Talk:Richard Webster (British author)

Leading Freud scholar?

I think it creates a misleading impression to describe Richard Webster as a leading Freud scholar. It is true that he is a well-known critic of Freud, but Why Freud Was Wrong was more influential on a popular level than it was among Freud scholars, not all of whom have a high opinion of his work. I am therefore going to abbreviate 'leading Freud scholar' to 'Freud scholar.'

Skoojal (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have only just seen this posting, and do not object to the amendment made by Skoojal. However I would like to provide a rather different perspective on the reception of Webster's book Why Freud Was Wrong by Freud scholars. The first two sections of the book devoted specifically to Freud (some 430 pages) were highly regarded among the now numerous Freud scholars and other academics who have published writings critical of Freud. Webster is listed among a group of twelve such Freud scholars and academics in the Preface to Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend (1998), F. C. Crews (editor), Penguin Viking, p. ix.

Esterson (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism!

Since an edit I just made got tagged as possible vandalism, please note that Webster is indeed going to publish a book called Casa Pia early in 2011; please see his website, it confirms this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.167.195 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Death

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/community/obituaries/obits/9124832.Richard_Webster__Author_who_got_to_heart_of_issues/ I have added this as another source. But I don't know if this is the best way to reference it. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for adding the source. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Bodhislutva, if you wish to make major changes to this article, especially potentially controversial changes, it's probably best to discuss them beforehand. I have reverted your recent undiscussed edits, as I find them to be unhelpful. I also think some of them show a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's content policies. In this edit, for example, you state, in regard to Webster's A Brief History of Blasphemy, 'The contention it was "widely praised" has no basis other than an unevidenced remark in his obituary. There is only one review, negative at that, at Amazon.co.uk for example.' The obituary came from The Guardian, which is a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies, so there is no problem with reporting what it said as fact. What kind of reviews Webster's book on blasphemy received on Amazon.co.uk, which is not a reliable source for this kind of article, is not relevant, and trying to use negative Amazon.co.uk reviews that way looks like original research. The addition you made here also appears to be original research. Please remember that most content in articles, especially anything potentially contentious, requires a proper source. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I must note that your edit here does not reflect the source you used properly. You imply Kenan Malik gave Webster's blasphemy book a negative review; actually, Malik mentions it only briefly, and his mention is neutral - Malik doesn't say either that it's a good book or that it's a bad book. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

'Why Freud Was Wrong' section

A comment on the following paragraph:

"Elaine Showalter sees Webster as one of several recent critics of Freud (others include Allen Esterson, Morton Schatzman, and Frederick Crews) who have persuasively argued that he pressured his patients to produce narratives congruent with his theories. In their view, rather than being molested by their parents or fantasizing about them, Freud's patients fabricated stories along the lines of his hysterical hypotheses."

I don't have the Showalter book in question to hand, but if this is an accurate account of what Showalter believes, it is erroneous. Every one of the cited writers has argued, with relevant citations from Freud's 1896 papers, that Freud's patients during the seduction theory period did not provide narratives of early childhood sexual molestations, as Freud claimed in his later reports (e.g. 1925, 1933). Rather, they contend, Freud analytically reconstructed the unconscious memories of supposed sexual molestation (in accord with preconceived theory) that he claimed every one of his current patients had experienced in infancy. I intend to amend the two sentences accordingly.

References

Richard Webster: Why Freud Was Wrong (1995), pp. 202-203.

Allen Esterson: Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud (1993), pp. 17-19.

Hans Israëls and Morton Schatzman, "The Seduction Theory", History of Psychiatry, iv (1993), pp. 24-26.

Frederick Crews: The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute (1995), pp. 57-59.

Esterson (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Historian

I have just discovered this man through his obit. in the Telegraph. I have become an instant fan! I think he needs to be in the Cultural Historian category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budhen (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

POV presented as fact

The claim "A Brief History of Blasphemy was widely praised.[1]" is not justifiable based on the citation given. The claim is the opinion of a non-expert and obvious friend/supporter of Webster made in an obituary. The fact it appeared in The Guardian makes no difference to it being an unevidenced claim from a partisan source.

