Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 10

Neutral
This is very neutral. I believe this is truly just a memory of his life. In time, I hope we all can grow to his high standards and aspects of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.241.218 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The military influence upon Freud
The one year compulsory service in Austrian army by Freud before he graduated MD has been mentioned in: Lary B. Berkower, M.D.: The Military Influence Upon Freud's Dynamic Psychiatry {Amer.J.Psych.127:2.August 1970} and in: Siegfried Bernfeld, Ph.D.: Sigmund Freud, M.D. 1882-1885 (The Yearbook of Psychoanalysis Vol. 8 1952)

Are there any new contributions to this subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominica Dicosmo (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Development of psychoanalysis
The brief introductory reference to "Anna O." in the "Development of psychoanalysis section" reads as follows:


 * Described as Anna O she was invited to talk about her symptoms while under hypnosis (she would coin the phrase "talking cure" for her treatment). In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of early traumatic incidents in her life.

However, nowhere in Breuer's case history (Breuer and Freud, Standard Edition 2, Case 1), or in his original (incomplete) case report (A. Hirschmüller, The Life and Work of Josef Breuer, 1978, pp. 276-290) does Breuer report that Anna O. (Bertha Pappenheim) retrieved memories of early traumatic incidents in her life. In the first stage of the treatment (roughly November 1880 to June 1881) Breuer reports she went into states of "auto-hypnosis" that occurred during spontaneous absences that she entered regularly in the evenings (Hirschmüller, 1978, pp. 279, 282-283, 285, 286-287; Breuer and Freud, SE 2, pp. 27, 28, 29, 30-31, 39). In the later stages of the treatment Breuer writes that he hypnotised the patient in the morning and encouraged her to concentrate her thoughts on specific symptoms and tell him the circumstances in which they first appeared. It was during the periods of her "evening hypnosis". i.e., the state of "auto-hypnosis" (SE 2, pp. 29, 39) that occurred during her spontaneous absences that the patient entered regularly in the evenings as described previously, that she would, with prompting from Breuer using his notes, give an account of these circumstances (S.E. 2, p. 36). From Breuer's account of this period (S.E. 2, pp. 37-40) it is evident that the incidents she described in her states of self-hypnosis were of recent occurrences (e.g., see p. 40); there is no mention of early traumatic incidents in her life. Esterson (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since and notwithstanding Freud’s insistence, contra Breuer, that it was always the case (based on a number of case studies) that repressed memories of childhood sexual trauma underlay symptom formation is represented elsewhere in the article I suggest removing “early” from this part of the text to meet your point.


 * I have a number of other changes in mind for the Development section (which is why I have retitled this section):


 * 1)	remove the third last paragraph – the topic of early followers and the clash with Jung is dealt with in more adequate detail in the Early Followers section
 * 2)	move the paragraph on Horney (in rewritten form) to a new section on Feminine Sexuality under Ideas – this debate occurred in the 1920s and is out of context in the Development section
 * New text: "Initiating what became the first debate within psychoanalysis on femininity, Karen Horney of the Berlin Institute set out to challenge Freud's account of the development of feminine sexuality. Rejecting Freud's theories of the feminine castration complex and penis envy, Horney argued for a primary femininity and penis envy as a defensive formation rather than arising from the fact, or “injury”, of biological asymmetry as Freud held. Horney had the influential support of Melanie Klein and Ernest Jones who coined the term “phallocentrism” in his critique of Freud's position".
 * 3)	Remove the reference to Lacan’s letter which is from the 1930s for the same reason.
 * Almanacer (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. I agree with your point that only a very brief overview is required here as the case is dealt with in some detail later. The following comments will be in regard to your suggested amended version:


 * In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of traumatic incidents in her life.


 * Firstly, I would argue that "memories of traumatic incidents in her life" is too general, as it suggests that she went back indefinitely in time for these incidents, whereas they were all related to incidents within the previous two years, the period of her illness.


 * Secondly, given the current notion of what constitutes "traumatic memories" the suggested amended version may give a misleading impression. As Breuer wrote, "many of the events she described" in her evening states of auto-hypnosis in the relevant period were "lacking in interest and significance", and many of them "consisted of purely internal experiences and so could not be verified" (SE. 2, p. 37). These include, for instance, her loss of power of speech being put down to having suppressed a remark, being unjustly blamed for something, and analogous situations. Her persistent cough supposedly originated when she was overcome with self-reproaches when she had a sudden wish to be at her neighbour's house when she heard dance music while at her father's sick bed.


 * I suggest that instead of the suggested amended version "retrieved memories of traumatic incidents in her life" the following phrase: "reported memories of disturbing or traumatic incidents that may have instigated her symptoms".


 * The reason I suggest "reported" rather than "retrieved" is that there is no way of knowing how accurate some of these reports were, given that they were recited in a state of auto-hypnosis, with prompting from Breuer at a later stage to set her going (SE 2, pp. 34-37). See J. F. Kihlstrom, "Hypnosis, memory and amnesia" (1997): "Because the risks of distortion vastly outweigh the chances of obtaining any useful information, forensic investigators and clinical practitioners should avoid hypnosis as a technique for enhancing recollection" (p. 1731).


 * 2. It is not of direct relevance in the context of what happened with Anna O., but it was not always the case in that period that Freud insisted that repressed memories of childhood sexual trauma underlay symptom formation. Prior to 1896 he claimed no more than that in regard to the neuroses "their aetiology is to be looked for in sexual factors" (1895, S.E. 2, p. 257). In fact in none of the cases reported in Studies on Hysteria (1895) was early childhood sexual trauma given as the originating cause of the neurosis as he claimed for all his current patients in 1896. Esterson (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your proposed rewording. You have moved from observations about the content of the Anna O case study – lack of reference to childhood memories, to which I responded – to now questioning the mertis of the methodology employed. Legitimate as these concerns may be, this is not a forum for such a debate. The objective is to provide an account of what Freud believed and argued at the time. Freud and Breuer agreed (as recounted by Gay and others) that specific symptoms and their relief were directly linked with specific repressed memories and their retrieval  - an appropriate term in this context.

I see no reason to reason to change “memories of traumatic incidents in her life” to allow for what Freud called the “pathological chain of [repressed] memories”, reaching back into childhood, which underlay the specific “screen memories”. It was Freud’s view that such (repressed sexual) memories were always present where hysterical symptoms were evident. Here he and Breuer parted company. Freud reported he had many conversations with Breuer about the case, including about details not recorded by Breuer in the case history. As agreed I will remove the word “ealrly” as we have no specifics. Almanacer (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The major concern of my posting was not about "the merits of the methodology employed" as you imply in your second sentence, but about the accuracy of the statement about the Anna O. case (as reported by Breuer). It is not correct for you to write that "the objective is to provide an account of what Freud believed and argued at the time" when the two sentences in question are (appropriately for the section) statements about what happened during the treatment, two very different things. For the same reason it is not relevant what Freud and Breuer agreed in a general exposition of the nature of hysterical symptoms more than ten years later [Breuer and Freud "Preliminary Communication", 1895 [1893], SE 2] (though in fact there is nothing in that chapter that conflicts with the amendment I have proposed). The sentence in question describes (briefly) the treatment of Anna O., and as such it should accurately record what Breuer reported (original case notes, 1882; published case history, 1895). Neither report has any mention of traumatic events in the patient's life prior to the treatment, so to describe the patient as having "retrieved memories of traumatic incidents in her life" is misleading. As I already noted, it suggests that she went back indefinitely in time for these incidents, whereas they were all related to symptoms that only appeared immediately prior to, or during, the treatment (i.e., in the years 1880-1882). In contrast, my suggested wording, that the patient "reported memories of disturbing or traumatic memories that may have instigated her symptoms", precisely describes what Breuer reported in his accounts of the case.


 * On the word "retrieved": The sentence in question occurs in an historical account of events in the early part of Freud's career, and as such should be as objective as possible. To say that Anna O. "retrieved" certain memories implies that it is known that what she reported were authentic memories that played a part in the development of her symptoms. But we don't know this was the case, we only know that she reported these memories. This is why the fact that the incidents Anna O. recalled in the last stage of the treatment were reported while she was in a state of auto-hypnosis is relevant, given the much-studied unreliability of such reports.


 * Incidentally, Breuer himself wrote: "As regards the symptoms disappearing after being talked away, I cannot use this as evidence [for the origination and cure of the symptoms]; it may very well be explained by suggestion" (1895, SE 2, p. 43).


 * You write:


 * I see no reason to reason to change “memories of traumatic incidents in her life” to allow for what Freud called the “pathological chain of [repressed] memories”, reaching back into childhood, which underlay the specific “screen memories”. It was Freud’s view that such (repressed sexual) memories were always present where hysterical symptoms were evident.


