Talk:Sigmund Freud

Feminism

It is quite ridiculous to follow a reference to debates over the therapeutic efficacy and scientific status of psychoanalysis with a reference to debates over whether psychoanalysis "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause." It's perfectly obvious that debates over the merits of psychoanalysis as therapy or as science are more relevant to Freud's legacy than debates over its relevance to feminism, which is, in contrast, a secondary issue. In fact I don't think that anyone, even among those sympathetic to psychoanalysis, seriously claims that Freud genuinely advanced the cause of feminism, so the material that appears in the lead misrepresents the issue. Flyer22 was wrong to revert me. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The edits that ImprovingWiki are talking about are here and here. The lead should summarize the article, per WP:Lead. Per WP:Lead, significant matters of debate should also be in the lead. Given the impact that Freud's theories had on female sexuality and on feminism (topics of significant debate), as also shown by the article, yes, one or both of those aspects should be mentioned in the lead. I was not at all wrong to revert ImprovingWiki, considering that his edit removed feminism completely out of the lead and others might disagree with his removal for one or more reasons. Thus, I reverted him and directed him to this talk page. Whether or not the exact wording I reverted should be in the lead is a different matter, but feminism should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not the exact wording; the issue is basic factual accuracy. The lead suggests that there is a debate over whether Freud's theories advanced or impeded the feminist cause. As I said, I don't believe anyone is seriously arguing that Freud somehow advanced feminism as a political movement. I'm not convinced that what appears in the lead is even an accurate representation of the source material. As for summarizing the article, while the feminism section does indeed note that some feminist writers have taken an interest in psychoanalytic ideas, it doesn't say anything about feminists, or anyone else, claiming that Freud advanced feminism as a movement. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated, something about female sexuality and/or feminism, given what is presented in the article and in many WP:Reliable sources connecting Sigmund Freud and feminism, should be in the lead. Those sources clearly show that Freud's writings have had a significant impact on feminism. If no one else watching this talk page weighs in on the matter, the next step can be a WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say that "Freud's writings have had a significant impact on feminism." Actually neither does the feminism section of the article. What it shows, rather, is that most feminists have regarded Freud in a hostile and negative way, and that a much smaller group has taken some interest in (drastically modified) psychoanalytic ideas. The material you restored to the lead (about a supposed debate over whether Freud's work "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause") is not an accurate representation of that. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If the source supports what it claims, that is something to think about; I doubt that it's the only source making such a claim. There is more than one section on feminism in the article; there are two, and both sections indicate that Freud's views have significantly impacted feminism. Many feminists taking the time to discredit his work, or whatever, is a significant impact on that area of thinking. And I already stated, "Whether or not the exact wording I reverted should be in the lead is a different matter, but feminism should be mentioned somewhere in the lead." I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not personal opinion, on editing matters such as these. You are arguing for something based on your personal belief; you are not showing that the source does not support the content, and you are not providing WP:Reliable sources to show that your stance is correct. Simply stating "[i]t is quite ridiculous" is not justification. I again suggest that you either wait for others to weigh in, or start a WP:RfC. You have not convinced, and will not convince, me that the line should be removed based on "[i]t is quite ridiculous." Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect that there are two sections on feminism. There is one section on feminism, and one section on "femininity and female sexuality." Perhaps you are confusing that with feminism? I can understand why. The "femininity and female sexuality" section contains a significant amount of material that does not belong there and should probably be moved elsewhere in the article, as it relates to debates after Freud's death. The first two paragraphs of that section - on Horney's criticism of Freud and Jacqueline Rose's criticism of Horney - certainly do not belong there. The rest of your comments just aren't to the point. What you need to do is to show that the article supports the statement that psychoanalysis has generated debate over whether it "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause". Obviously, the fact that feminists have criticized Freud doesn't at all suggest that there is debate over whether psychoanalysis "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause"; it shows that feminists typically have a negative view of Freud, and that's all. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, would you support a mention of the effects that psychoanalysis has had on gay people and gay rights in the lead? Why would that be any less worthy of mention than its effects on feminism? ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite having looked at this article more than once, my brain, during my debate with you, read "femininity" as "feminism" regarding the Femininity and female sexuality section. I stand corrected; there is only one section on feminism in the article, though the Femininity and female sexuality section has feminism aspects. I don't agree that any of the material in the Femininity and female sexuality section does not belong in that section based on the reasoning that it's a subsection of the Ideas section and partly includes material that happened after Freud's death. There is no reason that an Ideas section regarding Freud cannot include "debates after Freud's death." As for my having to do something in this discussion, I don't. You are the one challenging the sourced material, suggesting that the source may not support the content, without providing any proof that it does not. And as for "support[ing] a mention of the effects that psychoanalysis has had on gay people and gay rights in the lead," I would if it was WP:Lead material, and was focused on Freud's work rather than on psychoanalysis in general. I am involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, and work on Wikipedia LGBT topics, after all, as also noted on my user page. But nothing in the article suggests that the effects that psychoanalysis has had on gay people and gay rights is WP:Lead material for the Sigmund Freud article. By contrast, much (not most or all, of course) criticism of Freud concerns female sexuality, and Freud's work by extension concerns feminism; like the Feminism section states, "The decline in Freud's reputation has been attributed partly to the revival of feminism." And either way, what makes psychoanalysis's effects on gay people and gay rights "any less worthy of mention than its effects on feminism" is determined by its level of coverage in WP:Reliable sources. So if you are trying to suggest some sort of bias on my part, you are looking in the wrong place. I have already noted what WP:Lead is about.

