Kafka from the list of people influenced by Freud given Goethean's source, which says "Kafka had long ago acknowledged Freud as an influence"? You are indeed right that edit warring is a waste of my time. I wish it were a waste of yours. You have hardly allowed me to make a single unmolested change to the Freud page and completely rejected my early attempts to enter into friendly, reasonable dialogue. That is hardly an auspicious beginning for me to get to work on a new section.Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus: If you post a section including Freud's influence on Kafka, will you also note the following?

In contrast to his earlier enthusiasm for Freud, Kafka undertook a heavy criticism of psychoanalysis from 1917 onwards. He attacked Freudian ideas from religious, philosophical and therapeutic points of view." [8]

Incidentally, it ill behoves someone who bandies about the term "Freud bashers" for critics of Freud to accuse Polisher of Cobwebs of having "biased conviction". Nor do I think it appropriate for you to describe Polisher of Cobwebs as "lording" himself over the Sigmund Freud page when as far as I can see he is appropriately concerned about balance in regard to a figure about whom strong opinions and claims are made both in his favour and against. Esterson (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Esterson, on the subject of Freud's influence, you suggest that it should also be noted Kafka was critical of Freud in addition to being influenced by him. Sure, I do not dispute that, and I see no reason to suppress the fact. The point that ought to be made on this page is that Freud had a major impact on the movement known as magical realism, wherein expressionistic material is construed by an author as a revision and alteration of real experience. This is one of the ways that Freud has influenced literature and also cinema. To note that Kafka criticized Freud or later rejected him entirely is to make a different point--it's to deflect the topic back onto validity. I think validity and criticism of it needs to be discussed in its own section.

On the subject of PoC and my wonderful working relationship with him, your assessment is not at all fair. He thinks he is "appropriately concerned about balance," as you contend, but his idea of balance is to fairly and accurately represent a "negative" view of Freud, as he puts it, as if that were factual and as if divergent views were therefore biased. For example, he fought bitterly against my suggestion that Freud continues to influence psychiatry today, even when I provided numerous sources, and shrieked at me "Do you know what psychiatry is?". He fights against my point that Freud influenced Kafka, which is, unlike his assertion that Freud has no role in psychiatry today, a fact. I have no need to conduct an ad hominem campaign against PoC (even when his own comments are routinely ad hominem) except that I sincerely believe he has exhibited a distorted view of the facts about Freud and has made it very difficult for me to correct his errors. Two other editors, not me, have suggested here and here that PoC has come to "own" the Freud page. Here is one of the comments on Polisher of Cobwebs from another editor who observed the proceedings when I brought this to arbitration:

"Reading the discussion at the talk page carefully, I think the problem is in part that the article has come to be "owned" by one individual with strong views. Some of those views are sound and well-justified, others are less sustainable, especially in areas where there is controversy or vagueness in the source materials. The problem is that the tone of the discussion (words like "I reject..." - this is a community encyclopaedia) is trenchantly negative towards anyone with a different view. Orderinchaos 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)"

That is precisely what I refer to when I say he is lording himself over this page in a non-collaborative way. The result is extraordinary difficulty improving the page and correcting inaccuracies and biases on it, such as the major error that would suggest Freud is no longr influential to psychiatry.Hypoplectrus (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus: Thanks for your measured response to my comments. Let me acknowledge straight away that I have missed out on the beginning of this POV dispute (around early June 2012), so my comments were made without sufficient knowledge of the details. Apologies all round. However, having checked these changes from 9 June [9] I must say I agree with PoC to this extent: "Regarding content, I would encourage you to develop consensus on the talk page before hacking out great chunks of it" (or, I would add, making several substantial changes in one go).

Incidentally, one type of problem with these exchanges is that one's own viewpoint can play too great a role in suggestions for content (I don't exclude myself from this, though I do try to maintain a policy of not removing any relevant items, preferring to briefly add alternative information or views as appropriate). Consider your writing above: "The point that ought to be made on this page is that Freud had a major impact on the movement known as magical realism…". I suspect it would take a lot of time to justify such an emphatic statement ("major influence"), not to mention differences of opinion on what constitutes "magic realism"[10] Isn't there enough to say about Freud without venturing into such controversial territory? Esterson (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out. I agree completely that one should try to establish consensus before making big changes. I told PoC that I had made a mistake by initially reverting a big chunk of material without discussion and in fact I explicitly apologized to PoC--twice--once I learned it was his material I had removed (see above under "Freud Controversy," I think it is, on the Talk page). I also did not try to remove anything that size again. I made a sincere effort to compromise and enter into rational discussion here and I was rebuffed so thoroughly that I scaled back my ambitions so that I tried to remove zero content from the article and merely suggested adding a comment about Freud from neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Eric Kandel--the comment was about the lasting relevance of Freud's model of the mind, and it was published in a review of the state of mind science in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1999. (Kandel is by the way plenty critical of Freud and his heirs for their failure to publish their findings according to medical methodology.) PoC would not let me add it. Eventually another editor that PoC called in made some improvements to the lead and accepted my point and my sources, posted on the Talk page, showing that Freud is still influential within psychiatry. I was then able to add Eric Kandel's quote to the Legacy / Science section. PoC left it in (though he promptly moved it to the bottom of the section).

I think it would be easy to provide sources that show Freud's influence on magical realism, but I don't think the article has to be that specific--if you find that statement controversial or think it requires too much argument, that's fine. But an encyclopedia article that neglected to comment on Freud's influence on artists and pop culture would not be giving a complete picture of Freud and the impact of his ideas. Artists like Eugene O'Neill, Kafka, Alfred Hitchcock, Salvador Dalí, Picasso, Virginia Woolf (whose Hogarth Press published Freud's work in England), and many many others were directly, openly influenced by Freud in ways that should be easily demonstrable and non-controversial, even if you think Freud was a charlatan, as PoC seems to. Right now, there is the one quote from W.H. Auden (that was added against PoC's objections by the editor he called in to comment), but otherwise little to reflect Freud's very sizable impact on modern art. That impact is not a value judgment, but just historical fact, and I don't see how it has any bearing on the validity debate, except that it shows he has been taken seriously by some very smart and accomplished people. Similarly, I think the article ought to notice the change in the public view of childhood as having an extraordinary impact on adult life, a big sociological change which owes to Freud, or to notice words that have entered common parlance from the domain of psychoanalysis: "defense mechanism", "defensive", "denial," "rationalization", "anal", etc. Again, this is just historical fact, not value judgment, and it seems all this has been neglected or even suppressed due to anti-Freud bias. I can provide sources of course should any of this be allowed into the article.Hypoplectrus (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not recall having objected to Eric Kandel's views being mentioned somewhere in this article. I did object to them being mentioned in the lead, but that is another matter. If I moved Kandel's views to the end of the science section, that is because that is where they logically belong - Kandel made his comments after most of the other people mentioned in that section, and there was no valid reason why they should have been placed at its beginning. The Auden quote is not something that I would have added myself, but I don't especially care whether it is there or not, and have never tried to remove it. Hypoplectrus would do well to refrain from leaping to assumptions about what other editors believe about Freud or anything else, something which is, in any case, not relevant. Only people's edits matter. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus: I agree that Freud's influence on artists, films, etc, is worthy of inclusion in the article. Again, you are right that there has been a change in the public view of childhood as having an extraordinary impact on adult life largely as a result of the popularisation of Freud's ideas, though this raises a host of questions, such as whether the public perception is the same as what Freud regarded as central (e.g., castration anxiety, "the severest trauma of [a man's] life"), or the extent that the popular view is valid, let alone Freud's specific contentions. If you want to add paragraphs by all means propose them on the Talk page, though I suggest you omit questioning other editor's motivations, such as suggesting that PoC thinks Freud was a charlatan, which in my view is unsustainable. Esterson (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Plz remove reference to Sartre: he was NOT influenced by Freud. Sartre's cartesian philosophical position is diametrically opposed even to the concept of the Unconsciousness. S.'s own "existential psychoanalysis" is rather indebted to Bachelard and to Wilhelm Stekel to a moderate extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlterBerg (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sartre was indeed influenced by Freud, and this is noted in the article itself (there is more that could have been included). It is true that Sartre had major disagreements with Freud, but many people who have had major disagreements with Freud have nevertheless been influenced by him in important ways, and Sartre was one of them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a fallacy. You then should also include Karl Popper in that list. And where did Sartre state that he was influenced by Freud? Obviously he took some notice of him, as he did of about millions of others (Derrida and Lévi-Strauss even held that Sartre actually did not have any thorough knowledge of F./psychoanalysis at all). Btw. The fact that S. wrote a script on F. (for Huston) don't mean much either; it was a m/l hack, he was in debt with the IRS and merely needed the money. Imo, all good reasons for removing S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlterBerg (talk • contribs) 08:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources used in the article indicate that Sartre was influenced by Freud. You are entitled to disagree with them if you like, but simply disagreeing with something isn't a valid reason for removing it from an article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can seen, there is only one citation in the three sentences on Sartre that is claimed to support that he was influenced by Freud: "Thomas Baldwin (1995), in Ted Honderich. ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. p. 792." (There is also an ambivalent sentence that cites Merleau-Ponty's considering Freud to be one of the anticipators of phenomenology, while Adorno argued the contrary, that Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, was Freud's philosophical opposite.)