 * What has any of this to do with what Breuer reported as occurring during his treatment of Anna O. in his very detailed case report (1882) and case history (1895)? I repeat, the sentence in question purports to describe, very briefly, what happened during the treatment. As such, it should be as accurate as possible in following Breuer's two case reports. Esterson (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. In the hope of resolving the disagreement, I propose a compromise in which the word "retrieved" is retained:


 * "In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic incidents that may have instigated her symptoms." Esterson (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My view on the sentences in question remains slightly different from your’s in that I think the objective is to convey Freud’s perspective on the case history which follows but is some respect differs from Breuer’s write ups. See for instance his summary of the case he gives in his first American lecture (the 1909 Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis). But there’s no need to labour this point if you are a happy to retain “retrieve” with the sense of a lifting of repression which that word conveys.

I do, however, have an amendment to your proposed text as follows: "In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic experiences that had been repressed”.

What “instigated” her symptoms in the first place was matter on which Freud and Breuer disagreed and is an issue best referenced and explored in the Psychotherapy section. Almanacer (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Almanacer: You write:
 * I think the objective is to convey Freud’s perspective on the case history which follows but is some respect differs from Breuer’s write ups.


 * The two sentences on Anna O. are in the middle of paragraph that, like the previous paragraphs, report historical events, and these should do likewise. Freud's later theorising about the case cannot alter the events that occurred in the treatment as reported by Breuer, and that is what should be in the two sentences in this context.


 * You write:
 * Freud's perspective…is some respect differs from Breuer’s write ups. See for instance his summary of the case he gives in his first American lecture (the 1909 Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis).


 * In the brief account of the case in the "Five Lectures" Freud summarises the latter stages of Breuer's case history report fairly closely, and nowhere does he mention any events reported by the patient in her states of absence that led to relief of symptoms that are not of recent occurrence, relating to the onset of her symptoms.


 * Since all of the incidents reported by Anna O. were prompted by Breuer's asking her to recall events associated with the onset of her symptoms, it is a matter of fact that the incidents she reported were of recent occurrence, which is not indicated in your suggested version ("she retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic experiences that had been repressed”).


 * An account that is closer to what Breuer recorded (i.e., of the actual occurrences during the treatment) is covered by the following:


 * "...retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic experiences related to the onset of her current symptoms."


 * I hope you will agree to this compromise formulation. Esterson (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no merit in your new proposed text which turns the sentence into a stylistically inept pleonasm, viz:

“In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic experiences related to the onset of her current symptoms”.

What else could “these symptoms” refer to other than current symptoms? How would they have “become reduced” if they weren’t related to the repressed memories of disturbing experiences?

The relevant point to be conveyed is that talking about repressed memories relieves the related symptoms and thus paves the way for Freud’s free association metnod as the following sentence relates. Whether they were memories of recent or earlier incidents is besides the point ( which is why I accept the deletion of “early”) and is a topic for another section of the article. I suggest you take them up in that context. Almanacer (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Almancer: With your proposed version in mind, namely: "...she retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic experiences that had been repressed”:


 * You write:
 * "What else could “these symptoms” refer to other than current symptoms?"


 * This is a non sequitur, as it does not convey the disputed issue, which is that Breuer recorded that the incidents reported by Anna O. were of very recent occurrence, not the indefinite "disturbing or traumatic experiences that had been repressed", which is open-ended.


 * You write:
 * "Whether they were memories of recent or earlier incidents is besides the point."


 * It is not beside the point, because (i) it is a matter of historical accuracy, and (ii) to write simply "that had been repressed" allows for the possibility of incidents that were not in fact recalled by Anna O. You evidently want it to read so as to allow for the notion of Anna O. recalling earlier traumatic events that possibly underlay the symptoms (as your last paragraph above reveals), rather than the actual facts of what she recalled as reported by Breuer.


 * My version (namely "...retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic experiences related to the onset of her current symptoms" [my emphasis]) is historical fact as recorded by Breuer in his case history (1895, SE 2, pp. 34-37). Moreover it is also what was reported by Freud in his "Five Lectures": the patient was "brought to remember under hypnosis… on what occasion, and in what connection the symptoms had first appeared" (Freud, SE 11, p. 13).


 * I appreciate that we have both compromised, but it is unfortunate that you continue to press for a version that implies that the incidents reported by Anna O. were from any time in her life, despite the fact that this is inconsistent with the historical record as reported by Breuer and accurately recorded by Freud in his report on the case in his 1909 "Five Lectures". Esterson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We remain unlikely to agree on the issue of historical accuracy since you insist, dogmatically in my view, that the Breuer account is the last word on the matter notwithsatanding Freud’s judgement that it was “a very incomplete theory and an unsatisfying explanation of the phenomenon observed” (last para of Lecture One – sorry do not have SE version). As I have previoulsy pointed out their conversations about the case covered (according to Freud) topics not mentioned in Breuer’s write up, eg the phantom pregnancy. Which in my view makes it entirely appropriate to leave the reference to “retrieved memories of disturbing or traumatic experiences that had been repressed” open to other than “recent” ( they were two years in the past, by the way) incidents. However, I’m not going to labour the point. As I’ve said, the point of the passage is to convey the connection between recovering repressed memories, talking about them and their relief. So I hope we can agree on the following (which avoids the solecism of “her current symptoms”).

“In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of traumatic experiences associated with their onset”. Almanacer (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Almanacer:You have accurately summed up our differences here:


 * We remain unlikely to agree on the issue of historical accuracy since you insist, dogmatically in my view, that the Breuer account is the last word on the matter notwithsatanding Freud’s judgement that it was “a very incomplete theory and an unsatisfying explanation of the phenomenon observed”.


 * This is supposed to be a brief report of the Anna O. case in an historical context, but, as you have made clear, you have previously endeavoured to ensure the sentence is not inconsistent with Freud's views on repression as published a decade or more after the treatment, whereas I want it to be based solidly on the specifics of Breuer's actual case reports of 1882 and 1895.


 * That said, I appreciate your conceding that the sentence will read: "In the course of talking in this way these symptoms became reduced in severity as she retrieved memories of traumatic experiences associated with their onset", and acknowledge that the ending is an improvement on my wording.


 * However, I cannot let the following sentence pass without comment:


 * As I have previously pointed out their conversations about the case covered (according to Freud) topics not mentioned in Breuer’s write up, eg the phantom pregnancy.


 * I find it rather surprising that you cite the Anna O. phantom pregnancy story as reported by Ernest Jones (Sigmund Freud: Life and Work, vol. 1, 1953, Hogarth, pp. 246-247) when its authenticity was undermined by the historian of psychology Henri Ellenberger over 40 years ago: "Jones's version is fraught with impossibilities" (The Discovery of the Unconscious, 1970, p. 483). In 1972 he provided a more detailed account of the discrepancies between Jones's story and documentable facts ("Anna O.: A Critical Review with New Data." J. of the Hist. of the Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 1972, p. 273).  Likewise, Albrecht Hirschmüller examined the documents relating to the story and concluded: "The Freud-Jones account of the termination of the treatment of Anna O. should be regarded as a myth" (The Life and Work of Josef Breuer, 1989, pp. 126-131; [German original, 1978]).


 * The most comprehensive account of Freud's story of the phantom pregnancy is given with full documentation in Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen's Remembering Anna O. (1996, pp. 29-48) where he traces its origination and dissemination among Freud's followers, and concludes: "The pseudocyesis, constructed of clues, rumours and lies, was not a fantasy of Bertha Pappenheim's. It was Freud's fantasy..."


 * But in any case we can discern from Freud himself that Breuer did not tell him the phantom pregnancy story as you contend. In "On the History of the Psychoanalytic Movement", Freud alluded obliquely to the supposed episode by saying he "suspected" the occurrence of an "untoward event" at the end of the treatment, though Breuer "never said this to me in as many words", and goes on to refer to "this reconstruction [sic] of what happened." (1914, SE 14, p. 12). In "An Autobiographical Study" in another oblique allusion to the supposed event Freud wrote that "over the final stage of this hypnotic treatment there rested a veil of obscurity, which Breuer never raised for me." (1925, SE 20, pp. 20-21, my emphasis). Again, in a letter to Stefan Zweig in 1932 Freud wrote that "What really happened with Breuer's patient [Anna O.] I was able to guess [sic] later on, after the break in our relations…", and he goes on to tell the story as recycled by Jones in 1953, following which he refers to "this reconstruction [sic] of mine". (Letters of Sigmund Freud, 1873-1939, Hogarth, 1961, pp. 408-409.)


 * So the story of the phantom pregnancy was something Freud thought up many years later, not something Breuer told Freud as you contend. You have inadvertently given a perfect example of why Freud's later surmises/theoretical contentions should play no part in an historical report of the actual events that occurred in the course of the treatment of Anna O. case as recorded by Breuer himself in 1882 and 1895. Esterson (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Locksmith not Blacksmith
The error that Freud's family lived above a blacksmith shop is continually perpetuated. Zajic was a locksmith, not a blacksmith. Schluessel means Key, Schloesser means Locksmith, Schloessergasse mean Street of the Locksmith. The photo of the Freud birth house is easily enlarged to reveal (upper left) a huge key hanging from a bracket, in lieu of a verbal sign. There is no trace in the picture of the gritty stableyard environment that surrounds blacksmithing activity: horseshoe-ing and the forge. Freud several times spoke of having received his first training in probing secrets when playing with locksmith tools strewn about his home.