Also, what you keep objecting to is the idea that psychoanalysis or Freud advanced the feminist cause; you don't seem to be disputing the argument that he was detrimental to the feminist cause. Perhaps because you are aware that many sources state that his views were detrimental to women's health and rights? It seems to me that you might also be interpreting the "advances the feminist cause" aspect differently than the source does. The source perhaps means that, like I've been indicating above, Freud's beliefs created many argument points for feminists and discourse specific to those matters. Whatever the case, I've already pretty much noted that I don't mind if the specific line you object to is removed from the lead. What I am asking for is a solid argument for you to remove it, and I am stating that something about Freud's impact on female sexuality and/or feminism should be in the lead. If you can come up with a good replacement sentence, I would be okay with that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the article includes a "legacy" section. Obviously material about debates after Freud's death belongs in a section on his legacy: debates about the merits of someone's ideas are part of their legacy. There is no logic to having the material on Horney and Rose in its current location. As for your other points, I'll consider them. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We disagree on what an Ideas sections should cover, at least regarding this article, but I am glad to see that we seem to be coming closer to a resolution concerning our dispute. If you can't prove the disputed line is inappropriate with a WP:Reliable source, then I am fine with you removing it, since no one else has objected to its removal. But again, I would like to see something in the lead about female sexuality and/or feminism. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your position is not reasonable. As currently written, the section on femininity gives Horney's criticism of Freud, and Jacqueline Rose's criticism of Horney, even before saying what Freud's ideas actually were. Isn't it obvious that that's inappropriate? ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What a childish response. Of course a section on Freud's ideas about femininity should begin by saying what they actually were; Horney's and Rose's views are in large part responses to Freud, and aren't fully comprehensible without knowledge of his views. Can you actually give a rational explanation of why a section on Freud's ideas about femininity should instead begin with Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose? Or are single-word responses (eg, "No") the only ones you're capable of? They do come across as foot-stomping, you know. Remember that I'm not the only editor you may need to persuade; I think other editors interested in this article might also expect a more adult and articulate response. I could take this to third opinion, and I don't think your response above will do you any favors with anyone reviewing this discussion. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"No" is not a childish response just because you don't like it. I don't have to respond in a way you personally find suitable. I disagree with you, and that's all to it. As is if "No" is worse than your "It is quite ridiculous" arguments, where you've argued that text must be removed because you find the argument silly and disagree with what the source likely states. Your response (your 09:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC) post) is childish and out of hand. I'm beginning to think you are not at all familiar with the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia, such as your disregard for what should be in a WP:Lead. But you should thoroughly read and study WP:Talk and WP:Civil. We settled one matter, pretty much anyway, and now you are harping on another matter. People will disagree with you on Wikipedia. You are not always right. Accept it. With several years of experience editing this site, improving a wide variety of articles in many ways, I don't need you lecturing me on a Wikipedia matter and imposing your view on me as to what makes a good article. I already brought up WP:Dispute resolution (in the form of a WP:RfC) earlier on in this discussion. You want to take any of these minor matters there? You are more than free to do so. As if your "I could take this to third opinion" and "and I don't think your response above will do you any favors with anyone reviewing this discussion" words are supposed to be some kind of threat or intimidation. Does not intimidate or scare me in the least. I'm not very invested in these matters. You are, as is clear by your temperamental responses. Keep your unpleasantries to yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right about one thing: "No" is indeed not a childish response because I don't agree with it. Rather, it is childish because it doesn't give any reason for your position. I gave reasons for thinking that describing the views of Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose before those of Freud, in a section ostensibly about explaining Freud's views, is inappropriate; you gave and seem unable to give any reason to think that it is appropriate. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project where people give reasons for their views. It demands a kind of maturity that you aren't showing in your comments above. Of course you don't "have to" give a reason for your position; it's simply a good idea. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The "whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause" wording was added in 14 October 2012 and it appears to have been in the lead since then (nearly two years). This is a well-watched article so it should be assumed that there is a consensus supporting the current text—it's unlikely that anything obviously inappropriate would last that long. I suggest waiting to give time for others to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Slow down" is pretty patronizing advice, considering that the only editing on this issue that has taken place so far was a single edit by me and a single revert by Flyer22. Do you have any comment on any of the various other issues that have been discussed? That would be more helpful. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, my use of "no" was still not a childish response. And again, stop trying to lecture me on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I don't need to be told that it "is supposed to be a collaborative project"; my user page shows that I've collaborated on many things. The above discussion shows that I tried to collaborate with you on the first thing you objected to in this section. Do people have to give reasons for their views on Wikipedia? No. But in this case, my reason is simple: I disagree with you that "describing the views of Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose before those of Freud" in the Femininity and female sexuality section is a problem. There is nothing more to it than that. Sometimes reasons are very simple, even if you consider them childish in their simplicity. I don't see a problem with the matter; that's my reason for your objection to the material there. You do see a problem with it. It's as simple as that. You don't get to insult or lecture me about how you think my response should be deeper. If you had more experience interacting with editors on Wikipedia, you'd know that simple "I disagree; I think the text is fine as it because I don't see a problem with it." type of responses are common on this site, including matters handled at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). I've disagreed. My mind won't be changing on the matter, though I don't care if Freud's views are placed first or second. If you want to move Freud's views to first in that section, I have no objection. If you want to remove the views of Karen Horney and Jacqueline Rose from that section, I disagree. Now you either wait for others to respond, if the latter is what you seek, or you take the matter to WP:Dispute resolution. Johnuniq has already given his opinion on one of the matters discussed above -- the "advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

For any position you take on content, you should be able to give a reason. I'm not impressed by statements of the "I think the text is fine the way it is" kind if they are unsupported by any argument, and I truly don't care whether that kind of response is common or not. It's foolish to give Horney's and Rose's views first in the "femininity and female sexuality" section, given that the section is supposed to be about Freud's views, not theirs. One can't even understand Horney or Rose properly unless one knows what Freud's views were, so of course they shouldn't go first. Your inability to make any response to that argument simply leaves me thinking that you can't make any. I stand by calling your response childish. Fundamentally, the Horney and Rose material doesn't belong in that section at all, and it doesn't belong there because it's material about debates over the merits of Freud's ideas. There are no good grounds for putting it in an expository section on Freud's ideas when there is an entire section of the article, Legacy, for material on all the criticisms and arguments over Freud's work. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I gave a reason (there was no "inability to make any response" on my part). I don't care what you are not impressed by. I'm not impressed by your continued insistence that I provide an answer that is suitable to you. Just like I am not impressed by your "Horney's and Rose's views don't belong there because I say so" arguments. Just like I am not impressed by your arguing over nothing, except for me to state that you are right (for example, arguing that Horney's and Rose's views should not go first when I already stated that I don't care if you place them second; you will not get me to agree that they should go second). Just like I am not impressed by your WP:Personal attacks. Continue the WP:Harassment, and I will report you to an appropriate noticeboard, if I don't decide to ignore you. Be impressed by that, and move on to seek a third opinion as you were advised to do and stated that you would do. Again, one third opinion has already been put forth on one of the matters above. You are clearly a "Things must go my way; my arguments are superior to everyone else's" type of person, and that's the type of person that is not compatible with Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Now who's making personal attacks? There's an ongoing argument here, and you don't like the way I've argued, apparently. In that case, just why would you feel compelled to continue the argument, instead of finding something else to do? I think a fair-minded person, reviewing everything above, would conclude that it's you, not me, who has taken the "because I say so" position. As I said, the main reason Horney and Rose's views should be removed from the section on "Femininity and female sexuality" is that the section is about Freud's views, not theirs. Readers interested in learning what Freud's views were can reasonably be expected to want a section on Freud's ideas in an article about Freud to actually describe Freud's views, not those of Horney, Rose or anyone else. Nothing you've said is a rational response to that point. I don't think my arguments are necessarily superior to everyone else's, but I do think that they are superior to yours. Just deal with it, instead of making silly accusations of harassment. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the WP:Personal attacks policy. There's apparently a lot of Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines that you need to read. I made no WP:Personal attack on you. But you have made more than one on me, and you have engaged in WP:Harassment. You also responded very predictably by stating, "I don't think my arguments are necessarily superior to everyone else's, but I do think that they are superior to yours." And now you are telling me to "[j]ust deal with it," when you have been advised to do that by two editors above in this section so far -- the "[j]ust deal with it" part meaning to wait and see what others state or to take the matter to WP:Dispute resolution. You apparently cannot do that, and would rather continue engaging in your ridiculous need to belittle. Time to ignore you now, and to only interact with you when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and, since it's not clear to you, stating/asking "There's an ongoing argument here, and you don't like the way I've argued, apparently. In that case, just why would you feel compelled to continue the argument, instead of finding something else to do?" goes both ways. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the harassment policy; it forbids wikihounding and various other behaviors, none of which a reasonable person would find me guilty of. Pardon me for suggesting that the problem here is largely that you are behaving in a hyper-sensitive way and can't cope with disagreement. As for dispute resolution, I actually asked for a third opinion some time ago; you apparently didn't notice. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