Evidence against it being "widely praised":

1. Amazon.com and amazon.co.uk are the two largest anglophone book sellers, indeed the former is the largest bookseller of any sort in the world. The sum total of reviews this "widely praised" book has received to date is two, both negative. Not even his death appears to have inspired any of his supporters to praise him on one of the most visible forums available.

2. Webster published through a press that he controlled, so even then publication itself is no evidence of being well received.

3. One issue I have in finding criticism of Webster is that astoundingly few people actual cite, let alone criticise his work. In several hours of searching, I found mostly neutral citations to facts Webster presented, not his opinion. My guess is he was popular is a clique of Oxford writers and a few other people with similar politics in the UK. Even Salman Rushdie appears to have made no mention of him, despite being the direct target of his criticism. Nor did Christopher Hitchens, then embroiled firmly in the fight over the Satanic Verses.

Just to be clear, I voice no objection to the claim that it was "widely praised" being presented as the opinion of another person. --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is one of the most reliable sources we could use; see WP:VERIFY, which gives some idea of what sort of sources we should be using: "reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." There's no policy that says that a reliable source has to supply independent evidence that what it says is correct; the fact that a reliable source (one with a reputation for fact checking) says something would normally be all the evidence we need. Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk reviews are, as I observed to Bodhislutva on my talk page, utterly irrelevant; they are the last thing on Earth that could be considered a reliable source, and we'd never use them as a source in an article. For our purposes, it just doesn't matter what anyone says on Amazon sites. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Were it a normal news article on the website I would agree with the proposition that The Guardian is a respectable source that fact checks in accord with professional standards. Obituaries, especially ones written by a friend or colleague, are opinion pieces by their very nature and thus should be cited as opinion, not fact. 2. Your completely misrepresent my mention of Amazon. I did not in any way attempt to cite them as "reliable source" vis-à-vis content. You cannot I notice dispute that they are the largest anglophone book sellers, both new and used, and it is simple reasoning to expect that a book allegedly "widely praised" would have even a single instance of praise at those web sites. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Webster's obituary is an important source that is used extensively in the section on his life. If you were correct that the obituary were simply an opinion piece that should be cited as opinion rather than fact (which as far as I know, you aren't; I don't believe there's any such policy), then every single statement sourced to it (including, for instance, the fact that Webster never gained his PhD) would have to be cited likewise. The article simply could not be written that way - we'd have to place, "according to Bob Woffinden" before nearly every statement, and that would make it look horrible.

Regarding Amazon, you seem to be trying to use what a couple of people said there to argue against the observation of a published, reliable source. That's original research, which isn't allowed, and in any case, you simply cannot use Amazon that way, since it's not reliable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between an obituary being used to cite basic facts about the deceased versus making a value-judgment claim about the actions of the wider world. The claim "widely praised" is a subjective claim about the actions of multiple actors and not supported by any impartial evidence. But please tally up book reviews from the time. How many newspapers in the UK reviewed the work? How many newspaper on The Continent? Did any American, Canadian or Australian/New Zealand papers bother to review this "widely praised" work? Like I said even Rushdie and Hitchens ignored it. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Widely praised" doesn't seem to me to be a value judgment at all; it's simply a statement that Webster's book received a mostly positive reaction, which, as far as I can see, it did. I can't see why you object to it so much; it seems like perfectly useful and worthwhile material to me, and it helps to introduce the more specific comments about Webster's blasphemy book and give them a proper context. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence when asked to do so that the book was actually "widely praised". That is a subjective opinion with no supporting evidence from your or in the source cited. As it stands only a single publication of significant circulation, the Observer, is cited as even having reviewed the work when originally published. The rest of the comments, both for and against, are from minor writers and academics, with the exception of a remark made years after its publication by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In contrast I would not object if the Freud book or his work on the scandal in Wales had been described thusly, because those efforts received significantly more attention. --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You aren't raising new points. I have already explained that if a statement appears in a reliable source - and this one does - then it's good enough for Wikipedia. Please review policies on reliable sourcing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of the Guardian as a source is not the issue, a point I already made clear. At issue is a value judgement being presented in an opinion piece as a statement of fact with no evidence. I cite this rule in support of my position. Anyone supporting the original wording is free to provide sufficient evidence of the work being "widely praised". Several examples of what would constitute such evidence have been mentioned already. --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your "rule" is an essay that states, "this essay is not a policy or guideline." Try harder. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Endless quibbles and evasions will not make an unevidenced opinion become an NPOV fact. If you want that claim stated that badly, then I already suggested that you present it as the opinion of the the author of Webster's obituary. Your continued refusal to present even a single other review, let alone any substantive body of evidence in favour of the claim is noted. --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quibbles? It's not quibbling to point out that something you called a "rule" isn't anything of the kind. I do get the point of the section of the essay you directed me to - that one shouldn't distort sources - but as I noted below, you have been guilty of that yourself. The Guardian is a reliable source, and that's all that matters here. You've no justification for removing properly sourced material. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to suppress criticism of Webster?