I don't profess to know much about Sartre's work in philosophy, but I've done a fairly thorough Google search and failed to find anything to confirm that Sartre's ideas on the human mind and emotions were influenced by Freud, though plenty about his opposition to Freud, especially the Freudian unconscious. Unfortunately I don't have access to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy to check the cited reference to Thomas Baldwin. It would be good to have a second citation on this disputed point, at least for the Talk page, though I agree it is not strictly necessary. Esterson (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The source indicating Freud's influence on Sartre is the entry on Sartre in the first edition of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The relevant part of the entry reads, "In an early section of the book [eg, Being and Nothingness] Sartre launches a well-known critique of Freud's theory of the unconscious which is motivated by Sartre's claim that consciousness is essentially self-conscious. Sartre also argues here that Freud's theory of repression is internally flawed, but this argument is based on a misunderstanding of Freud. What is of more interest, however, is Sartre's attempt, towards the end of the book, to adapt some of Freud's ideas to his own account of human life, and thereby to develop an 'existential psychoanalysis' in which Freud's causal categories are replaced by Sartre's own teleological ones." That's sufficient, in my view, to show that Sartre was indeed influenced by Freud, his critical attitude to the unconscious and other aspects of Freud's work notwithstanding. I understand there is more about Sartre's view of Freud in The Cambridge Companion to Sartre; I don't have it to hand, but may be able to look it up in a library. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to bother! Your quotation suffices. Esterson (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychiatrist?

SlimVirgin has altered the first sentence of the lead to read as follows, "Sigmund Freud (German pronunciation: [ˈziːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏt]), born Sigismund Schlomo Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939), was an Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist who became known as the founding father of psychoanalysis." It is unclear what the source for Freud's being a psychiatrist is, and I believe that identifying him as such may be a factual error. To my knowledge, standard print works of reference do not identify Freud as a psychiatrist, eg Arthur S. Reber and Emily Reber's The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology refers to Freud as the "Viennese neurologist Sigmund Freud." On the subject of Freud's role in psychiatry, see Shorter, who comments that, "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." The implication seems clear that Freud was not a psychiatrist. I should add that the question of Freud's being a psychiatrist or not has been discussed on the talk page a number of times in the past (see, eg, talk archive 7), and the prevailing view has been that he should not be identified that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection if you want to remove that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Freud spent most of his life trying to understand and treat mental disorders. That is what psychiatrists do. What's the problem? Roger (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Psychiatry would generally be associated with treating patients in mental clinics. Freud didn't do that. Psychoanalysis, as a form of individual psychotherapy, had a different orientation to dealing with mental disorders. Besides that, psychiatry would involve dealing with different kinds of patients - people who are psychotic or severely disturbed, rather than simply neurotics. If you look up works of reference dealing with the subject, you'll find that Jung, in contrast to Freud, definitely is identified as a psychiatrist, and that's because it was his field. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not he's identified as a psychiatrist (the term may be an anachronism for the late 1800s, not sure) is minor beside the more important point that he remains very influential to psychiatry. The term "decline of psychoanalysis" is misleading because it could be interpreted different ways. If it means that managed care has favored short-term therapy and drugs over psychoanalysis, then yes. If it means Freud's ideas are no longer relevant to the practice of psychiatry, then that is not accurate. I'm confused why you speculate on what more recent sources "would" say, when I have provided you with 4 different recent sources on the relevance of psychoanalysis in modern psychiatry from the American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, and Science. I could easily present more, including this from the leading psychiatry textbook Kaplan and Sadock:

"Freud's fundamental hypotheses regarding the workings of the mind remain central to psychiatric practice today." Kaplan, Sadock, and Grebb, "Synopsis of Psychiatry," 7th ed., Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994, p. 237.

Hypoplectrus (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Freud was not, strictly speaking, a psychiatrist, which is why standard works of reference don't identify him that way, and why we shouldn't either. The statement that Freud remains influential on psychiatry is probably not strictly speaking wrong, as there undoubtedly are some psychiatrists who are influenced by Freud to some extent. The problem with saying that Freud remains an influence on psychiatry is that it does not qualify to what extent, exactly, he remains influential. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Kaplan and Sadock's standard psychiatry textbook, for one, does give an extent of the influence; they use the term "central."Hypoplectrus (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Freud's influence on the field can be fairly measured by what the psychiatric leadership, leading medical schools, leading journals and texts have to say. The numbers of psychiatrists practicing "classical" psychoanalysis does not reflect his influence either. If they are practicing any form of talking therapy they are exhibiting a Freudian influence. Even Paul McHugh, the chair of psychiatry for 25 years at Johns Hopkins, a very drug-oriented program, acknowledges the enormous influence of Freud on his work, even if he doesn't agree with every last thing Freud ever said. (I can source the McHugh statements if anyone's interested.)Hypoplectrus (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Even Paul McHugh, the chair of psychiatry for 25 years at Johns Hopkins… acknowledges the enormous influence of Freud on his work…"

Where does he say this? In a review of Tani Lehrman's Of Two Minds in the Weekly Standard Magazine, 17 July 2000, McHugh emphatically rejected her claim that psychoanalytic training is fundamental to the training of young psychiatrists, adding: "Lehrman fails to appreciate that psychiatry is well free of the dominance of a conjectural theory that cheated many patients out of helpful treatment and caused a great many talented students to waste years of their lives on fruitless study." (Quoted in Joel Pais's The Fall of an Icon (2005, pp. 112-113).

The point I was making was not that Paul McHugh is uncritical of Freud and psychoanalysis. On the contrary, he has been very critical of it, and sometimes quite cogently so. That is precisely why I brought him up: to make the point that even a virulent critic of Freud like McHugh acknowledges that Freud remains relevant to modern psychiatry. I was making this point because Polisher of Cobwebs objected to my inserting into the lead that Freud remains influential in contemporary psychiatry. (McHugh certainly does not feel that away about all Freudian ideas, but rather about some of them--yet he accords enormous respect to those contributions, and I will now provide the sources to support my statement.) I refer you to two books by McHugh. McHugh writes in his psychiatry textbook The Perspectives of Psychiatry, published in 1986 by Johns Hopkins University Press: "In this century, the preeminent contribution to an explanation of mental experience as function or meaning has come from Sigmund Freud." p. 10. He labels the explanation of mental experience as one of several important "perspectives" of psychiatry and calls this perspective a narrative or story approach to understanding people. "The art of telling the best story for a particular patient depends on a capacity for imaginative reconstruction of his life circumstances, a faculty richly developed in Sigmund Freud...." p. 131. McHugh despised the Freudian orthodoxy he encountered in his training in the 1950s, and he was thusly very critical of the Freudian "story" method when viewed as the only method available to psychiatrists. But as he says in The Mind Has Mountains, published in 2006 by Johns Hopkins University Press, "I am far from denying that story-based ideas have helped psychiatric practice." p. 45. He also sees behaviorism as having "important roots in the work of Freud, whose most lasting contribution to the field of psychology may be his having pointed out that human beings are driven by motivations that often dominate their activity and appear in various forms." Perspectives, p. 103. He then quotes at length from Freud's paper Instincts and their Vicissitudes and afterwards remarks: "It is the beauty and thoroughness of this description that identified the concepts of behavior and motivation in clinical science." p. 104. Thus, McHugh harshly criticizes what he sees as Freudian reductivism, lack of respect for scientific method, intolerance of other viewpoints, etc., but then grants that "Freud's fame is secure on other grounds...." The Mind Has Mountains, p. 29. Again, the point is not that McHugh is a Freudian, but that he is a prominent, influential contemporary anti-Freudian psychiatrist who nonetheless has incorporated Freudian ideas into his own practice. I bring it up not to prove that Freud is flawless, but to help prove that he has a continuing influence in psychiatry, which Polisher of Cobwebs had denied, refusing to allow me to add into the lead that Freud remained influential in psychiatry.Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"If they are practicing any form of talking therapy they are exhibiting a Freudian influence."