More WP:Personal attacks (including implications that I'm not reasonable) and more silliness on your part, including blatant hypocrisy (hyper-sensitive/can't cope with disagreement, for example). WP:Harassment certainly does include what you have engaged in at this talk page -- steadily pressing an editor to answer the way that you want and continually stating or implying that they are childish, inferior, incapable of reason, etc. when they don't answer the way that you want. As for you asking for a third opinion, why would I know that you have unless I follow your contributions, like I just did here? That page is not on my WP:Watchlist; nor should it be. And I see in that request, you primarily focused on whether or not "Horney's and Rose's views" should come first in the Femininity and female sexuality section. What a minor thing to focus on out of the matters above, and completely moot since I stated that I don't care if those views are placed first or second. Oh, but course, you want someone to agree with you that not only should those views come second, but that they shouldn't be in that section at all, and will see it as a victory if one person agrees with you on either of those topics. So no wonder you focused on that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And newsflash: Many editors watch this talk page. Yet none of them, except Johnuniq if he now watches this talk page, have weighed in on these disputes. Not even when this section was relatively bearable, without all of the drama. In other words, they don't care about what you are objecting to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still here, but as you suggest, no one is likely to want to get involved in yet another long winded dispute. I'm afraid all I can offer is more patronizing advice—everyone should take at least a 48-hour break from this article because the back-and-forth is not helping. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Harassment, as normally understood on Wikipedia or off it, refers to repeatedly making unwelcome contacts with a person. Flyer22's decision to participate in an argument with me (which I see she is still doing even after saying that she would ignore me - decidedly not reasonable behavior) is not equivalent to me harassing her. You may note that the harassment page states that, '...there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user.' Flyer22's peculiar post above seems to imply that I'm interested simply in scoring some kind of victory, which is incorrect; I focused on the issue of the Horney and Rose material because that happens to be what I'm mainly concerned with. I could have been clearer in my 3O request that the issue is partly whether it should be in that section at all. It's quite possible, as Flyer22 suggests, that no one besides me really cares about that point, but that in itself of course doesn't alter my views. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:Harassment is faulty. Perhaps if you were more experienced with editing Wikipedia, such as consistently seeing the matters that go on at WP:ANI, you'd know how to fully interpret that policy...correctly. Continuing to reply to you does not mean that I welcome a thing from you; if such logic were a part of WP:Harassment, then harassers I've kept replying to at my talk page who were warned and/or blocked for continuing to interact with me there would not have been warned and/or blocked for WP:Harassment. With my words above, I clearly did not welcome your insults and repeatedly indicated that you should stop making them. You did not, and still persist with an insult in your latest post (your "decidedly not reasonable behavior" wording). I stated, "Time to ignore you now." If I had stated, "I'm ignoring you now," that would be a different matter. But either way, I was not going to let your follow-up jabs go without a response. That stated, since I am quite capable of not taking the WP:Bait, and since Johnuniq is obviously tired of this back-and-forth mess, go ahead and keep blasting away with your need to insult and twist matters. See if I reply to you. If I reply again to you at this talk page, it will be because I've reverted you on a matter and am "obligated" to interact with you on the talk page or because I am responding to something involving the person or people offering a third opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Given what you recently said on your talk page (which I looked at only just recently), I'm not going to respond to that. I think you know very well which comments I mean. I'm sorry if I've offended or upset you; that truly wasn't my intention. I would have behaved differently had I known more about you. I can only suggest that the best thing you could do would be to stay away from articles on controversial subjects or even to take a break from editing altogether. Let other editors handle these issues. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names

Editor Goethean has indicated that forty-four (44) names of "Influences" and "Influenced" by Freud are all essential to the Infobox of the Freud page at Wikipedia. Other editors have indicated that this is excessive and not useful for the purposes of the Infobox. Editor ImprovingWiki has taken the position that five to seven names is sufficient. Those who wish to Support the short number of names written in the Infobox should indicate their position as a "Support" comment, and those who wish to maintain a list of 44 names should indicate "Oppose" concerning a shorter version.