Polisher of Cobwebs reverted all seven of my edits today, all of which attempted to add some balance to the article by showing criticisms of Webster.

Example 1. The citation of Sarah Boxer in the New York Times as originally inserted is egregiously misleading. She in fact refers to him as a "nihilistic critic", "crypto-priest" and exhibiting "paranoia". The quote from her is presented as if she is merely reporting Webster's views, possibly with the surreptitious implication that she agreed with them. It is clear the quote is provided as a stinging example of what Boxer sees as his "paranoia" and reckless hyperbole.

Example 2. Removal of criticism by Kenan Malik. Polisher of Cobwebs had a point that my original wording on 31 August was imprecise, so I provided an additional quote that makes Malik's opinion of Webster clear in context of how Malik views the Satanic Verses controversy.

Example 3. Pursuant to the Malik criticism, Webster attacked him by name as "free speech fundamentalist". I feel that is a meaningful indicator of Webster's hostility to free speech as generally understood by modern liberalism.

Example 4. Direct criticism of Webster by French author, Patrice Dartevielle, was removed. Just to be sure I had defensible quotes from the original French, I ran it through Google Translator and used their, rather than my own, quotations. If this needs to be cited differently because of that fact, then fine, but that is not a reason deleted, one again, pointed criticism of Webster. I will also note that I also included the one note of positive regard that Dartevielle sounded for Webster.

Then instead of voicing concerns on this talk page, the user responsible instead attacked my username as "inappropriate" on my talk page and threatened to have me barred from editing. I pointed out the perverse irony that Webster, who felt free speech should be sharply regulated by religious sentiment, attracts a Wiki author who attacks me for the same sort of "offence". I felt the attack is misogynistic in its roots and refuse to be bullied by it.

On that note the criticism removed just happens to come from two women and a man of colour, whilst almost all of the praise on the page comes from those identifiable as white males. I am not saying that is a conscious effort, but it is a concern that I want to at least mention for future observation given the issue above.

fin --Bodhislutva (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that you should not be citing self-published sources. There is no problem adding criticism by Kenan Malik. The problem is citing it to his self-published website. Criticism should be cited to third-party published material. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bodhislutva used Kenan Malik's cv page, which can be found here: http://www.kenanmalik.com/top/cv.html. The page does not even mention Webster or A Brief History of Blasphemy. Clearly it should not be used as source in the section on that book, as it's not relevant. The reference to Webster at Butterflies and Wheels (http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/butterflies_blasphemy.html) is very brief and doesn't add anything helpful, as well as being a questionable source. Webster's comments on Malik at his website don't directly concern A Brief History of Blasphemy, and once again, are a questionable source, being self-published. By all means add material critical of Webster, Bodhislutva, but it does need to be both relevant and properly sourced, and none of those three sources qualify. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Malik is discussing himself in a marked biography section of his web site and the comment is obviously germane to Webster's work. I note there were two additional references to Richard Webster's "self-published website" at the time you were deleting my contribution. Why does my citation of Webster go, but the others stay? In addition I might add, Webster published his print works often through a press that he personally controlled, should they be striken too? I think all of the citations to Malik AND Webster are legitimate, since both men are authors widely published in the UK press by third parties. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