I don't agree. The developers and practitioners of the widely practised CBT reject the psychoanalytic approach to psychotherapy. Esterson (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that CBT rejects the psychoanalytic approach in many important ways--however, it is a form of talking therapy and that idea of cure by talking originates with Breuer and Freud. If you subscribe to Paul McHugh's view, outlined above, Freud did a great deal to advance the study of motivated behavior, an underpinning of CBT. I would hope that we don't have to be so absolutist about Freud that we can't acknowledge Freud's influence even as we criticize him.Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The successes of Freud's psychoanalytic movement in the realm of "talking therapy" has obscured the fact that historically psychoanalysis was initially developed at around the same time as other practitioners' modes of psychotherapy. For instance, Moritz Benedikt conducted psychotherapy involving discussions with patients before Breuer and Freud, and his ideas, as described by Henri Ellenberger, included the role of daydreams, fantasies, suppressed wishes, and the uncovering of what he called "pathogenic secrets" (The Discovery of the Unconscious, pp. 301, 536). (In their "Preliminary Report" (1893) Breuer and Freud noted that they have found the nearest approach to their own ideas and clinical procedures is to be found in published remarks by Benedikt.) Pierre Janet's system of "psychological analysis" was also a form of talking therapy, one developed before that of Freud, and Ellenberger notes that in their "Preliminary Report" (1893) and Studies on Hysteria Breuer and Freud cite Janet's work. (Rightly or wrongly - in my view wrongly - Janet accused Freud of taking some of his ideas and transposing them into psychoanalytic formulations.)

Even more so than in Europe, talking therapies in the United States developed independently of Freud's influence. Eric Caplan writes that Freud has little role to play in the early history of American psychotherapy (including talking therapies). (Mind Games: American Culture and the Birth of Psychotherapy, 1998). It is not the case that we owe talking therapies as a genre to Breuer and Freud, they would have blossomed regardless of Freud's development of psychoanalysis. So I do not believe one can can claim that practitioners of CBT, which essentially takes a completely opposite approach to that of classical psychoanalysis, are influenced by Freud's ideas on the grounds that it is a talking therapy. Esterson (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Freud Controversy (continued)

Having now read through the original "Freud Controversy" thread, I'd like to add a few comments to illustrate Polisher of Cobweb's point about the difficulties in dealing with material for the Freud page given that much of what is written about Freud is controversial.

Hypoplectrus wrote above: "Freud's work has aroused controversy since its inception. Philosophers like Karl Popper have asserted that psychoanalysis is not testable, while later academics in the field of scientific explanation, such as Carl Hempel, were satisfied that psychoanalytic explanations were scientific in nature." Leaving aside that a Google search fails to bring up Hempel's writings on Freud, I suspect you'll find few philosophers of science who regard psychoanalysis as testable according to most norms of science.

Whether a Google search turns it up is irrelevant. Carl Hempel is one of the most distinguished philosophers of science of the twentieth century: See the entry on Hempel at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And see the entry on scientific explanation, which names Hempel as the leading architect of the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation. Sorry to disappoint, but Hempel was very important and he regarded psychoanalysis as testable according to the norms of scientific explanation; more than that, he said that psychoanalytic explanations not only could qualify but did qualify as scientific in the same sense that historians and detectives could make scientific explanations despite a lesser degree of certainty than a physicist deals with. Esterson's speculative statement "I suspect you'll find few philosophers of science who regard psychoanalysis as testable according to most norms of science" just disregards Carl Hempel. As such, it is not fair and reflects more bias against Freud.Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus: It's a fair point that my failure using a Google search is irrelevant if there are sources that validate what you say about Hempel. Nevertheless, your writing that "later academics" in the field of scientific explanation, such as Hempel, were satisfied that psychoanalytic explanations were scientific in nature gives the impression that there were numerous such philosophers who were of similar mind, or perhaps even something like a consensus. It is fine to cite a single philosopher, but not to give the impression there were numerous eminent philosophers of like mind without citations. It is equally possible to cite eminent philosophers who took an opposite view, e.g, Ernest Nagel [11] and Sidney Hook [12] (See Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method, and Philosophy, ed. S. Hook, 1959.) Another philosopher, Clark Glymour [13] has written a book chapter with the title "How Freud Left Science" [in Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, eds. Cohen and Lauden, 1983]. Glymour writes: "Faced [in 1897-98] with the evidence that the methods on which almost all of his work relied were in fact unreliable, Freud had many scientifically honorable courses of action available to him. [...]. He did none of these things, or others one might conceive. Instead he published The Interpretation of Dreams to justify by rhetorical devices the very methods he had every reason to distrust."

You write that my saying I suspect you'll find few philosophers of science who regard psychoanalysis as testable according to most norms of science "just disregards Carl Hempel". How can my statement that allows for at least a few philosophers be taken as disregarding any specific philosopher? As for your following (final) sentence, it gives the impression that if an editor disagrees with your views it is evidence that he or she is biased against Freud (even if you did not intend to imply that). Esterson (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"[PoC is] right that Grunbaum has questioned whether psychoanalytic theories are testable. He concluded that they were testable, but that they had not been adequately tested."

"Adolf Grunbaum criticized Freud's studies of neurotic patients because he thought it possible that Freud had influenced them by suggesting to them what he wanted to hear."

This is a rather toned-down account of Grunbaum's views. He not only argued that what he regarded as the central element of Freud's work that could be regarded as scientific was disconfirmed, he also argued that Freud's fundamental clinical procedure was irredeemably flawed because it failed to refute the suggestibility challenge. (The Foundations of Psychoanalysis, Part 1, Chapter 2; "Critique of Psychoanalysis", chapter 14 in Who Owns Psychoanalysis? [Karnac 2004].)

But this discussion illustrates again the problems inherent in any article about Freud. Grunbaum's claim that psychoanalysis is (at least in some regards) scientific has been strongly challenged. Robert Wilcocks, for instance, has argued that Grunbaum "has fallen into the trap of 'narrative compliance'" in his assessment of Freud, i.e., "he takes the narrator (Freud) at his word" (Maezel's Chess Player: Sigmund Freud and the Rhetoric of Deceit [1994]) . This has been argued more specifically by others (e.g., Frank Cioffi) in rebuttals of Grunbaum's contention that psychoanalytic theories, in general, are testable. For example, Grunbaum's list of examples contra Popper (Part 1, Chapter 1 of Foundations) has been challenged on grounds related to Wilcocks's criticisms of Grunbaum's approach to Freud's writings.

My point here is that for every citation of writers on Freud there is almost always a challenge either to the significance of the citation, or more often, by the citing of writers taking a different position. This, as PoC has said, constitutes a real problem for the Freud page.