I hope someone will see fit to make this change. I don't know how.

Ref: Sigmund Freud, his life in pictures and words, E. Freud, et al. 1978

Thanks, Mark Shulgasser wkkbooks@localnet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Shulgasser (talk • contribs) 03:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected as advised. Gay gets this wrong. Clark (Clark, Ronald W. (1980) Freud: The Man and his Cause, London: Jonathon Cape) has locksmith and house no 117. Almanacer (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Panic of 1857?
I question the attribution of Freud’s father’s 1859 business failure and removal from Freiberg, first to Leipzig and then to Vienna, to “the Panic of 1857”. This strikes me as another attempt to paper over questions about Freud’s early years with factoids. I refer you to Marianne Krull, who appears to have done more research on this question than others:

"Jones and most others Freud biographers mention the economic crisis that swept the Moravian textile industry in the 1850s and hence threatened the existence of all Jews engaged in this branch of commerce. Jones claims that the weaving industry had been in decline for twenty years because the introduction of machines was rendering handwork redundant, and that Freiberg suffered particularly because the Northern Railway from Vienna, built in the 1840s, bypassed the town.

“However, this whole theory is completely unfounded, and Jones in fact fails to adduce any solid evidence for it. In reality, Moravia experienced an economic boom during those very years, industrialization having led to enormous increases in productivity. As a result, Brunn, which was some 90 miles west of Freiberg and the center of the Moravian textile industry, became the “Moravian Manchester,” not only supplying the home market but also receiving large orders from abroad.

“Similarly, Jones’s argument that Freiberg suffered special economic damage because the Northern Railway did not call there is not valid. ..

“But even in the worst case scenario he [Freud Sr.] could have adapted himself. . . All in all, therefore there are no grounds to claim that Jacob’s move from Freiberg was caused by a general economic depression.”

(Freud and his Father, 1986, p. 143 –-references omitted).

Mark Shulgasser (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole para with the reference to the move from Freiberg is unreliably sourced to an American psychology textbook and  needs rewriting and re-referencing.  Krull no doubt makes a credible case contra Jones but bear in mind WP articles tend to reflect the consensus view - even if mistaken.  I can't consult Gay or Clark at the moment but will check out what they have to say with interest in the light of your comments. Almanacer (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

First of eight children?
Thanks for making the blacksmith-to-locksmith change. Here's another. Freud was not the first of eight children; his father, as indicated, already had two sons, therefore he was the third of his father's eight children. He was the first of his mother's six children -- she being the second wife (or third, though the evidence for a third wife is quite iffy). This ignores non-surviving children, of course. So he was his mother's first child, but not his father's, as is indicated. I'm not sure this complication is worth mentioning in a brief bio, but to say he was "born the first of eight children to jewish Galician parents" is not correct. Why not acknowledge that the confused situation of Freud's early family gave rise in his own mind to doubts about his paternity and has fed disputes about his actual date of birth. These early questionings laid the foundation for much of his later theorizing.

Mark Shulgasser Mark Shulgasser (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There were indeed eight children born to Jacob and Amalie Freud - see Freud family Almanacer (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

born 6 May 1856 or 6 march 1856?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Sigmund_Freud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.73.36.214 (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All the main biographies (Jones, Clark, Gay) have 6 May 1856. Almanacer (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * « Quand, en 1931, les habitants de Freiberg (aujourd'hui Pribor) apposèrent une plaque sur la maison natale de Freud, ils découvrirent que, d'après le registre local, Freud était né le 6 mars. Il s'agit sans doute d'une erreur de copie, dont il y aurait lieu d'accuser un fonctionnaire ; aucune autre naissance n'a été enregistrée avant le mois d'octobre. Ainsi, en venant au monde, Freud fut la cause indirecte d'une de ces erreurs mentales qu'il devait, quarante ans plus tard, devenu professeur, élucidé. » Ernest Jones, La vie et l'œuvre de Sigmund Freud (1958)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.73.36.214 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Markel quotation
User:Technopat is edit warring to insert a quotation from Howard Markel in this article: "thus ending what Howard Markel considers 12 years of “compulsive cocaine abuse”." There are at least two problems with Technopat's addition. In the first place, it is unencyclopedic writing. An article needs to reflect the work of large numbers of scholars, and there is, in most cases, no good reason for mentioning them by name in the article. Otherwise, the article would be full of, "Peter Gay writes that...", or "Allen Esterson claims that...", or similar statements. Readers interested in which views have been expressed by which scholars can refer to the footnotes. In the second place, the quotation is simply gratuitous and unnecessary. It's simply one man's opinion, and in my view there is no valid reason for mentioning it. Encyclopedia articles cannot possibly mention every view on every aspect of Freud's life that may have been expressed at one time or another. Technopat needs to either give a valid reason for including this particular quotation, or else cease and desist from attempting to add it. 203.118.187.223 (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Technopat also needs to explain why he reverted my edits to the philosophy section of the article. He or she gave absolutely no reason for this. I explained my reasons for making those edits (I really don't think material pointing out that Marx and Weber were important influences on the Frankfurt school is relevant in an article about Freud). 203.118.187.223 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The issues raised by 203.118.187.223 in the first paragraph above are complex (and I think essentially irresolvable in many instances). Technopat justified the inclusion of the disputed sentence on the grounds that the author cited (Howard Markel) "is an authority on the matter". Markel is an Historian of Medicine at the University of Michigan, so by Wikipedia standards this justification would seem to be warranted. However, as 203.118.187.223 writes, "Encyclopedia articles cannot possibly mention every view on every aspect of Freud's life that may have been expressed at one time or another." Let's take the supposedly authoritative assertion by Markel, namely, that Freud experienced 12 years of "compulsive cocaine abuse". What do other authors familiar with the literature on Freud say about this period (roughly 1884-1896), and what can be gleaned from Freud's letters to Fliess? All the indications are that Freud's intermittent use of cocaine during these years was largely for the purpose of self-medication (to overcome migraines, depressive periods, etc). I have seen no evidence that he was addicted, nor that his use was compulsive in the way Markel apparently claims. (The last mention of Freud's using cocaine was in a letter dated 26 October 1896, in which he tells Fliess in passing "... incidentally, the cocaine brush has been completely put aside", which do not read like the words of someone compulsively addicted.) I have not read An Anatomy of Addiction: Sigmund Freud, William Halsted, and the Miracle Drug Cocaine, only the review in the New York Review of Books (which disputes the "compulsive" claim) and the blurb on Amazon. From these, and my knowledge of the literature on this period plus Freud's letters to Fliess, I tentatively suggest that Markel has exaggerated Freud's dependence on cocaine to make the parallel with a genuine addict, William Halsted, so that he can juxtapose the very different outcomes from regular use of cocaine.


 * If anyone has read Markel's book and wishes to contest my suggestion, I would be interested to hear the evidence that Freud's use of cocaine was "compulsive". Failing this, I agree with 203.118.187.223 that the claim of a single author, regardless of his academic credentials, does not suffice for such a quotation to merit a place on the Wikipedia page if there is insufficient evidence to justify the claim (or evidence that tends to refute it). Esterson (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I wish to refute the accusation of edit-warring and any implication thereof. Edit-warring commences when an editor reverts a second time, which has not been my case.


 * I simply restored – once - my perfectly referenced edit, providing a reply in my edit summary to the question “for what reason should this particular author be mentioned by name in this article?” An edit referenced by a reliable source, that is, a reliable publication, quoting a professor who is "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" (Definition of a source). In any case, presumably more of an authority on the matter than either 203.118.187.223 or I. But I fail to see why another version should be considered more authoritative or acceptable than the one I reflected, in full compliance with NPOV.


 * Second, two other authors are referenced in the same paragraph. But a third one is, apparently, unacceptable. Although 203.118.187.223 states that "Readers interested in which views have been expressed by which scholars can refer to the footnotes.", how can anyone can take an interest in the view of the scholar in question if the corresponding footnote has been deleted?


 * What is of more concern, however, is that if the views expressed – quoted, not interpreted - by a recognised authority, and perfectly referenced, are considered “gratuitous/unnecessary” to an existing text here at Wikipedia, what’s going on? Isn’t Wikipedia’s whole raison d’être precisely the opposite? Or are the implications that Markel's views are those of some crackpot coming up with some crazy comment on his/her blog? Is it that the three-word quotation occupies too much space and/or has been taken out of context? Or am I missing something here?