self-published material by the subject of the article is acceptable so long as it is not self-serving. Self-published criticism of other people may not be used. Malik's website may be used as a source in Malik's article, but not this one. Similarly, Webster's website may not be used to source criticism of Malik, either here or elsewhere.. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"By all means add material critical of Webster, Bodhislutva," - That statement would be anything but laughable if the page history did not show you deleting the Sarah Boxer and Patrice Dartevielle criticism today. Your further deride Malik's comments at Butterflies and Wheels as "being a questionable source". Butterflies and Wheels is run by third-party published authors, prominent enough that Madeline Bunting addresses one of them, Ophelia Benson, as the sole focus of a piece inThe Guardian. Since Bunting and Webster share an unmistakable similarity in being avowed atheist who defend religion, I can only wonder if your derision for Butterflies and Wheels is a an expression of political antipathy. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to reconsider regarding the criticism by Patrice Dartevielle. It may be an acceptable addition. Sarah Boxer's comments calling Webster a "nihilistic critic", a "crypto-priest" and someone who exhibits "paranoia" are mindless abuse that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Sometimes we just have to use our judgment and exclude things. Were Webster still alive, such comments would blatantly violate WP:BLP; even though Webster is now deceased, I still don't think such comments should be included, as they don't serve any encyclopedic purpose. See WP:UNDUE. I'm afraid I don't really understand the point you are trying to make about Butterflies and Wheels; I do not regard that site with derision, nor, in fact, do I have any special attitude to it at all. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice you were more than happy to have Sarah Boxer cited earlier, with what I noted was a deeply misleading context for her criticisms. While her criticism is undeniably harsh, it is presented as her review of the book in question, presented accurately with regards to context and from one of the most respect journalistic sources in the English language, the New York Times. Calling it "mindless abuse" fails to consider the prominence of the source and context. This page does not exist as hagiography for Webster. --Bodhislutva (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The material you sourced to Boxer is WP:UNDUE, and I shall be removing it in the near future. It's not helpful or informative to readers. I see Boxer's comments as being of marginal importance to the article, and would rather see them removed entirely than expanded to include the "nihilistic critic" stuff (I'm not sure what "nihilistic critic" or "crypto-priest" is even supposed to mean). I agree that the article should not be a hagiography for Webster, but I don't believe it has been that at any stage. If you look, you'll see that the section on Why Freud Was Wrong includes considerable criticism of Webster. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again where was your problem with Boxer or her review when it sat their sourced and quoted month after month on this page, a page you clearly take an active interest in? When I actually read the review and presented her opinion in an accurate manner, only then does it becomes of "marginal importance" and is suddenly in violation of this policy or that. As a critical rebuttal of Webster's work from a highly respected source it is very important that it stays on an otherwise grossly imbalanced page. --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What a futile and foolish question. It happens that I think the section on Why Freud Was Wrong is unsatisfactory in numerous respects. I am not at all satisfied with the way it is written; it probably needs rewriting from top to bottom. If I were to try to rewrite that section right now, I might well remove Boxer altogether, but I am not going to do so any time soon, since rewriting the Why Freud Was Wrong section would be a highly complex task, and I prefer to concentrate on matters elsewhere on Wikipedia. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors who watchlist an article generally only notice new additions, deletions, or changes to an article. Unless they are doing a good article review or a major rewrite of the article, they generally do not do a full review of sources. Your complaint is based on an unreasonable expectation due to insufficient experience of how Wikipedia editors work and is now getting dangerously close to being considered a whine or a rant by other involved parties. Yworo (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that no one disputes that the Boxer review is now presented in a more accurate manner (I would have thought an improvement in that regard would be welcome). Unless one wishes to argue that the New York Times is not a reliable source, or that an editor at the New York Times is not a valid critic, then her review, however undeniably harsh, is a professional criticism from a mainstream source, fairly presented as a criticism (not as fact). Therefore it is fully justifiable under the NPOV policy. --Bodhislutva (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's crap that doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is meant to be a serious encyclopedia and a source of knowledge. Therefore, we present useful, relevant, worthwhile information - not vague suggestions that someone is a "nihilistic critic" or "crypto-priest", whatever the hell that means. I don't know what it means, I don't think readers will be expected to know what it means, and so it should be removed from the article. You directed me to the essay Wikipedia: Tendentious editing; I think you may need it more than I do. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell "nihilistic critic" was a term originally directed at Mark Twain's irreligious attitude towards religion. That puts Webster in some pretty fine company, in my opinion. "Crypto-priest" seems in complete opposition to this, originally referring to undercover Catholic priests in England after the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. To use both in the same opinion piece seems nonsensical. Yworo (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact you are calling a book review from the New York Times "crap" speaks volumes and again raises the issue of your history of summary deletions of criticism of Webster. Nihilism is a term anyone can look up if they are indeed perplexed by what Ms. Boxer means. The "crypto-priest" remark seems to refer to Webster's focus on religious motives, which is odd (or out-right "paranoia" as Boxer states) given that Freud was a prominent and avowed atheist and respected scientist. Since Freud was Jewish, it is even odder that Webster chose to conceptualise his motives as "Judeo-Christian" - probably why she chose "priest" instead of "rabbi". Either way it is a witty quip from what is again not merely mainstream, but preimminent source of book reviews. --Bodhislutva (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A book review is generally only a reliable source for a review of the book. Any personal commentary on the author is not any more reliable than an op-ed, which we also don't use to source information about people. Yworo (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Having looked again at the sources, it's clear that Bodhislutva has misused and distorted them. She changed the article to say that Sarah Boxer called Webster a "crypto-priest"; in fact it's clear from Boxer's review that, according to her, Webster calls Freud a "crypto-priest". Whether that misleading use of the source was due to incompetence on Bodhislutva's part or deliberate distortion of the source I cannot say, in any case, it wasn't good editing. I have changed the article to remove Bodhislutva's distortions, while preserving those of her edits that seem more sensible. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an NYT subscriber so I wasn't able to check that myself due to the paywall, but suspected it. Your edits look very well done to me, though, considering... Yworo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I should say, in fairness to Bodhislutva, that some of her edits here do seem to be helpful; others, though, have changed the article in ways that aren't at all improvements. I was probably over-hasty in simply reverting all Bodhislutva's edits in the past, but I would ask her to be more careful in future. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspected there were some good points to her edits, which is why I only removed the obviously self-published source and left the rest for someone more familiar with Webster to sort out. Yworo (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There will be no future edits by me. Your two day tag-team campaign against me has stripped me of any desire to participate at WIkipedia, which had been a New Year resolution. Richard Webster essentially felt that intimidation and offence should dictate free expression, so yours is a great victory for his views. You two have also managed to bully a person to tears. Whichever of you inevitably deletes this post, I hope you take immense satisfaction. --75.151.100.170 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your insistence on your imagined "right" to use an offensive username is the direct cause. Take a little responsibility and imagine what might have happened if you'd just said, "I'm sorry, I'll change it." Yworo (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

75.151.100.170, no one is going to delete your post. It was made clear to you on the talk page of your account that you can start a new account if you wish, and I assume that this means that you can also edit as an IP if you wish - so you aren't breaking any rule by commenting here. I'm sorry you feel upset about what happened, but may I suggest that you're over-reacting? You're still absolutely free to edit Wikipedia; it's just that you aren't going to be allowed to do that using accounts with needlessly provocative names. If your motivation for participating in Wikipedia is really to improve the project rather than to provoke people, that shouldn't be a problem. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

I have turned A Brief History of Blasphemy into an article, in accord with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I think that the information about that book, although useful, was rather too detailed for this article, which is after all primarily about Richard Webster as a person, not about the reaction to his books. Close analysis or detailed discussion of his notable books belongs in independent articles. I intend to eventually turn Why Freud Was Wrong into an article as well (it is currently a redirect). However, I will not be doing that immediately. I am not sufficiently satisfied with the material on Why Freud Was Wrong currently in this article to want to make an article out of it. I think the standard of writing is not quite good enough, and I also have some concerns (minor concerns, however, not major concerns) with its factual accuracy. So I will be looking to find ways to improve it, maybe in a sandbox. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)