Further examples: Hypoplectrus defended his intended inclusion of Freud's assertions that his critics were biased against his theories for emotional reasons by writing, "The line does not say whether they were or weren't, it merely states that he found them biased…" This gives an impression of a considered view by Freud after serious examination of his critics' arguments, when in fact almost everyone commenting on the several assertions (and they are merely assertion) by Freud along these lines has noted that is used as a notorious device (they are purportedly demonstrations of his critics' "resistance", a manifestly circular argument). Regardless of how you view what I have written here, it shows that the sentence in question could not be left unchallenged.

Another point: PoC wrote: "Your addition stated that Freud and psychoanalysis remain influential in American psychiatry. I produced a source stating the exact opposite." Hypoplectrus replied: "We had gone back and forth about Freud's relevance to modern psychiatry. You say he is irrelevant..."

In this instance it seems to me that Hypoplectrus is purportedly rebutting PoC when in fact the latter is not saying that Freud is irrelevant to American psychiatry, only that the influence of psychoanalysis has substantially declined (and, as PoC says, there is plenty of other quotable evidence beyond that of Shorter's History of Psychiatry and others he cites). So it helps in a conflict to make sure that a challenge to an assertion is addressing the precise issue in question.

In spite of the above, I don't really want all these items to be gone over again. I only want to emphasize the difficulties in maintaining balance in the case of such a controversial figure. Esterson (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A Vision of a Neutral Account of Freud

I believe there is an alternative to the continuing scrum of opinions called on in favor of or against the validity of psychoanalysis. The equal titration of for and against votes is not so much neutrality of POV but just an uneasy armistice of opposing points of view. I have tried to nudge the discussion toward neutrality by bringing up two prominent commentators on Freud that themselves have a more nuanced view of his work--they are not strictly 'for' or 'against'. On the more anti-Freud side, I have brought up psychiatrist Paul McHugh, chair of the Johns Hopkins psychiatry department for 25 years and a vocal critic of psychoanalysis, who nonetheless sees some significant merits to Freud's work. On the pro-Freud side, I have called on neuroscientist Eric Kandel, a defender of psychoanalysis who nonetheless has made very explicit his criticisms of deficiencies in psychoanalytic methodology. Ideally, the Freud WP page would do a better job of synthesizing Freud's achievements and failings into one more neutral picture. The claim that psychoanalysis across-the-board is a pseudoscience is no more neutral or persuasive than the view that everybody who questions Freud is suffering from resistance. Writers like Cioffi take the extreme point of view that all of Freud's arguments are fatally flawed and unempirical. Freud made a great many different arguments and produced many different justifications, some of them adequate and some not. This is true of many thinkers. Pythagoras put forward a nonsense idea about the universe being organized in terms of musical tones. He was wrong there, but that's no reason to discard the Pythagorean theorem. If the article relies on extreme critics like Cioffi and Crews, who deny any validity in Freud, then that is an invitation to others to cite more and more views the other way, in support of Freud, or to cite critics of the critics, and it will go on and on in un-neutral warfare. I don't see how the problem can be solved without some consensus among editors that is genuine; that reflects substantive amelioration of the extreme critical stance and an awareness of the methodological problems that have troubled the field. I have tried to initiate talk of that 'diplomatic' nature several times without success, and the page remains un-neutral, with a prevailing bias against Freud--perhaps because times have changed: it is no longer the Freudians who are the most doctrinaire people around. Their critics now give them a good run for the money. Meanwhile, the absolutist carping about validity and pseudoscience distracts from exploring some of Freud's basic accomplishments, such as the idea of "denial"--that people sometimes cannot believe that which is painful to believe--an idea with roots in the Greek and Roman philosophers that Freud developed into a more modern theory of mental functioning.Hypoplectrus (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not clear what exactly you're proposing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No surprise there. There are so many things you're unclear on--among them, what constitutes fair editing in the inclusive spirit of Wikipedia. I am inviting editors to choose rational dialogue with opposing viewpoints instead of conducting a war of attrition against them and repeatedly deleting material you don't like, as you have done repeatedly and as Esterson has now done against Alamancer in regard to Alamancer's attempt to include a criticism of Cioffi. You generally (or should I say, "generally specifically" as you might) camouflage your war of attrition under idle references to WP rules. I encourage yout to stop doing that. I am inviting other, more moderate voices to weigh in in order to improve the page.

You have disparaged my placement of a banner at the top of the Freud page declaring it as the subject of a POV dispute. The banner of course accurately reflects what this page now is: a disordered scrum of conflicting opinions of uncertain veracity and authority. If you would like the banner removed, you might rethink your strategies, because they help to cement it in place. You raise the specious question of what in specific I am proposing: I have already proposed many specific amendments to the site (and have devoted an entire section on the Talk page to enumerating them), every single one of which you have shot down with doctrinaire ardor. Just as certain kinds of orthodoxy among Freudians has lent credence to the cavils about psychoanalytic methodology, your doctrinaire approach to criticizing Freud lends credence to the Freudian notion that some people reject Freud not for rational reasons but because it's too painful for them to admit certain facts of human nature.Hypoplectrus (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus: I have visited the Freud Talk page fairly frequently, and my impression of Polisher of Cobwebs is of someone who is concerned to maintain Wikipedia principles.

You write:

I am inviting editors to choose rational dialogue with opposing viewpoints instead of conducting a war of attrition against them and repeatedly deleting material you don't like, as you have done repeatedly and as Esterson has now done against Alamancer in regard to Alamancer's attempt to include a criticism of Cioffi.

For someone who complains about alleged bias, this is hardly a balanced account of events. I originally pointed out on the Talk page (above) that the placing of Alamancer's sentence on Levy's criticisms of Cioffi made it read as a direct response to Cioffi's criticism of Fisher and Greenberg's book on experimental studies of Freudian theories, when in fact they had nothing to do with that issue. I also pointed out that the criticisms that Alamancer paraphrased were general points about Cioffi's views on Freud's interpretative procedures, unrelated to the two citations of Cioffi already on the Freud page, observing that if this is allowed it opens the way to an almost endless trail of point/counterpoint. Rather than discuss this latter point on the Talk page to try to arrive at a consensus, Alamancer chose to go ahead and make a change directly on the Freud page first (as he did not a second occasion).

The notion that I was deleting material simply on the grounds that I didn't like it is a travesty of the situation. It is no more appropriate for there to be a "stand alone" criticism of an aspect of Cioffi's critique of Freud unrelated to the items for which he has been cited than there is for (say) a stand alone paraphrase of Cioffi's critique of Richard Wollheim's account of Freud's work, or a paraphrase of Grunbaum's critique of Habermas's hermeneutic defence of Freud.

I think it is inappropriate for you to suggest that PoC's differing from you on the (approximate) neutrality of the Freud page indicates he is afraid to admit certain facts (which ones?) of human nature. Putting aside your following Freud's notorious use of this device against critics, how can you possibly know any such thing about PoC on the basis of anything he has said or done here? And while on the issue of purported bias, I note above that you refer to "savage" attacks on Freud by Richard Webster. You may not agree with this author (obviously you don't), but for you to describe anything in his closely researched and carefully argued analyses of Freud's clinical claims and theoretical notions as "savage" is tendentious.

I have had another look at the Freud page, and there are long stretches (9.3-9.7) where his views are laid out with scarcely any mention of criticism. Nor in my view does the lede exhibit the anti-Freud bias you perceive. It is always possible to find things with which one disagrees. In the early section "Development of Psychoanalysis" there is this statement about Anna O.: "In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of early traumatic incidents in her life." This is a common account, but in fact retrieved memories of early life traumatic incidents are not to be found in the relevant sections of Breuer's case history (Standard Edition, vol. 2. pp. 34-37, 39-40), but one can't challenge every sentence one objects to. Esterson (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hypoplectrus, if I'm unclear about what you are proposing in your comments above, then that's for only one reason, in my view: it's that your comments are unclear. Please be more specific in your suggestions. If I object to the "neutrality disputed" banner that you placed on the article, it's simply because in the years I've been editing Wikipedia I have very often seen such banners placed on articles, and know that it rarely, if ever, leads to articles being improved. But note that I have not undertaken myself remove the banner - I see it more as an irrelevance. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Highest duty of a woman!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: To be loved is the highest duty of women, said the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, the Croatian daily La Voce del Popolo, Fiume / Rijeka, and added that it is even more important for a woman to love!93.137.59.179 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates

I just noticed that the page seems to be getting slower to load and therefore harder to edit, almost certainly because of the templates. The best thing would be at least not to add any more, and to make a start on removing the ones that are there -- mostly to speed up load times, but also to make the reference formatting consistent. Once the page is full of templates they're a real nuisance to get rid of, so prevention is better than cure.