• Support for short version of the Infobox names as originating this rfc. The current very long and excessively detailed list serves no useful purpose and is not informative. The list should be kept to immediate influences and not stray into uninformative historic material. FelixRosch (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: At the moment I count Influences = 21, Influenced = 47. That makes 68? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question: Why aren't collapsible lists used here, so that only those interested need to see them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose See below for my comments noting that the number of listing are not exceptional in comparison to other WP articles. I have no objection to a collapsible list but at the moment the formatting doesn't make it necessary. Almanacer (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support for the short version, as per FelixRosch. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

For most of the history of the Freud article there was a reasonably uselful list in the infobox of influence/influenced. These lists were reduced to an arbitrary minimal content by User:FelixRosch|FelixRosch. This was done without any coherent rationale being provided or discussion on the Talk Page. I have now restored in a slightly amended form the previous listings. Almanacer (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reposted the above as the same objection applies to the same arbitrary and undiscussed reduction of content in the infobox. The previous listing are in my view appropriate, helpful, usable and informative contrary to the claims of the editors who have removed them without presenting any arguments for the arbitrary minimal listing that remain.  They have an appropriate range of references for influenced: early followers, 2nd and 3rd generation psychoanalysts from Europe and America, ditto scholars in the humanities and feminists.   For influences list - see the index of any major Freud biography. The listings are comparable in length to that of other major figures in the humanities  eg Marx, Derrida, Heidegger, Adorno. They have been an established part of the Freud article for many years and are a useful set of links for those seeking to explore Freud's background and legacy further. Almanacer (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support for ImrovingWiki. Too many names in the Infobox is not needed. FelixRosch (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch: You are edit warring. You need to stop. — goethean 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No one seems to have asked whether having such a long list of names in the infobox really is helpful. I don't believe it is. The longer the list is, the less useful and the more confusing it must surely become. Many of the names on the list are only minor figures. The list Almanacer supports could be made even longer, but to no good purpose; a shorter list is better than one so long that the eye skims over it. Also, note that although Goethean warned FelixRosch about edit warring, Almanacer is actually more guilty of this, since he has reverted multiple editors who disagree with him. Almanacer should not have made this edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No edit warring is intended here. @Goethean appears to have accepted the form of the Infobox as it was by adding two names of his own to the list which was accepted in good faith. Possible clarify. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Goethean for his clarification. In the absence of any response to the above post I made in defence of the set of listings of influences/influenced, which has been part of the article for many years and was removed by FR here, the argument by repetition of "too long" or "too many" takes us no further forward and are purely subjective opinions which continue to be made whilst ignoring my referencing of other comparable WP articles.