 * Finally, I made a mistake when reverting 203.118.187.223's whole edit, for which I apologise. I had my screen zoomed and simply didn't see the other modifications made lower down, and not having scrolled down any further than my own edit, was unable to see them or to comment on them when restoring "my" version. --Technopat (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Technopat's response confirms my initial comment that a situation like this is essentially irresolvable within Wikipedia guidelines, since, as he/she points out (and I concurred), the sentence in dispute abides by Wikipedia standards. However, Technopat has not addressed the issue of the consequences of accepting any quotation on the grounds that it is from a "reliable source", namely that this can result in an excess of material the justification for which is open to question. Anyone who has expertise in a particular topic will know that documentably erroneous statements appear in books by academics with high credentials in the subject in question. (This is even more the case when the authors have lower levels of expertise, but the work is published by a reputable publishing house and therefore comes within Wikipedia guidelines.) This being so, I suggest that a dispute like the current one cannot be resolved by appealing to the guidelines, but only by discussion of the pros and cons of including the item. I have tried to open such a discussion by pointing out that the considerable literature that covers the period during which Freud took cocaine does not lend support for Markel's assertion that Freud was a "compulsive" cocaine abuser, and asked if anyone can present evidence to the contrary, which in effect means providing relevant quotations by other authoritative authors that are in accord with that from Markel.


 * If mutual agreement proves not to be possible, I suggest that rather than editors engaging in lengthy exchanges, one of the dispute resolution procedures be set in motion by one or other of the initial protagonists. Esterson (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, Esterson. I didn't enter into any of the other aspects of this issue for reasons of time & space. I merely wished to leave it on record that, contrary to the accusation made, there was absolutely no edit-warring on my part. On the other hand, in response to your closing paragraph, I, for one, have no intention whatsoever of entering into a costly process of dispute resolution. If Wikipedia articles are not to be constantly added to, revised and updated by the contributions of new works as they are published - without, of course, removing existing content - what's the point? However, it's no real sweat off my back. I still have my 1985 print edition of the Britannica to consult if need be. --Technopat (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

date of death or date of imprisonment and release is incorrect
under "Escape from Nazism" 2nd last para it's said that he was tried and imprisoned in court in the year 1945 and released in 1947. on the other hand under death it's mentioned that he died in 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.194.21 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wave That Liberal Freak Flag
Folks,

Do you want to know why this statement was even allowed to remain in this article, not to mention positioned Above the Fold (Contents)?

"Psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry and across the humanities. As such, it continues to generate extensive debate, notably over its scientific status and as to whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause."

It's because liberals CONTROL Wikipedia.

How else can you explain how a philosophy as discredited  as 'feminism' is treated as if it was a societal orthodoxy?

Psychoanalysis gets trashed from lots of sources, from cultish Scientology to mainstream Christianity.

But, in the bizarro fun house mirror world of liberal-controlled wikipedia, the primary issue is whether or not it's detrimental to feminists. baha 99.185.56.156 (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Without agreeing at all with the points about feminism or liberalism in general, I note that the wording 'whether it advances or is detrimental to' feminism is again extremely weasely words - covering up that basically Freud and various of his theories have been accused of being misogynistic. And it did strike me as slightly odd to single out feminist social effects - could equally well cite the substantial criticism of how detrimental it may have been to victims of childhood abuse who were less believed in the courts etc due to Freudian ideas. Sighola (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tags
The article's been tagged for disputed neutrality for nearly a year, the tag no longer links to whatever discussion there was. I tried to slightly reword 3 lede sentences that seem to combine to give a biased impression that doesn't quite stand up even per the existing sources, as noted in edit comments, but keeps being reverted by an editor as do the subsequent inline tags. Sighola (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The charge of weasel words which lead, according to Sigola, to a “biased impression” are assertions made without any serious argument or reference to the content of the cited sources. The latter include the following statements: “psychoanalysis continues to be an important theme of American psychiatry ”, “psychoanalysis still is an important treatment in psychiatry” (Michels), “certain basic tenets of Freud's thinking have remained central to psychiatric and psychotherapeutic practice." (Sadock and Sadock 2007)


 * The current wording: “Psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry” is a transparently accurate representation of these sources. The following sentence conveys appropriately the disputed status of psychoanalytic theory and there is further elaboration of this topic in the Science section.  The reference cited with the Auden poem puts it in the appropriate context. I’ve no objection to you adding the additional line. Almanacer (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess have to do this one step at a time then. You just appeared to write: "The [cited sources] include the following statements: “Psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry”, “psychoanalysis still is an important treatment in psychiatry”  (Michels)."  However, Michels 1999 does not seem to include the statement "Psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry". If you did not mean to give that impression, please could you clarify - just that specific point so I can then address the others. Sighola (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sighola: Almanacer is surely right when he states above that "The current wording: 'Psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry' is a transparently accurate representation of these sources." That he has apparently slipped up when he writes in his first paragraph above that the quoted words in this sentence come directly from Michels does not negate the essence of what he is saying.

However, what is missing is the citing of contrary views, i.e., evidence of a considerable decline in the influence of psychoanalysis in psychiatry in the United States in the last 40 years. For instance:


 * As discussed in the chapter on research, one of the most interesting developments in American psychiatry during the last 25 years has been the change in the choice of chairpersons for academic departments of psychiatry. By the 1960s more than half of the departmental chairs had formal training as psychoanalysts [Eckhardt 1978]. Currently very few have such credentials. [Melvin Sabshin, Changing American Psychiatry: A Personal Perspective, American Psychiatric Publishers, 2009, p. 238.]

In his A History of Psychiatry: From the Era of the Asylum to the Age of Prozac (1997), Edward Shorter provides similar evidence in his section "The Decline of Psychoanalysis" in the context of psychiatric practice (pp. 305-313).

I suggest a modification to read as follows: Psychoanalysis remains influential within some areas of psychiatry. Esterson (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Esterson, I see you're right it was probably just a slip-up, I was on the defensive due to the reverting over minor wording changes. I welcome your additional sources and suggested wording (which is quite similar to what I was trying before). I maintain that the existing sources aren't represented properly at all by the phrase about remaining influential within psychiatry - every time Michels says something positive about psychoanalysis (and I note he seems to be a psychoanalyst himself) he drastically moderates it with a stark admission (unlike the lede here).
 * Even the quote above 'psychoanalysis is still an important treatment in psychiatry' actually leads into 'It is indicated in...It is no longer considered appropriate for....we would view Freud’s treatment of those patients as psychotherapy rather than what we would today call psychoanalysis'. Or see 'Psychoanalysis continues to be an important paradigm organizing the way many psychiatrists think about patients and treatment ... However, its limitations are more widely recognized'. Or 'Psychoanalysis continues to be an important theme of American psychiatry but is no longer the only theme. Today, if a young medical student is seeking a career in academic psychiatry, the advice to go into psychoanalysis is more likely to suggest that he needs treatment than to point to an optimal career pathway'. Or 'Scientific evidence concerning efficacy is essentially non-existent but, unlike most other treatments in medicine, there is not the general public trust and acceptance that embraces most other [medical] treatments'. Sighola (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sigohoa, thanks for posting here and for tidying up the Michels reference.

My mistake re the Michels quotation - I've now corrected what I meant to post ("Psychoanalysis continues to be an important theme of American psychiatry"). Surely no weaseling involved in rewriting that as "psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry."? Please note that in recording the undisputed fact of this influence no claim is made about its extent, merits or demerits.

The lead is by definition a concise text which introduces topics that receive further elaboration in the main body of the article. Thus reference to Freud's influence on psychiatry (as sourced) followed by ("As such it continues to generate extensive debate") a reference to the dispute over the scientific status of his work is appropriate in the lead and the pros and cons, its relative decline as an influence in America and the UK (which I would not dispute - though the same cannot arguably  be said of, eg France, Argentina) are topics – which you and Esterton refer to in your posts - appropriately covered in the Science section.

Just to add there has been extensive debate and discussion of this part of the lead and the current wording is the resulting compromise. This is not to say it can't be improved but I don't think inline citations are a positive contribution to this process and have not been used before despite widely differing views being expressed.

I’ll added a more appropriate source than the Auden reference - Thurschwell, P Sigmund Freud  London: Routledge 2009, p. 1. She cites the Auden poem, notes the 20thC “has been called the Freudian century” etc, etc.

I would amend Esterton's helpful suggestion as follows: Psychoanalysis remains influential in psychotherapy, within some areas of psychiatry and across the humanities.

It was, by the way, the exchanges on the above mentioned topics which led to the posting of the Neutrality notice at the head of the article (which you refer to). I think there is now a case for repositioning it at the head of the Legacy section where there is still disagreement over the neutrality of the content. The only obstacle to this is the second paragraph of the Patient section which in my view should be moved to the Legacy section – it concerns aspects of Freud’s clinical methods, not who his patients were, has NPOV issues and is inappropriate in the Biography section. Almanacer (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Surely no weaseling involved in rewriting that as "psychoanalysis remains influential within psychiatry."" - yes there is because Michels follows his defensive statements with sharp admissions of decline/criticism/irrelevance and that context is being left out. Similar to how the first half of the poem's sentence was left out - the bit that criticised Freud. You admitted that in your edit comment but you still reverted it. Then the use of 'As such' tries to spin the 'debate' about its scientific status as actually indicating how influential it still is. You shouldn't remove another editor's inline tags until resolved and I don't agree with moving the neutrality notice down (instead I think its link to the prior debate needs to be fixed) - the lede does not reflect the balance of the body or the sources because it's determined not to be explicit about any negatives. Sighola (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest we agree to modify the sentence in question as Almanacer suggests (with an additional comma): Psychoanalysis remains influential in psychotherapy, within some areas of psychiatry, and across the humanities. Esterson (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sighola: I take your point above that Michels' overall account (which, incidentally, includes his saying " Scientific evidence concerning efficacy [of psychoanalysis] is essentially non-existent") contains several reservations that are not entirely in accord with the current strong statement. However, I hope you can agree that Alamancer's proposal above now covers that.