The simplest citation style is "Smith 2012, p. 1" in the footnote, and "Smith, John. Name of Book. Name of Publisher, 2012" in an alphabetical References section.

Or if you want to use only footnotes, then "John Smith. Name of Book. Name of Publisher, 2012" on first reference, and thereafter "Smith 2012, p. 1."

I'd be willing to start that process if there are no objections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection. Sounds like a good idea. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a slow start. I'll create a separate References section for now, but it's easy enough to move them into the footnotes if people want a full citation in the Notes section on first reference. Some people prefer to see the full citation the first time the work is cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start, but I'm going to leave it there for a bit to make sure everyone's on board. The advantages are that the Notes section will be easier to read, refs will be easier to write, load time (particularly diffs and preview) should speed up considerably, there will be no repetition, and the References section will give a good overview of the sources.

The disadvantage is that the Notes will just say "Gay 2006, p. 1," and people will have to go to the References section to find out what that refers to. There are templates that jump from the short to the long ref, but then you're back to fiddly templates and slow load times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just to add my strong agreement with SlimVirgin's project. Esterson (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Just noting here that I'm finding a lot of repetitive references, where it's not clear why more than one ref has been added (probably to bolster a disputed point). I may remove some of these because they're not obviously helpful; for example, books are being cited that name only the editor and page number, but without the author or essay title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Delayed response (I've been occupied elsewhere!): I think the addition of second or more references may be to show that the item (possibly a factual statement) is supported by more than one author's views and so is probably reliable (or possibly the same point is made from different angles by different authors). I can think of situations (certainly on other Wikipedia pages) where what looks like a reputable book reference has a contention of dubious validity that is not supported by other authors on the same subject - but that's another story! Esterson (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section suggestions

As I have indicated above, in my responses to SlimVirgin, I think the Legacy section needs cutting back. I present here some suggestions. Although the Psychotherapy sub-section of Legacy is both long and very detailed, I wouldn't be in favor of cutting it back to any significant extent - the material that was added there was carefully considered, and seems useful and appropriate. The Science sub-section, in contrast, contains significant amounts of material that could be removed without significant loss to the article as a whole. It starts by mentioning Gilbert Ryle and David Stafford-Clark's views, but neither are of great consequence for Freud's image or scientific reputation, and I wouldn't object if anyone wished to remove them altogether. The material on Fisher and Greenberg is much more significant, and I don't believe it ought to be removed. The second paragraph of the Science sub-section, dealing with the views of various critics of Freud, could be cut back somewhat, but doesn't need drastic cuts (of the two quotes from Hans Eysenck, I'd be in favor of keeping only the first). The third paragraph of the Science sub-section is probably the most problematic. It begins by noting that, "Adolf Grünbaum has rejected Popper's critique of Freud, and argued that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." That places the emphasis more on Grünbaum's view of Popper than on Grünbaum's view of Freud; it should be the other way around, as the article is about Freud. It would be better to have something like, "Adolf Grünbaum has maintained, in opposition to Popper, that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." The example used to illustrate Grünbaum's point - the alleged connection between paranoia and repressed homosexuality - is unnecessary and could be removed. It would be better for the article on Grünbaum, which at present contains very little useful information. I think the same could be said of most of the paragraph dealing with Grünbaum, including everything about Levy, Gellner, Cioffi, and Esterson. The fourth paragraph of the Science sub-section doesn't seem altogether appropriate to this article - much of the material there would be better for the Karl Popper article, since its essentially criticism of Popper. Perhaps only the material on Fromm's views would belong here, although even that I don't see as crucial. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the Science sub-section seem acceptable as they stand. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Philosophy sub-section of Legacy is less bad than the Science sub-section, but it too contains a significant amount of material that could or should be cut. Richard Wollheim and Thomas Baldwin's criticisms of Jean-Paul Sartre's criticisms of Freud's theory of the unconscious would be better for the Sartre article than this one. Similarly, Grünbaum's criticisms of Habermas and Ricœur would be better for the articles on Grünbaum and/or Habermas and Ricœur, Harry Cleaver's criticism of Althusser would be better for the Althusser article, and Crews's criticism of Derrida for the Derrida article. I refrain from comment, for the moment, on the remaining sub-sections of Legacy (Art, Literary Criticism, and Feminism), since I haven't yet given much thought to them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything that PoC has written above about the deletion of various items. (I would have to see what a revised "Grunbaum" reference/paragraph looks like before agreeing completely.) In particular, I agree with PoC's suggested rewriting of the current sentence to read: "Adolf Grünbaum has maintained, in opposition to Popper, that many of Freud's theories are empirically testable." I will say here that given that Grunbaum's view supporting the scientific credentials of Freudian theory is on the Freud page, then it is equally valid to post Gellner's subtly-argued view that Freudian theories are pseudo-scientific. (Incidentally, in that case the single page citation for Gellner 1985 would be replaced by pp. 163-203.) It would help if we could have a revised "Grunbaum" passage proposed to enable there to be comments on a specific passage from other editors. Esterson (talk)

I have made a tiny contribution to the pruning process by deleting the Cioffi citation in response to the listing of Fisher and Greenberg's statements on experimental findings. The Kline and Erwin references should remain to counterbalance F&G's uncritical recycling of the experimental claims, the former being a general criticism, and the latter being based on detailed criticsms of specific experimental claims. Esterson (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A more general point: Does the Freud page really need portraits of Karl Popper, Herbert Marcuse and Betty Frieden? What are they there for? Esterson (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'll consider a shortened version of the Grünbaum paragraph for this article, and I will also be making proposals for the Grünbaum article on its talk page. I agree that the references to Kline and Erwin are appropriate, to provide balance to Fisher and Greenberg's claims. Whether the article should have portraits of Popper, Marcuse, and Friedan is an issue of secondary importance to the article as a whole. SusanLesch first added portraits to the section. I added others later, but I don't personally care whether they are there or not. I understand that Wikipedia policy encourages articles to have illustrations; whether these particular illustrations are appropriate or not could be debated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

My proposed shortened version of the legacy section is here. I would note that even this shortened version is still quite long. Possibly a little more material could be cut back, but that is the full extent of the cuts I want to make at the moment. The inclusion of the pictures is not crucial, but I would note in their defense that they interrupt the monotony of so much text, and in that sense probably make the article easier to read. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Portraits "interrupt the monotony of so much text, and in that sense probably make the article easier to read."

A valid point. Esterson (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks are due to PoC for the effort he has put into providing a first draft. I have only a few points on which I differ, and shall post them under separate sub-headings to allow each to be commented on separately.

Psychotherapy

"Freud provided the basis for the entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy."

