Talk:Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel

Untitled
Hi. I'm porting info from fr.wikipedia for JCS; gimme a minute.... Billbrock 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In cases like this, I recommend creating a subpage in your user namespace, and then moving the article to the mainspace once you've finished work. Thanks! &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, if you still want to delete please post on AfD, or put a differnt deletion template as it is not empty anymore. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all for the help--the additions were most welcome! Several major works not mentioned, and those I do could be shortened...but it's a start.  Billbrock 23:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

quality of this article
I had no inkling of this psychoanalist and compared to the french version, the english version is better developed. It points out to the problem of the negative reception of psychoanalysis in France, which has been instrumentalized by the extreme left. This is the kind of article which really makes Wikipedia such a thrilling experience, when everybody abides by the rules of it.--Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality (NPOV)
Afer reading carefullly this article, I am astounded that anyone should complain about the neutrality of it. On the contrary the contributions have carefully expounded the pros and cons of Mrs Chasseguet's works in a very sensible and delicate manner, quoting the main opponents to her theory. By définition, a psychonalytical criticism of political ideologies is bound to upset the supporters of these ideologies. Besides, in the talk page, I don't see anyone discussing about the article's neutrality. It is in my opinion a model of explanation of difficult issues in a difficult discipline. Mrs Chasseguet was particularly attacked by Lacan and his supporters. Needless to remind that Lacan has been ousted from the International Psychoanalytical Society because of his spurious clinical methods, and that he rejoined after his expulsion, the famous intellectuel state terrorist, Louis Althusser, who had been constantly under psychiatric care throughout his period as the chief "philosopher" at the Ecole Normale Superieure, and who ended his life in a psychiatric ward (thus escaping prison), after the strangling of his own wife, in the premises of the "Ecole Normale Superieure". Surely the opponents of Mrs Chasseguet that question the "neutrality" of this article must belong to the Lacan - Althusser school. It should be noted that her main book about the criticism of the revolutionaru utopias in 1968's France was published again shortly before her death in French with a new introduction by the author(s)--Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I feel quite able to question neutrality without belonging to any school. Two topics jump out of a reading of this article:
 * Someone who publishes under a pseudonym is not necessarily "disguising themselves" as repeatedly asserted in the article. Even restricting examples to the France of that time, many writers were publishing under pseudonyms: Cornelius Castoriadis, André Gorz, Claude Lefort, Benny Lévy to list a few.
 * Ascription of political positions. At one point in the article, the subject has apparently become a political conservative - not referenced to any tangible source, and one can't help feeling that is being represented as A Bad Thing. Then there is the large (I won't say substantial) section on "Accusations of fascism" - the classic POV insult to be thrown around.
 * Personally I think one could cut out that section, but on the other hand it is referenced, so consensus would be needed on whether to go for wholesale filleting. So overall, I'd say the article in current state has POV issues, hence the flagging. AllyD (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you misinterpret the tone and the content of the section "accusation of fascism". These lines simply point out to the fact the reception of Mrs Chasseguet and her husband's work was quite violent in the left wing milieux. Being an amateur in my reading about psychoanalysis, I think it proper to leave the reference to the book "anti-oedipe" which was a classic among left-wing "marxo-freudian"; just to give an inkling about the french intellectuel scene of those days. The term "she and her husband wrote under disguise" should also be left because, from what I read about Lacan's reaction to the book, left-wing radicals were actually infuriated by this anonymity. It doesn't mean, in my opinion that whoever wrote these lines for wikipedia approved of that or failed to understand that this anonymity was intended to protect the authors' "analysés" (patients). Anyone who feels capable of it might change this section in that direction, but it would be a pity not to mention, that her work was furiously challenged by the dominant intellectual scene of that time. Just to add a personal touch, for instance, I had never heard of Mrs Chasseguet's writings until now, because the "doxa" in France, still is mainly "lacanian". --Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All right then ! go ahead to change the title of the subsection and add a few lines to mitigate the polemics !--Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I have just remarked that whoever styarted this neutrality dispute didn't abide by the technical standards of wikipedia : there is no banner, no registering on the list of disputes etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre Rongellion (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC) To end the "dispute", i have changed the controversed section's title from "accusation of fascism" to "controversies and polemics etc..."; I think it will satisfy everybody.--Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some past debate about the extent to which a personal biography article should be weighed down with others' criticisms can be found in the Lacan article Talk archive (of all places). In my opinion a sub-political quasi-analytic accusation of "fascism" is not something that should be dignified with a subheading (occupying some 30% of the text) in a WP biography, however strident it may have been, so the text needs to be toned down. AllyD (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)