 * I would add in support of Sighola that having used Google Books to check the other citation, that of Sadock and Sadock (eds), 2007, p. 109, I would argue that the stated "basic tenet's of Freud's thinking" that have supposedly "remained central to psychiatric and psychotherapeutic practice" include some dubious contentions insofar as modern psychiatry is concerned. But let's not go there. Esterson (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the lead to take account of some of Sighola's comments though we remain in fundamental disagreement re interpreting WP guidelines on weasel words. Also some changes for concision and clarity. I suggest we go ahead as per Esterton's latest wording. Almanacer (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now amended the sentence in question as agreed. In relation to the other change made by Almanacer, since Michels mentions efficacy only in passing, I've added references for full discussions of this topic. Esterson (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I'll say what I think for what it's worth but this is all too much just to make small wording changes. I feel that although the amendments are slightly better in one sense, we effectively now have 'remains influential in psychotherapy' (and parts of psychiatry & humanities). But:
 * 1) There is still the weasel issue that 'remains influental', stripped of context, could mean it has not lost any influence at all, or it has lost a great deal but retains some. I suggest the latter is more the case, even in the narrower field of psychotherapy. WP's own article on psychoanalysis has a sourced statement: "Psychoanalysis has progressively moved towards the fringes of mental health care".
 * 2) Putting its influence in psychiatry and the humanities on an equal footing doesn't seem right - and doesn't reflect the body of the article which includes "Paul Stepansky, while noting that psychoanalysis remains influential in the humanities [nb: as terms of art not clinical practice of course...], records the "vanishingly small number of psychiatric residents who choose to pursue psychoanalytic training" etc. And as Esterson mentioned the Sadock arch psychiatry textbook quote is somewhat out of context.
 * 3) There is still the fact that the extent of debate about psychoanalysis cannot be assumed to be entirely due to its continued influence - in some ways precisely the opposite - so linking them with 'as such' is an improper synthesis, as it was rightly tagged but untagged.
 * 4) There is still this oddly worded line 'Freud's work has suffused contemporary thought and popular culture to the extent that in 1939' - something about the verb tense not quite right there? The eventual supposedly 'contemporary' point in time was over 70 years ago, therefore a non sequitur therefore weasel. Not to mention the missing part of the sentence in the 1939 poem '"if often he was wrong and, at times, absurd....'
 * 5) Compare the lede here to the one on http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sigmund_Freud - while it notes that his work has been highly influential, many words from Freud, that he had a long-lasting impact - it balances this with 'However, his theories remain controversial and widely disputed by numerous critics, to the extent that he has been called the "creator of a complex pseudo-science which should be recognized as one of the great follies of Western civilization.'. The body of the article inclues 'Psychoanalysis today maintains the same ambivalent relationship with medicine and academia that Freud experienced during his life.' 'He has been called "history's most debunked doctor." 'Since the mid-1990s, there has been a critical reassessment of Freud. ... an outpouring of critical research.' Sighola (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sighola's comments illustrate why the "neutrality is disputed" tag remains valid even though the original Talk page discussions have disappeared into the archives. I'll just take up his/her mention of Sadock and Sadock (2007) in item (2) above to illustrate my point. The Sadock and Sadock entry on Freud is far from neutral. On the contrary, it is a partisan account of Freud's history, theories and influence. (I have no objection to the lengthy section outlining Freud's theories, though a few critical comments would have been warranted in such a volume.) For instance, in the introductory section one finds this: "Psychoanalysis is recognized today as having three crucial aspects: it is a therapeutic technique, a body of scientific and theoretical knowledge, and a method of investigation." For the author of this section to write that psychoanalysis "is recognized" as being "a body of scientific knowledge" without qualification is quite extraordinary. It is evident from this and from the way Freud's early psychoanalytic experiences are reported (in line with traditional Freudian accounts without reference to numerous refutations of those accounts in recent decades) that the view of the influence of psychoanalysis on current psychiatric practice in Sadock and Sadock is not likely to be a reliable guide.

Such is the nature of Wikipedia, however, that it is perfectly valid for Sadock and Sadock to be cited on the Freud page regardless of the disputed nature of what is asserted there. This is why, in my view, it remains important that prospective editors like Sighola continue to make suggestions for amendments, though I entirely agree with Almanacer that on such a controversial subject any substantive amendments should be raised on the Talk page first. Esterson (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems like very good points about the context of that quote. As I recall it isn't actually in at least some other editions of the Sadock & Sadock textbook, do you know who actually wrote the section? I think they have guest contributors for each one? Really the citation should include this information?
 * Which leads me onto a point about these lede sentences with ref tags containing multiple citations (often with incomplete info) - it's like it's trying to create and defend an argument, rather than just summarise the article to come. I feel that they should be moved down to the appropriate section within the body of the article? And slight wording changes to the lede reflecting the article should be possible without having to produce lengthy talk page arguments for every bit (as with the above 5 points not yet responded to).
 * I note that the 'Neutrality Disputed' notice seemed to originally come from Talk:Sigmund_Freud/Archive_8 by 'Hypoplectrus' who on scanning seems to have felt that Freud was being treated worse than Hitler and that criticism should be moved to a separate section or even article so this one could be left free of 'polemical interference'. That editor doesn't look to be active now, and the notice no longer points back there. So can we sort this out? Sighola (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sighola: First a specific point about the quotation above from Sadock and Sadock: I obtained it from a Google Books search which brought up the 2007 (11th) edition. I have now obtained the 1994 (7th) edition and the same sentence is there in the introductory section for Freud, with the word "considered" instead of the current "recognized". There is no indication of the authors of the various sections/chapters. However, in the 2007 edition one of the references at the end of the Freud section is W. W. Meissner, Classic Psychoanalysis. In Saddock VJ, Saddock BA, eds., Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 8th ed. Vol 1, 2005. In the 1994 edition the three pages of tables under the subheading Ego Psychology are cited as adopted from W. W. Meissner by Glen O. Gabbard, who is one of the named Contributing Editors for the volume. My guess is that Gabbard (directly) and Meissner (indirectly) play significant roles in the contents of that chapter.


 * On the rest of what you have written: Attempts to "tidy up" sections have resulted in lengthy disputes, so when you ask "Can we sort this out?", I suggest that any attempt to do so is likely to involve you in unresolvable differences of opinion. This is why I recommend retaining the "disputed" tag. Esterson (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note I have corrected a slip I made in the reference above to Meissner's chapter "Classic Psychoanalysis" at the end of the Freud section in Sadock and Sadock's Synopsis (2007) so that it reads "In Saddock VJ, Saddock BA, eds., Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 8th ed. Vol 1, 2005", which is presumably a major source of the corresponding section in the Synopsis. Esterson (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Esterson, thanks very much for clarifying that chapter; so it seems it is probably written by Glen Gabbard who is described as a 'psychoanalytic psychiatrist' and co-edits the Textbook of Psychoanalysis. It seems there needs to be some way to reflect the point of view behind that quote.
 * Re the article, I didn't mean to sound flippant and I see there is a history of extensive debate/filibustering (and it's happened to me here over attempted minor rewordings). But if Almanacer or someone does not respond substantively to my 5 points above or the issue with the use of combined incomplete citations to make arguments within ref tags in the lede, I do intend to attempt changes as described above. Re. the Neutrality Disputed tag, I'm not sure it's meant to be used as an ongoing 'this is just too subjective' type notice is it, that in itself perhaps concedes to a certain point of view? In any case, shouldn't it at least point to a talk page discussion so newcomers can understand it/contribute? Given it was originally tagged for being allegedly anti-Freud, umm, do I add another Neutrality Disputed tag that points to a talk section on how it's pro-Freud or what!? Sighola (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Esterson, I hope you don't mind I have moved your correction note above, next to the point you were noting that you had corrected. Regarding the Neutrality Disputed notice, I note the following text from NPOVD linked automatically from the notice, and I suggest that there is no longer an active good faith effort to resolve the original tagging, and it should be removed, and I will then add a new one pointing to this active talk section:
 * "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral. ... The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved. ... The tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concer. The NPOV-dispute tag is not a consolation prize for editors whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate dispute resolution." Sighola (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to Sighola's five points above:

1.“Remains influential” is not stripped of context. The context is given in the next sentence ie “extensive debate” re issues of efficacy and disputed scientific status, feminist critiques and in the corresponding references.

2.As previously stated: "Please note that in recording the undisputed fact of this influence no claim is made about its extent, merits or demerits". Esterton agrees that the Sadock ref is appropriate, notithstanding his POV.

3.This is semantic nit picking. The influence has led to the debate – that’s all “as such” means.

4.The Thurschwell reference links the Auden quote to “the Freudian Century”. I agree the wording of this sentence could be improved.