The successful conquest by the psychoanalytic movement of the field of talking therapies from around 1920 onwards has obscured the fact that there were some talking therapies both before, and running parallel with, psychoanalysis. See my comments on this above (at the bottom of the Psychiatrist? section). More specifically: In a paper entitled "Psychoanalysis" delivered to the International Congress of Medicine in 1913 (published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology [1914]) Janet described cases he had treated by what he termed "psychological analysis" the details of which he had published before Freud had published his first case histories (1895). Janet writes of his clinical methodology that "it is necessary to collect all the information that the subject can give concerning his thoughts and memories; we must not be discouraged by the patient's volubility nor by the puerility of his revelations, and we must consider carefully what part in his life all the different events which he relates have played" (1914, p. 9). After providing more details, Janet writes: "Such was the situation in studies commenced on this question [the relation between a given memory and a given pathological symptom] when in the same field came the works of Freud…" Here is Janet again: "The supporters of Freudian theory insist on a prolonged examination of the patient which covers many hours at each treatment and extends over years. Very good, but there is nothing original about that; innumerable observers, among whom I must count myself, have sacrificed hours and hours of time… to a most exhaustive examination of poor patients in the hope of curing them…"

So I suggest a rewording of the first sentence under Psychotherapy along the following lines:

Though not the first to describe cases involving individual verbal psychotherapy (see, e.g., Janet 1889^[1]), Freud's psychoanalytic method came to dominate the field from early in the twentieth century, forming the basis for numerous variants that came later. Esterson (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

"Psychoanalysis was originally seen as shockingly novel…"

This is one of many myths that Freud and his psychoanalytic colleagues promoted. See Sulloway Freud: Biologist of the Mind (1979), "The Myth of the Hero", pp. 445-495: "One of the most well-entrenched legends associated with the traditional account of Freud's life concerns the 'hostile' and even 'outraged' manner in which his psychoanalytic ideas were originally received" (p. 448). And here is Ellenberger: "Nothing is more remote from the truth than the usual assumption that Freud was the first to introduce novel sexual theories at a time when anything sexual was 'taboo'." (The Discovery of the Unconscious, 1970, p. 545.) Hannah Decker (an historian who describes herself as someone who "accepts and agrees with 'orthodox' Freudian psychoanalytic theories") undertook comprehensive research on the reception of Freud’s early psychoanalytic writings in the German-speaking world. Her survey of the relevant literature led her to conclude that the traditional story of the hostile reception to Freud's ideas is a myth: “The main source of this description of Freud’s early reception was Freud himself. But Freud’s intellectual biases, emotional reactions, and unrealistic expectations often affected his judgment of the initial response to psychoanalysis” (Freud in Germany: 1893-1907, 1977, p. 321). She also discounts the legend that much of the opposition to Freud stemmed from outrage at his ideas on sexuality: “By far the majority of those who rejected the sexual views were dispassionate and matter-of-fact in their expression” (1977, p. 98).

I also think that the 1940s is too early for the widespread acceptance of Freud's views as being fundamentally conservative. (Psychoanalysis in the United States flourished in the third quarter of the twentieth century, and this includes the support of some noted intellectuals.)

I propose an opening sentence under the Philosophy heading along these lines:

Although Freud and his psychoanalytic colleagues promoted the notion that his ideas were shockingly novel, by the end of the third quarter of the twentieth century they were viewed as fundamentally conservative by many in the European and American intellectual community.

Esterson (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Janov's primal therapy

In a stripped-down Legacy section I do not believe the Arthur Janov primal therapy paragraph is worthy of a place. It had its fashionable heyday in the 1970s/1980s, but was never more than a fringe psychotherapy, and is scarcely that now. Esterson (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Though this may not need saying, I'd like to note again that I have never been in the habit of adding material to the legacy section simply because I agree with it, or of refraining from adding material because I don't agree with it. The contents of the legacy section reflects what I have found in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, and I have seldom concerned myself with whether what the sources say is actually true (which is not something I would be in a position to judge in some cases, since I am not, like you, a Freud scholar). The statement that, "Freud provided the basis for the entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy" comes from a single book first published in 1963, and I don't say that it is necessarily correct or that your counter-examples are wrong. If you wish to change that statement to something you consider more accurate, then do so by all means (it would be best to base it on something other than primary sources such as Janet, however). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As to your points about the Philosophy section: The statement that "Psychoanalysis was originally seen as shockingly novel" comes from a book by Paul Robinson. It reflects what Robinson says, not what I personally think (you may be totally right in everything you say against the view Robinson expresses). This is something that could be changed, but it would not be easy to do that without completely rewriting the first paragraph of the Philosophy section. I don't object to that being done, in principle, but it would be difficult, and trouble would have to be taken to avoid synthesis of sources. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You object to the inclusion of the material on Arthur Janov and primal therapy. That material could perhaps be shortened, but I don't think it should be removed altogether. Like everything else in the Psychotherapy section, it was carefully chosen. It may be as well to explain the rationale. After the first paragraph introducing the subject, the Psychotherapy section provides a paragraph each on the neo-Freudians, Jung, and Lacan: as each of them was an influential movement or person, including something about them should be unobjectionable. Following that, there are paragraphs on Reich, Perls, and Janov. They could all be seen as fringe figures, but they are all there for a reason. Reich, in addition to being highly influential, knew Freud, which provides an additional reason for detailing his views. Neither Perls nor Janov is so well known as Reich, but their importance should not be underestimated. Janov is a major historical figure whose importance is still difficult to judge objectively, both because his views are controversial and because he is still alive. Mark Pendergrast notes in his Victims of Memory that Janov was a, if not the, key influence on what became known as the recovered memory movement (see the discussion on pages 442-443 of that book). This is why the Janov material comes directly before Crews's comments about Freud's influence on Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, and the recovered memory movement generally. Janov belongs historically after Reich and Perls, who were influences on him, and before the survivorship/recovered memory movement, which he influenced (if you look up The Courage to Heal, you'll see that it makes approving remarks about primal therapy). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at PoC’ proposals I think he needs to revisit some of the comments made on the Talk Page:Science section which indicate not a need to cut back content per se but to cut back certain kinds of content viz. quotes, author citing and to replace it with appropriately referenced paraphrasing, summaries and introductory material (points made by SlimVirgin). As to his absurd claim that a paragraph which includes a defence of Freud’s scientific credibility is inappropriate content for the Science page of the Freud article (and is best placed on the Popper article page?!) – he demonstrates clearly why his editorial judgement was called into question in the first place and the POV notice posted. Almanacer (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Almanacer that if the paragraph referencing authors who argue that psychoanalysis is not scientific, or is a pseudo-science, is kept, then so should the paragraph referencing authors who argue for its scientific credentials. Esterson (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer is unfortunately failing to understand the principle of due weight. Obviously the science section should include the views of both supporters and critics of Freud's scientific credibility. The issue is how much material, exactly, should be included. The literature defending and criticizing Freud is vast, and there has to be a limit somewhere. It remains my view that the paragraph beginning, "In his wider consideration of and response to critics of Freud’s scientific credibility Levy ..." and the preceding paragraph are excessive. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

PoC: Forgive me if I am mistaken, but some of the terms in which you have expressed your response to my suggestions seem to me as if you take them to imply criticism of you. I assure you that is not the case. You posted a draft for a revised Legacy section, to which I responded by tentatively agreeing with almost all of it, with the exception of two separate sentences, and a reservation about one paragraph. I thought that was the point of your posting a draft Legacy section. Nor have I intimated in any way that what you post is related to whether you agree with it or not.

First I point out in passing that neither of the sentences I queried has a source reference. The rest of what you say on these sentences brings me back to a comment I made above in relation to your first suggesting a major overhaul of the Freud page, namely, that this would not be straightforward because of the huge controversy about the reliability of Freud's accounts of his personal history and reports of his clinical experiences. So what does one do about a statement in a book from 1963 (which book?) which is contradicted by historians who have delved into sources from the era in question and demonstrated that this stating of a then-received view is not substantiated by documentable evidence? (I don't need to base this on Janet's comments; I have already cited Ellenberger 1970 on this topic, in the Psychiatrist?' section.) Since you have invited me to change that sentence, I have proposed one just above that involves only a slight modification of the current sentence. All that is needed now is to change the citation to Ellenberger 1970.

