Talk:Sigmund Freud

Jacques Van Rillaer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychosexual Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

My proposed revised paragraph is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ofshe and Watters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to third opinion request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for Legacy section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish people cannot be psychoanalyzed?

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

Ordinary nazi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominate Article for Deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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