We can all find sources to reflect our particular POV. For instance see for instance the Section on "Scientific Psychiatry and the case of Psychoanalysis" in the Oxford Textbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry Oxford UP 2006 for a positive commentary on psychoanalysis in relation to modern psychiatry.

Which is why I agree with Esterton that “attempts to "tidy up" sections” in the manner you propose will lead to “irresolvable differences of opinion”. Here we are both in agreement with Peter Gay “The parties quarrelling over his legacy are so far apart that the chances of them ever agreeing are almost unimaginable (Freud p. vii).

As previously mentioned the current wording of the lead is the compromise outcome of a lengthy debate to which you have added nothing substantially new. No such compromise (despite many exchanges) has been reached with regard to other parts of the article, nor is this likely for the reasons Gay cites, so the original Neutrality notice should remain in place.Almanacer (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It doesn't say "disputed" or "critiques" - it says "debate".
 * 2) Exactly - stripped of context re the decline in influence.
 * 3) "The influence has led to the debate" - obtuse presumption.
 * 4) Yes?
 * 5) Of course and Wikipedia has to reflect main views as the main and minority as minority.


 * I find your general points about impossible neutrality and appeals to authority and talk-page-history (and denigration of me) to be ridiculously contra the whole basis of Wikipedia. Sighola (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than prolong this exchange I suggest the following rewording:
 * "Despite their marginalisation by contemporary anglophone psychiatry, Freud's ideas remain influential in some areas of psychiatry, in psychotherapy and across the humanities.  They continue to generate extensive debate etc, etc " As my comments above re the content of the Patients section  illustrate there are ongoing neutrality issues in throughout article and there is no consensus that they have been resolved.Almanacer (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add I don’t accept the validity of Sighola’s ongoing complaint about the reference to Freud’s influence being stripped of context nor his complaint about the  “obtuse presumption” underlying what virtually every commentator agrees upon – that this influence has led to “extensive debate”. What he is evidently wishes to add is additional contextual material with reference to trends in the reception of Freud’s work and it is in the spirit of collaborative editing that I have offered a suggested wording to cover its marginalisation in medical psychiatry in the USA. There are, it should be noted, other trends that could be referenced eg the increased influence of Freud’s work in the humanities (eg in feminism – as a Google Scholar search would demonstrate).

I fail to see how reference to previous Talk Page discussion can be construed as contra to the WP ethos. It is pertinent to the current debate that as a result of those previous discussions both advocacy and critical material were removed from the lead eg references to “pseudoscience” and Kandel’s remarks on Freud having  “the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind." There is of course plenty of scope for this material in the body of the article (eg the Science section).

This approach is consistent with the lead material in other WP articles on, for example, Marx, Derrida, Wittgenstein, Jung etc. where, like Freud, there is no clear consensus in the academic  controversies over their work.Almanacer (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just came back on and was about to reply to the first comment above, when the second one appeared. I don't feel able to make progress through this amount of talk about the tiniest phrase - like 'As such' causing a debate about whether something's influence is the only thing that causes it to be debated (obviously not necessarily??). For now I've tagged the Patients & Legacy section as you have mentioned them, and the Intro section as I have mentioned. An alleged overall metaphysical neutrality issue from a year ago does not seem to be covered by the tag, which it says is intended to involve new editors & seek constructive resolution.


 * I suggest the first thing that needs to be agreed is that no one should be trying to fix the lede into some exact permanent wording. Therefore those citations in the lede (often combined into one ref with comments & quotes as if argumentation), need to be separated and moved in good faith to the legacy section. Sighola (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sighola – several changes have been made to the lead by Esterton and myself in response to your observations and I have proposed a further rewording (see above). Given these changes which demonstrate that nobody is “trying to fix the lede into some exact permanent wording” could you now explain with specific examples why you think there are still neutrality issues with the lead and what exactly you mean by “comments & quotes as if argumentation”. I don't see the problem with what you refer to as "citations" in the lead and don't agree to removing them to the Legacy Section.

Please address my comments on the Patients section. My suggestion was to remove the non-biographical content (the second paragraph) to another Section, obviating the need for a Tag. Almanacer (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of quotations
I want to touch on an issue tangential to the exchanges between Sighola and Almanacer above. Sighola expressed concerns about context and the use of the quotation from Michels 1999. Later Almanacer alludes to "Kandel's remarks on Freud having 'the most coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the mind'."

I note in passing that on the Freud page this citing from Kandel 1999 is preceded by the gratuitous mention that he is a Nobel laureate, as if that makes his views on Freud somehow more authoritative. On the contrary, I would argue, there is evidence that Kandel's historical attachment to psychoanalysis (see his biography) leads to his being partial towards Freud and psychoanalysis. Here is another quotation from the same article:


 * We must, at last, acknowledge that at this point in the modern study of mind, clinical observation of individual patients, in a context like the psychoanalytic situation that is so susceptible to observer bias, is not sufficient basis for a science of mind… […] The concerns of modern behavioral science for controlling experimenter bias by means of blind experiments has largely escaped the concerns of psychoanalysts… Here is the rub. In almost all cases, we only have the analysts' subjective accounts of what they believe has happened.. ("Biology and the Future of Psychoanalysis : New Introductory Framework for Psychiatry Revisited." Am. J. Psychiatry 155:4, April 1999:505-524.)

But Freud's theoretical hypotheses forming the basis for his "science of mind" are founded precisely on such (supposed) clinical observations! Given these words of Kandel's it is extraordinary that in his latest book, The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind and Brain (2012), his accounts of Freud's early clinical experiences, described as leading to his fundamental theoretical notions, are comprised of credulous recyclings of Freud's own retrospective accounts. This effectively adds a second layer to their unreliability! Remarkably, Kandel is ignoring some 40 years of historical research that demonstrates that the accounts on which he is relying are frequently self-serving misrepresentations of the historical facts (see Ellenberger, Sulloway, etc, etc). That Kandel presents Freud's accounts of his early clinical experiences as historical facts, totally at odds with his general statement that clinical observation as in the context of the psychoanalytic situation is inherently unreliable, indicates that he harbours an undue partiality towards Freud.

I make these points to underscore Sighola's remark about the importance of context in relation to quotations. Kandel's praise of psychoanalysis quoted by Almanacer above comes is an article responding to a massive critical response from psychoanalysts to his original article "A New Intellectual Framework of Psychiatry", Am. J. Psychiatry 155:4, April 1998: 457-469, which they felt downplayed the status of psychoanalysis, e.g.:


 * What a momentous discovery! Here we have. for the first time, the neural basis for a set of unconscious mental processes. Yet this unconscious bears no resemblance to Freud's unconscious. It is not related to instinctual strivings or to sexual conflicts, and the information never enters consciousness. These sets of findings provide the first challenge to a psychoanalytically oriented neural science. Where, if it exists at all, is the other unconscious? (p. 468)

Esterson (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your opinions on authors and texts are always of interest but not pertinent to deliberations on the content of the article where their status as relevant, reliable and verifiable sources cannot be challenged. In a polarised debate we all have to live with appropriately sourced material we have issues with (not that his is an issue for the lead where there was agreement some time ago to remove the Kandel quote).


 * Since you mention the importance of context you won’t mind me mentioning your published view of psychoanalysis as “one of the most extraordinary aberrations in the history of Western thought” might well lead some of us to doubt your own impartiality in these debates as much as you doubt Kandel’s. Almanacer (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Almanacer: To be precise, here is the context, and the complete sentence, from which you have supplied a truncated quotation:
 * More generally, while it is just to acknowledge his pioneering role in inaugurating an era of wide-ranging deliberations into the nature of the human mind, recent critical studies of his life and work indicate that a radical reassessment of [Freud's] perceived stature is long overdue. It may well be that the rise of psychoanalysis to a position of prominence in the twentieth century will come to be regarded as one of the most extraordinary aberrations in the history of Western thought. (emphasis added) (1993)

So I did not state that psychoanalysis is one of the most extraordinary aberrations in the history of Western thought. What I was alluding to was an historical phenomenon, namely the extraordinary way that Freudian psychoanalysis was promoted and widely accepted during the first part of the twentieth century such that cogent criticisms were airbrushed out of history, for instance, those of Moll, Aschaffenburg, Janet, Wohlgemuth and McDougall, echoed by Frank Sulloway when he observed of Freud's clinical methodology that he "saw in his patients what psychoanalytic theory led him to look for and then to interpret the way he did: and when theory changed, so did the clinical findings" (1979, p. 498). Implicit in this is the extraordinary way that Freud's brilliantly presented accounts of his clinical (and other) experiences were for much of the twentieth century uncritically, indeed credulously, reproduced as received history by all and sundry though a combination of historical research and close textual analyses since the mid-1960s has shown just how unreliable they are. (How "the upheavals that affected Freud studies since the 1970s… completely transformed how one understood psychoanalysis and its origins" is documented in M. Borch-Jacobsen and S. Shamdasani, The Freud Files: An Enquiry into the History of Psychoanalysis, Cambridge University Press, 2012.)