As I indicated above, I fully appreciate that the statement that "psychoanalysis was shockingly new" was not an indication of your own point of view (though a citation would have been helpful). I haven't been able to track down the page on which Robinson writes this, but again he is simply recycling the received view that was held for much of the twentieth century, based on little more than Freud's autobiographical claims and those of his followers. When historians started undertaking research on the conventional view by checking the publications of the time, they found a very different story, starting with Bry and Rifkin's "Freud and the history of ideas: Primary sources, 1896-1910" (1962): "Far from appearing altogether too novel, revolutionary or shocking, each one of Freud's early books dealt with a subject that was familiar and accepted" (p. 28). In her extensive study of contemporary documents, Decker wrote "By far the majority of those who rejected [Freud's] sexual views were dispassionate and matter-of-fact in their expression" (1977, p. 98). Earlier she had recorded the numerous reviewers of Freud's Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905) who wrote either favourable reviews, or more typically, had a "Yes, but…" reaction (pp. 95-98). Then we have William Johnstone in The Austrian Mind: An Intellectual and Social History 1848-1938 (1972, pp. 249) writing: "In a city [Vienna] where Sacher-Masoch, Krafft-Ebing, and Weininger were read with nonchalance, Freud's pansexualism hardly shocked anyone." And Ellenberger (1970, p. 455): "Contrary to the usual assertion, [Freud's] publications did not meet with the icy silence or the disparaging criticism that are said to have existed. Actually the response was mostly favourable."

Yes, I know that Wikipedia "rules" have it that it is not the validity of an assertion that counts, only that it comes from a "reliable source". But what does one do when the source, although a reputable author/publisher, makes an assertion that has long been contradicted by at least four historians who have investigated the original sources and found the assertion in question to be dubious, to put it at its least? I can only say it is my view that if (for space considerations) only one view can prevail on the Freud page, it should be that of those who actually sought out the historical facts rather than recycling received opinion. That's what I sought to achieve with my slight modification of the first sentence of the Philosophy section as proposed above.

PoC: You write that if the first sentence is amended as I've suggested it couldn't be done "without completely rewriting the first paragraph of the Philosophy section." I just checked that paragraph, and can't see why a single sentence needs to be changed if my proposed sentence were to replace the current one.

On the Janov section I said no more than that I thought it was not worthy of a place (for the reasons I gave), but I don't have particularly strong views on the matter. You make a good point (from Pendergrast) that the Primal Therapy movement, with its emphasis on early "recovered memories", was a precursor of the recovered memory movement. Esterson (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement that, "Freud provided the basis for the entire field of individual verbal psychotherapy" is from page 109 of Donald H. Ford and Hugh B. Urban's Systems of Psychotherapy. I added it simply because I happened to have the book to hand (the book itself I have because it is falling to pieces and a local University library threw it out). If you want to replace that statement with something more accurate from Ellenberger, that's fine; I haven't any objection. The part about the shocking novelty of psychoanalysis was from Paul Robinson's book The Freudian Left. It is indeed sourced (it's on page 147 of the edition I own, just at the start of the discussion of Herbert Marcuse). The reference in the article immediately follows the mention of Norman O. Brown's Life Against Death. Please be aware that it's unrealistic to expect every single sentence in a Wikipedia article to have a source following it - generally, a whole paragraph may have a single source.

The trouble with rewriting it as you suggest would be that nearly the entire paragraph of which it is part reflects Robinson's views. If one wished to remove Robinson's comments about the alleged shocking novelty of psychoanalysis, then I'm not sure that any of that paragraph would make sense. This only throws into question why one would want to use Robinson as a source at all. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

PoC: Before I had time to explain here my posting of an amended first sentence in the Philosophy section (so you could see it in situ), including that I could not see why it necessitated any change in the Robinson reference later in the section, you reverted it, with the comment "unfortunately, that makes no sense - may I suggest removing Robinson's comments altogether as an alternative?"

Although Freud and his psychoanalytic colleagues promoted the notion that his ideas were shockingly novel,^[2] in the post-World War II years they came to be viewed as fundamentally conservative by much of the European and American intellectual community.

Sorry, but I fail to understand why you say this makes no sense. However, if by "Robinson's comments", you mean the first sentence as it currently stands, then yes, I would be happy if that were simply removed as an alternative to my proposed first sentence. Esterson (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I've just seen PoC's latest amendment to the opening of the Philosophy section, and I'm now reasonably happy with that, so this part of the discussion is resolved satisfactorily as far as I'm concerned. Esterson (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you added to the start of the Philosophy section combines material from two authors - Paul Robinson and Frank Sulloway - who seem to have views about Freud that are exactly opposed to each other. When Robinson writes that by the 1940s Freud and psychoanalysis had come to be seen as fundamentally conservative, he contrasts that with the idea (held for example by Wilhelm Reich) that psychoanalysis could be seen as radical, not with the idea that psychoanalysis was novel, which is a different thing entirely. Neither Sulloway nor Robinson appears to write that Freud and psychoanalysis were first seen as novel, then conservative - combining their comments to imply that appears to violate WP:SYNTH. I am glad that you find simply removing the part about psychoanalysis initially being seen as novel as an acceptable alternative solution. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

PoC: You write: "When Robinson writes that by the 1940s Freud and psychoanalysis had come to be seen as fundamentally conservative, he contrasts that with the idea (held for example by Wilhelm Reich) that psychoanalysis could be seen as radical, not with the idea that psychoanalysis was novel, which is a different thing entirely."

But it wasn't me who posted the opening sentence under Philosophy, "Psychoanalysis was originally seen as shockingly novel…", that was the phrase originally posted to which I was responding! As is my wont, by retaining the same phraseology I was endeavouring to combine the original with my amended version.

You write: "The sentence you added to the start of the Philosophy section combines material from two authors - Paul Robinson and Frank Sulloway."

I wasn't combining material, I was retaining the notion (with appropriate modification to indicate that it was promoted, but not historically accurate) of the alleged "shocking" nature of psychoanalysis when first published, then following up in the second part of the sentence with the fact that it later came to be regarded as conservative. But as we're agreed on the current postings, that's all water under the bridge now. Esterson (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Freud's Jewishness

In this edit I've restored the following: "According to his biographer Ernest Jones (1945), Freud's Jewishness, though he was a secular Jew, contributed significantly to his work." This is a statement that is reliably sourced, in which Jewishness is tied into accomplishments of the subject of the biography. The material was previously in the article. As it was removed previously I thought it best to initiate discussion here. Is there a reason this sentence does not belong in the biography? Do we have directly contradictory information on this point? Obviously I pose that question because I have not seen directly contradictory information on that point. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And the reverting begins. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That material is nonsense. Esterson pointed out its problems some time ago - among other things, Ernest Jones didn't publish anything in 1945 that might be relevant to the statement made. Please don't restore it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—can you please point me to where "Esterson pointed out its problems some time ago - among other things, Ernest Jones didn't publish anything in 1945 that might be relevant to the statement made."[14] Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was in talk archive 8, which you can find here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs—I have found that section in archives here. (Section heading "Early life") Biographer Ernest Jones published a 3-volume biography of Freud: 1953, 1955 and 1957. User:Esterson seems to be looking for and not finding a volume published in 1945. Judith Marks Mishne in fact refers correctly to the second of Jones' 3-volume biography of Freud, which was published in 1955:

"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."[15]

Note that the year referrenced by Judith Marks Mishne is 1955. The notion that Freud's Jewishness related substantially to his work is fleshed out in subsequent sentences in the above paragraph.

In fairness to User:Esterson, I perpetuated the error of 1945 versus 1955 when I cut-and-pasted from here. Bus stop (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop: Thanks for the clarification that the publication date for Jones should have been 1955 (i.e., the second volume of his biography). However: Jones starts the passage by saying "I have several times been asked my opinion on how important was Freud's Jewishness in the evolution of his ideas and work…" So what we are getting is Jones's view, not Freud's. Insofar as he backs this opinion up from Freud it is his writing of "The inherited capacity of Jews to stand their ground and maintain their position… in the face of surrounding opposition or hostility…" etc. Leaving aside my aversion to suggestions of racial/ethnic inherited capacities, and the fact that some historians in the 1970s (e.g, Decker [quoted above] and Ellenberger) went back to original sources and demonstrated that Freud's accounts of his isolation and of the extent and reasons for opposition to his theories were greatly exaggerated and misrepresented, in his biography of Freud (2000) Louis Breger points out that aside from the (Semitic) Hannibal, many of his other heroes – e.g., Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Cromwell – had no connection with Judaism. "What was important was the fact that all these men went to war against superior forces" (p. 161). In this context, see "The Myth of the Hero" that Freud himself propagated (Sulloway 1979, pp. 444-489). On the issue of opposition based on anti-Semitism mentioned by Jones in that passage: In the early period of his career, when he was establishing the psychoanalytic movement prior to World War II, Decker writes that "almost no documentation exists" to show that Freud was attacked because he was Jewish (1977, p. 18). Summing up the evidence from several historians, Sulloway states that "strong opposition was not the initial reaction to psychoanalysis, nor was opposition premised upon the purported triumvirate of sexual prudery, hostility to innovation, and anti-Semitism that dominates the traditional historical scenario… " (1979, p. 453) Of course all that changed with the post-First World War situation in Germany and the rise of the Nazis, but that only came later.