If ImpWiki thinks "No one seems to have asked whether having such a long list of names in the infobox really is helpful" then he hasn't read what I wrote carefully enough. If people choose to skim the list they are free to do so; but they also have the option, which he and FelixR are trying to remove, of paying it more detailed attention and following the relevant links. Almanacer (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My name is ImprovingWiki, not "ImpWiki". Maybe you did consider whether having a long list of names in the infobox is helpful, but your comments didn't suggest that you considered it very carefully. The longer the list is, the less likely it is that anyone will read it at all. There has to be a limit somewhere to the number of names included, and I think the limit should be a strict one. For the list of people influenced by Freud, 47 names is just too many. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"The longer the list is, the more likely it is that a reader will see a name they recognise"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if that were true, why should it matter? Being useful and informative is not the same thing as containing something that readers already recognize. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Most people find that "more information ... is more informative"? The issue here seems to be partly one of layout size constraints? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're again ignoring the fact that "more information" can only become confusing past a certain point. I don't think adjusting layout can solve that problem by itself. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Less of a fact, more of a hypothesis. And one which depends on the readership, I'd suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Too many names in the infobox: At first I hardly noticed it, but after thinking about it, I think it is problematic to have so many names. It would be more useful for the readers to have a section under the Legacy heading such as "Influence" and then list each of the people currently in the info box with a little bit of information about each of them. I might be willing to work on that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support some reduction in number of names, simply because at various resolutions and window sizes including the native one's on both my machines as well as a partners tablet it leaves a hell of a lot of white space prior to the article. Collapsible lists may resolve this but the question we need to ask is what does a reader gain by that list being their rather than a more detailed section within the article? SPACKlick (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support a short list. Remember, this is the infobox and, as such, the information in it should be "a quick and convenient summary" of the article's contents. Go ahead and knock yourselves out :-) in the main body of the text! Include an exhaustive list, if you feel you must! But the blessed little infobox should not be weighed down by some misguided tendency for completism. -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Completism is not the issue rather it getting a representative sample across the range of historical and contemporary figures (see my post above of 8 September). There is no conceivable reason why the listings should be fewer than those of Jung (32) or Derrida (43) or Lacan (23). These and other similar articles provide the objective criteria that should be applied in these deliberations - as opposed to the endless parroting of "too many", "too long" and the arbitrary declaration that seven is the appropriate number of listings by self-appointed arbiters of "strict limits" such as ImprovingWiki. Almanacer (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I never said anywhere that 7 is the appropriate number. Rather, all I said was that there has to be a limit somewhere. Almanacer, in contrast, seems perfectly comfortable with a bloated list that could be expanded indefinitely. Regarding other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The real issue has to do with continuous maintenance of the infobox. It is not Almanacer or myself who added 47 names to the infobox. It is various editors who may be interested in Freud's relationship with Brentano, or with Dostoevsky, or Fliess, and would like to highlight that relationship in the infobox. One potential criteria for inclusion in the infobox is that the figure is mentioned and reliably sourced in the article as an influence on or as having been influenced by Freud. Enforcing this criteria will take quite a bit of effort/commitment from editors who watch this page (I've been through this at the Nietzsche article already (currently at 37 influences and 110 influencees).) But to create an additional criteria, such as being a "primary influence" on Freud is hopelessly subjective and unsourcable and may result in prolonged debate or edit war with people interested in this or that of Freud's influences or influencees. — goethean 15:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• The process goethean has described above has gone on at least since 2011 since when there have always been over 30 listings. Apart from the arguments I have already made, it’s disrespectful of the editors who have contributed to these listings to have them removed wholesale as they were here by FelixRosch without any reference to this Page and the requirement to be sure there is consensus. If ImprovingWiki is saying that the opinion attributed to him by FelixRosch in initiating this RfC “that five to seven names is sufficient” is a misrepresentation then he would have done us all favour by pointing it out somewhat earlier. Perhaps, in the absence of any consensus, he will now stop editing the article with that end in mind. It’s a pity he hasn’t evidently learnt anything from the exchange with Flyer22 (in the Feminism thread above) about conducting a dialogue without aiming cheap slurs, sidewipes and abusive ad hominems at other editors. Almanacer (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Almanacer might have noticed that I stopped doing reverts at this article some time ago. So his comment that "perhaps" I will stop making reverts without consensus is uncalled for. It is a pity that Almanacer would gratuitously drag in a totally unrelated discussion with another editor. For the record, however, I found and still find Flyer22's position about the feminism material in this article to be unreasonable. I apologized for the agresssive tone of my comments and ended discussion with her because I found posts on her talk page in which she acknowledged having mental health problems, up to an including suicidal thoughts. I also believe it is quite likely that the editor in question is a child. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Take a look at Bertrand Russell? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion Using the hide option in the infobox could be a way around the issue: We could have as many names or terms as offered in the main text with the default set to hidden and the user having the option to turn on "show".-The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Suggestion The influences/influenced parameters have been completely removed from Template:infobox person (and Template:infobox writer). See the discussion Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 19. The short version is this sort of thing is highly qualitative, best left to prose discussion, arbitrarily nuanced as need be, in the main body of the article. The rest of the infobox is almost entirely black-and-white facts, with a few odd exceptions, like Doris Day's date of birth. Choor monster (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Doris never had a coherent theory on the psychological importance of dreams, nor a very convincing theory of psychosexual development. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)