On the issue of impartiality I have never (of course) maintained that I am impartial on the subject of Freud (on whom I have done an immense amount of general reading and, more specifically, of researching his writings pertaining to his clinical claims). I do, however, fully accept that the full range of views and citations should be present on the Wikipedia Freud page. (I supported the inclusion of the Michels quotation above despite my believing it to be factually inadequate – and I respect your own willingness for compromise above).

You write that my comments here are not relevant to the content of the article, the status of which as relevant, reliable and verifiable sources cannot be challenged. I fully accept this insofar as relevance and verifiability of sources is concerned, but by its nature Wikipedia content taken from such sources cannot be taken as necessarily reliable. Indeed, that was the very point I was making, and why I think that the inclusion in the citing of Kandel the fact that he is a Nobel laureate is gratuitous because it is evidently intended to give (unjustified) weight to his quoted viewpoint on a subject that is not his research specialty. Perhaps we could at least agree on that, and curtail further discussions on which we obviously will have little common ground. Esterson (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Science
Hello Almanacer, I see you reverted my contribution to the 'Science' section of the article on Freud. You mentioned: "Material belongs in Ideas section and has WP:OR issues" I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain why my contribution should be in the Ideas section, according to you, as it deals with criticism on Freud's scientific theory? I gave two sources, one of which is Miller's own explanation of why she rejected Freud's drive theory, the other is a New York Times article that refers directly to what I contributed. How is that wrong? What should I have provided, according to you? I have, as is required, cited reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Jeroen1961 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Taking it on the flow. Popper is talking about the falsifiability of a scientific approach thus discussing the nature of Freud's theory. This, is discussing the theory. By contrast Alice Miller says Freud's theory is poisonous. That's an opinion not challenging scientism, many matters scientific can be poisonous. Besides, why are you presenting her having "practiced and taught psychoanalysis for 20 years" ? Do you think Popper needed Alice Miller's support to achieve notoriety or do you think Alice Miller's notoriety could benefit of Popper's own ? --Askedonty (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I added that Alice Miller practiced and taught psychoanalysis for 20 years, to emphasise that she is an expert in this particular field. Yes, Miller compares psychoanalysis to poisonous pedagogy, as a conclusion to her scientific research, and she backs it up with scientific reasoning. Most of all, she rejects Freud's 'drive theory' on scientific grounds. Read her book, maybe it is published online on PDF. Jeroen1961 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the bit "practiced and taught psychoanalysis for 20 years", as it might cause people to have the same doubts as you do. Jeroen1961 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and, I will probably read it if I come upon it. This is not about challenging the drive vs seduction question however but the fact that you are inserting that question inside Popper's argument regarding the scientific value of Freud's theory. Alice Miller agrees with Popper but her point is about the adequacy of the theory ( and the practice), which is different. In my view you are using Miller's point as an introduction to Nathan Hale's observation, which can be seen otherwise as coming rather brutally without a transition. --Askedonty (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I have now removed the link between Popper and Miller, so that the drive vs the seduction question is no no longer inserted inside Popper's argument. Jeroen1961 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC) --Askedonty (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, I do quite like it much better so. I'm not sure this will be the end of the story however. Masson is very disputable: ""If the seduction theory was really only a detour along the road to truth, as so many psychoanalysts believe, it would perhaps have been possible for me to turn my attention to other matters. But the seduction hypothesis, in my opinion, should have been the very cornerstone of psychoanalysis.""

Indeed much has been said about this issue. Psychologist Anthony Collins mentioned in his thesis in 1994 the following about this: "Masson has provided the most acclaimed attack on Freud's abandonment of the seduction theory in recent years. Acclaimed partly, no doubt, because of his polemical style, charismatic personality, media manipulation and social connections, but these factors cannot be taken as criticisms of his actual research and arguments. Masson became the blue-eyed boy of the psychoanalytic inner circle and personal friend of Anna Freud until he was appointed director of the Freud Archives. There he had access to unpublished documents and correspondence that led him to believe that there had been a deliberate suppression of areas of Freud's writing that revealed his ambivalence in renouncing the seduction theory. He sensed that he had uncovered an important political issue, and began an investigation of this aspect of Freud's work." pp 21-22 http://eprints.ru.ac.za/3418/1/COLLINS-MA-TR95-10.pdf

Masson quotes Anna Freud as saying: "Keeping up the seduction theory would mean to abandon the Oedipus complex, and with it the whole importance of Phantasy life, conscious and unconscious phantasy. In fact, I think that there would have been no psychoanalysis afterwards." pp 21 http://eprints.ru.ac.za/3418/1/COLLINS-MA-TR95-10.pdf

Collins states in his thesis: ''Both the seduction and Oedipal theories, however, failed to comprehend the emotional structure of the nuclear family and thus the meaning of hysteria. What was needed was not a move from seduction theory to Oedipal theory, but rather simply to realise that sexual abuse is a type of emotional abuse, and that this emotional abuse is at the core of psychopathology."'' p.30 http://eprints.ru.ac.za/3418/1/COLLINS-MA-TR95-10.pdf

So it seems that Collins does not side with Masson, but criticized both the seduction and the Oedipal (sexual drive) theories. He does not dispute, however, the validity of Masson's research, nor indeed, his discovery of the motives behind Freud's rejection of early sexual abuse as the cause of psychopathology, in favour of the sexual drive theory. Thanks for reading this.

Jeroen1961 (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeroen, this is making a good example of that famous extrapolation bias (see Linear extrapolation) out of the fact that Collins does not explicitely dispute Masson, and you are also overweighting both Masson as well as Miller. You should give more attention to the chronology. If you reexamine the article in the New-York Times that you are giving in reference regarding Masson you may note that Masson does only the lede while there are plenty of other people who are quoted in the length of the two and a half remaining pages. That is 1981 and Miller declares herself in 1984. Discovering that the drive theory can be poisonous for children is only discovering the obvious effects of transference, and if her work her books are certainly usefull that is not for proving that Freud was always wrong but for preventing misuse of a theory in a changing context. --Askedonty (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Askedonty, thanks for replying, as for using Collins to show Masson was not disputed by everyone, you might be right that it is extrapolation bias, though not intended by me as such. The reason I quoted Masson is that he is a former psychoanalyst, the former director of the Freud archives and was a good friend of Anna Freud, and he later published The complete letters of Sigmund Freud. His publications have been widely read, and though disputable, significant enough to mention here, I believe, especially because they gave the matter (seduction versus drive theories) wider public attention than before. What is most important to mention, I believe, is the fact that Freudian psychoanalysis "essentially turned its back on environmental factors - reality - to look inward to psychic reality, phantasy and instinctual drives, such as the Oedipus complex, to explain neurosis." (Quote is from the New York Times article.) Shifting from attributing his patients' neurosis to sexual trauma, to "phantasies" stemming form their own infantile sexuality, was a decision by Freud, taken for whatever reason, that has had an enormous impact on the way many people with psychopathological problems have been (mis)treated since, even to this day. (Greif, for example, mentions that "Miller's emphasis on traumatic frustration of narcissistic needs is justified." )In the words of Masson, in the preface of the 2012 version of his book The assault on Truth: "As part of our training, we were taught that if a female patient described a memory of incest, we were to regard this as anything but a true memory: it could be a deliberate lie. It could be self deception. It could mask the wish for incest. It could be a delusion. It could be a false memory. It could be, in all its various forms, a mere fantasy. It could, in fact, be just about anything. The one thing it could not be, however, was a genuine memory."

As for Alice Miller, I quoted her, as she was a publicly well known and very influential psychologist ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/us/27miller.html ), since her world famous book The Drama of the gifted Child (1979), who not only criticized Freud on scientific grounds, but also talked from experience, as she had worked as a psychoanalyst and an analyst trainer for 20 years, before ultimately coming to believe that psychoanalyis was no longer viable in any respect. She said: "When I was young, I was an avid reader of Sigmund Freud. But I lost my interest in psychoanalysis when I started working with patients. I found that the concepts and theories I had been confronted with during my psychoanalytical training were an invitation to blame individuals themselves for their distress." (http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php) You mention Miller's work is useful, but does not prove Freud was always wrong, but only preventing "misuse of a theory in a changing context." To that I would respond with the words of Dr. Robert Fliess, as quoted in the New York Times article mentioned earlier: "I would now contradict him (Freud) head on: no one is ever made sick by his fantasies." Miller made the same contention, thereby disqualifying and denouncing Freud's theory.

Concluding then, I believe the controversy about Freud's scientific theory to be of such monumental importance, that it simply cannot go unmentioned in this article about him.