Incidentally, when Judith Mishne writes of "the storm of opposition that broke over psychoanalysis in the years before World War II", this can only refer to the situation in Germany. There was no such storm, for instance, in Britain. As for her saying that "Over four decades, Freud, independently and alone…", etc, from the beginning of the psychoanalytic movement around 1906 he had a loyal band of supporters. From this, and the following sentence above, it seems Mishne can be included among these.

Finally, perhaps not entirely unrelated to the above passage in Mishne's book, here is what Freud himself said: "Altogether the Jews are treating me like a national hero, although my service to the Jewish cause is confined to the single point that I have never discounted my Jewishness" (quoted in Jones, vol. II, p. 460). Esterson (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Esterson—you are arguing against other than what the sentence under discussion says. We aren't discussing Jews in general. The sentence that we are discussing does not assert anything about Jews in general. Please note: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."[16] We are discussing a sentence reading: "According to his biographer Ernest Jones (1955), Freud's Jewishness, though he was a secular Jew, contributed significantly to his work." You removed that sentence here. In your above post you refer to your "aversion to suggestions of racial/ethnic inherited capacities".[17] The sentence that we are discussing does not lend itself to an interpretation that could possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, involve racial and ethnic inherited capacities. You are reading far into the sentence to extract something that is not there. A responsible biographer, who is of course a reliable source, asserts that there is a linkage between Jewishness and Freud's output. The assertion is being made by the biographer in relation to his subject in the sentence we are discussing. I think the reader's interests are best served by conveying that which sources substantially support. In our article, we are trying to shed light on the individual being written about and his resulting life's work. That which is applicable to Freud need not be applicable to other Jews. In the instance of Freud, according to reliable sources, Jewishness contributed significantly to his work. Nothing is being said about Jews in general. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop: I have no great inclination to extend this discussion too far, interesting though it is. If the citation is to a statement by Mishne giving Jones's views then it is pertinent to refer to exactly what Jones says on the issue in the passage in question. That Jones starts off by justifying his views by writing about "the inherited capacity of Jews to stand their ground…" is entirely pertinent to the issue, because he goes on immediately to apply this to Freud. (And that this was not my main point was indicated by my writing "Leaving aside" this phrase – unfortunately you have treated my comment on it as if it were a central point.)

I accept that it is legitimate to cite the views of a reputable historian as you have done (though in an already overlong Freud page I question its importance). But equally, it would surely be valid for me to write a sentence stating that this is not a view held by other authors, whom I could then reference. Do we really need this? Esterson (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Esterson—it is difficult to conduct this discussion in the abstract. I think you are hinting that sources exist that directly support that Freud's Jewishness did not contribute significantly to his work. If so, could you please present such sources? If this "is not a view held by other authors"[18] then please present the view of those other authors. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that because I am familiar with a great deal of the literature on Freud, and more specifically, when your sentence first appeared I checked out several biographies of Freud and not one of them suggested that his views were influenced by his Jewish heritage. Moreover, as I indicated above, several authors contradict the basis for one or more of the reasons Jones gives for his belief. Esterson (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop – you are quite right that Esterton has wandered off-topic. Jones is echoing Freud’s remarks in his Autobiography linking “the fate of being in opposition, and thus laying the foundation for a degree of independence of judgement” to his own experience of being Jewish (not referenceable, of course, as a primary source). When you re-post it however, I suggest you add it right at the end of the Early Career and Marriage section after the remarks on Nietzche. BTW if you’re interested Marthe Robert’s From Oedipus to Moses: Freud’s Jewish Identity has much more on the topic and confirms Jones's assesment. Almanacer (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The context of the quotation supplied by Almanacer (Standard Edition, vol. 20, p. 9) has nothing to do with Freud's being Jewish per se, it is a comment in relation to the fact of being in a minority group that suffers discrimination in one form or another. Judaism (or his specifically Jewish heritage) is not the specific point in the passage. Any other such minority religious/ethnic background could replace his Jewishness, and the point Freud is making about sensing himself as being "in the Opposition" would still stand.

Frankly, I don't care strongly enough about this issue to continue debating it, but if Bus stop feels so strongly, and other editors don't object, I won't object if it goes back in. Esterson (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer—you say "I suggest you add it right at the end of the Early Career and Marriage section after the remarks on Nietzche."[19] You can move it if you wish but for now I've simply restored to its previous position in the article. I've done so in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, would you please stop restoring this dubious material? If Jones said what Mishne claims, then source it to Jones, not to Mishne. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

With the possibility of the sentence in question being restored, citing an author voicing the opinion that "Freud's Jewishness significantly contributed to his work", it occurs to me that this view found support among some German-speaking psychologists in the 1930s. It is certainly in accord with Jung's view that Freud's psychoanalysis contains specifically Jewish elements, as against his Aryan-based analytic psychology. What is this other than the notion that "Freud's Jewishness contributed significantly to his work"? I appreciate that Bus stop has provided a reputable modern citation for this view, but likewise one can cite a reputable author/publisher today arguing for the notion that Einstein's Jewish heritage contributed to the development of his ideas on physics, resurrecting the notion of Einstein's "Jewish Science" (so-called by the author) popular in Germany in the 1930s. It's not something I would favour appearing on the Wikipedia Einstein page, and for much the same reason, I don't favour the reposting of the proposed sentence on the Freud page. Esterson (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop – I’ve added an alternative version of what your reverted text conveyed. I hope you remain undeterred by the needlessly hostile reverting you have been subject to. PoC's view of what constitutes "nonsense" is not to be taken seriously. Esterton – the other equally valid viewpoint to the one you set out is that the extraordinary creativity and boldness of Jewish thinkers derives from a common intellectual (not genetic) inheritance. Almanacer (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer—Yes, I approve of your recent edits to the article here and here. Thanks for getting that sort of material into the article. It is for the reason of alerting the reader to an area for further research, in my opinion, that we point out in our article that there is material out there investigating a possible connection between the secular Jew Freud and the area of study that he developed. I don't for a moment entertain the idea that our sentence or two relating to this is the final or definitive word on the subject. That is because this is not a full length biography or a specialized biography. But I believe that a sentence or two on the topic is called for and I approve of your wording. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Almanacer, had you been following the discussion properly, you would have realized that the reason I described Bus stop's addition as "nonsense" was because it asserted that Ernest Jones published something about Freud's Jewish identity in 1945. Jones didn't do that. As Bus stop himself has acknowledged, the 1945 part was the result of misinterpretation of the source used. I could (in fact, I should) have been more polite about it, but his addition clearly was problematic. In any case, I'm glad that in your latest addition you have used a different source entirely. I don't propose to remove it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I’ve made this point before, editing improving/error fixing is the default for WP, not reverting sourced content. (I couldn’t edit fix in this case because I don’t have Jones Vol 2 to hand). Your last sentence, welcome as it is, indicates you have yet to take this on board. Almanacer (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

^ L'Automatisme psychologique, 1899
^ F. Sulloway, Freud: Biologist of the Mind, 1979, pp. 448-453.

[1] L'Automatisme psychologique, 1899

[2] F. Sulloway, Freud: Biologist of the Mind, 1979, pp. 448-453.

[1]

[2]