Thanks. Jeroen1961 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are this way putting forward an enthousiastic commitment of yours to have your points of vue exposed without consideration for the structure of the article or the basis of the NPOV rule ( and, rather strange that you would be meanwhile promoting the rejection of the drive concept.) That article, and particularly the Science paragraph, have been carefully structured. This means that you should not hasten the way you do for having your personal findings represented in it, in an article that has been deprived of its GA label and whose main editors are taking great care to maintain it worth of a possible re-nomination. That article still features the neutrality warning and it was still debated on the present talk page when we started the current discussion, regarding terms which in my opinion you should have given your position about, and gotten a consensus on before entering serious editorial action. All you are doing now, is only blurring the picture. I mentionned chronology above, not out of simple iddleness or amusement. You may want to note the dates in Mental_health_counselor and the figures, in socialworkers.pressroom in order to perhaps, reconsider the urgence of the controversy. --Askedonty (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Askedonty, the fact that the article still features the neutrality warning does not mean that important editorial contributions cannot be made. You seem to think that I am 'hastening' to contribute my findings, and that these findings are 'my point of vue' (sic). How presumptious, how insulting, even. Look at the sources I provided. What do you mean, 'my' point of view? I don't have to give my position about anything to contribute to the article, let alone get a consensus on it. I don't doubt that the article, and particularly the science paragraph, are carefully structured. Do you have the impression that I do? If not, why mention it? I have taken great care, to the best of my ability, to fit in important views (my point of view, as you mentioned, is irrelevant, I do my best to present the information I found in a neutral manner, so I never give a personal opinion), that criticize Freud's scientific findings, and indeed criticize, on good grounds, the very core of his psychoanalytical theory. I believe it is highly surprising that not one word about this controversy, that has existed for years, was mentioned in this article, and in my view this constitutes a serious ommission. You mention the chronology. If you feel a need to note the dates and the figures, please do, I have nothing against this. In general, the arguments presented in the science section are not based on chronology. For example, Fisher and Greenberg (1977) are mentioned before Eysenck (1986), who is mentioned before Popper (1963). Miller published her findings on Freud (1983, in German, English translation in 1984), before Masson published his book on Freud's theories (1984). I am not blurring the picture, I offer much needed clarity to the picture. The information I provided, including sources, can be checked by everyone.

Askedonty, reading your last post again, I am surprised and offended by your tone and your hostile stance against my integrity and my contribution. Am I passionate about mentioning this particular subject, yes, sure. Indeed, in my opinion the subject warrants even a separate heading, 'Theory controversy' because of its significance. I will think about this, and may discuss it on the relevant talk page later. But to say that I am putting forward my point of view in the article is simply not true. I have already mentioned before I abide by the NPOV rule fully. To say that I operated "without consideration for the structure of the article" is ludicrous, as I have not changed the structure of the article. If you have good arguments, I am willing to listen to you, but unfounded allegations, I don't take seriously.

Thanks, Jeroen1961 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am genuinely sorry that you found my arguments aggressive. You are misleaded nonetheless, the neutrality warning does mean that important editorial contributions should not be made without seeking consensus first. Your introduction of Alice Miller was discarded twice, this is not indicative of a preliminary consensus. Almanacer told you that your adjunct belonged to the Ideas paragraph. I do not clearly know what he means, but I do know that the Science paragraph's structure depends on Popper. He is the only name that clearly could not be made without it, and all other names have obviously been carefully selected. You do not introduce just any name for only growing the number of those for the one side or the other. The arguments that are featured except those which you have added are all about data or the conceits, otherwise come from a personality notorious enough to be considered authoritative. By contrast you are introducing the discussion of much more practical considerations that could unfortunately be put perhaps to the charge of their authors for their own original mistakes or misinterpretations. That paragraph will be degenerating if it starts initiating a list of all those who have lately discovered their argument for rejecting the theory, particularly in the 1980's. Frederick Crews, Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, Richard Rorty, an incredible number of so many others. Crews is probably a bad example. In any event to rightly organize a critic one must not assume that Freud was undisputed ( and could not have been distorted ) even amongst his heirs. It is very well known and documented that he was. As I told you before, a problem in your exposé is that "poisonous" is a marker for science that suggests the possible inadequacy of a prescription. An other: if the Oedipus complex is to be rejected, that must be in logical terms, not in clinical terms: in that last case we do belong to an other paragraph. The possible motivations for Freud having changed his mind once do not fare much better to this stage, imho. --Askedonty (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I am not aware of not being allowed to make changes. There is no mention of a temporary stop to contributions. As far as I can see, my contributions deal with another subject than the one that was discussed on the talk page, namely the shift from seduction theory to drive theory, and criticism on, indeed rejection of, Freud's drive theory. In any case, I am quoting Miller and Masson, because both are influential in this particular debate. If you know of 'authoritative personalities' who investigated this issue better and come to the same conclusions, please put them forward. Miller is generally regarded as very influential, Masson put forward a critical review, that, although disputed, generated so much attention with regard to the validity of Freud's psychoanalytical theory, that it cannot be ignored, in my opinion. I repeat, all of my sources are verifiable. The word 'poisonous' is a word used by Miller in her books, not by me (She actually calls it 'schwarze Pedagogie', literal translation: 'black pedagogy'.) She means what she says, on good grounds. Read her book. If in an article published by the American Psychological Association, concludes that little evidence is found for the existence of the Oedipus Complex, after investigation of its validity, then I honestly don't see why it cannot be mentioned in the Science section. It seems significant enough. By the way, I sometimes have trouble understanding some of your arguments, because of the way you express yourself in the English language. Thanks, Jeroen1961 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As Askedonty has explained, the Science Section concerns deliberations on the nature of Freud’s ideas in relation to established scientific research,  practices and institutions not on the specifics of their content which is amply covered in the Ideas section where you will find reference to the Seduction Theory debate already made thus being the obvious location for your contribution.   Please respect the current organisation of content in the article and the need to seek consensus before adding controversial content.  The current consensus is against including your contribution In the Science section.  I would add that your use of quotation, excessive referencing in the text of authors and their personal details and inadequate pagination (eg in Note 162, 122 pages is not specific enough) in your references fails to comply with WP guidelines.


 * I have reverted your addition to the Lead. It’s true Freud’s work is “highly contested”, but it’s also true it’s vigorously defended.    “Extensive debate” covers BOTH standpoints in a way appropriate to WP:NPOV.   You have also added a number of unsourced and contentious edits recently which will also be removed unless appropriately referenced.  Almanacer (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Almanacer. I think the article should reflect the fact that Freud's psychoanalytical theory is currently more contested than accepted, both in professional circles as well as non-professional ones. The fact that Freud chose to ignore the effects of childhood sexual abuse in relation to the occurrence of psychopathology in adults from the early 20th Century onward is probably the most significant example of this. Wikipedia-readers would be misled, if no mention is made of this fact. Freud, though extremely influential in psychology and, indeed, modern society as a whole, has been largely debunked when it comes to the validity of his psychoanalytical theory. It is now regarded as outdated by psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health care professionals alike. The article about Freud should reflect this, otherwise an unrealistic picture emerges of him. My contributions to the science section and other sections, as well as the lead section should be maintained for this reason. Alice Miller used established scientific research, practices and institutions to come to the claims she made. Jeffrey Masson and Joel Kupfersmid did so too. Note 162, 122 pages, deals specifically with Miller's scientific rejection of Freud's work, most notably of his 'Oedipus complex'. Thank you for reading this, Jeroen. Jeroen1961 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Almanacer, I contest that there are people 'vigorously defending' Freud's Oedipus complex. Mental health care professionals reject this notion nowadays. Professionals recognize now that if a child suffers sexual abuse and is not helped to overcome the trauma, it will develop mental health problems as an adult, and they recognize that memories of abuse and actual trauma are not simply caused by fantasies, as Freud maintained to his death. 'Highly contested' simply means that there is great controversy about Freud's theories, which is somewhat stronger than that it is merely 'debated', and this needs to be mentioned, if one wants to be honest and conscientious, and not avoid this issue, however awkward it may be. It means that there is more than strong opposition to Freud's theories, and this is merely reflecting today's reality. It is probably worth mentioning that mental health care workers abandoned Freud's theories all over the world, simply because daily reality has forced them to do so. Thanks Jeroen1961 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeroen, as is noted at the top of this page this is not a forum for debating Freud’s work. You’re entitled to you views but what matters is that you justify the content you propose to add, and in this case where you propose to add, it by verifiable sources.  Your opinion that the work of Masson and Miller is based on established scientific research, practices and institutions  is your POV unless you can find a verifiable source that demonstrates the scientific accreditation of their work which you might find difficult since neither are scientists. I will continue to revert your text until you do so.  The same point applies to content you add based on you own POV of the general status of Freud’s work as “debunked” – see WP:OR.


 * As Askedonty and I have pointed out, you need to show more respect for the organization of material in the article. The Seduction Theory debate has its own heading. Add your contribution there and stop POV pushing in other parts of the article. Almanacer (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Almanacer, let's look at this objectively. I understand it is your belief that I am trying to push my own point of view, but I have stated what has been stated in the press for a long time now, namely that Freud's work is generally regarded as outdated, both by professionals and non-professionals. If you insist, I will present you with the sources. This does not mean that Freud's work is unimportant, as he still remains the founder of the psychoanalytic movement, which is significant in itself. But the discipline has moved on since 1939, the year Freud died. I try to be as objective as I possibly can, Almanacer, please take my word for this, as I also take your points of view very seriously. Don't forget we both are here to achieve as balanced and neutral an article on Freud as possible. So let's try to work together on this. In answer to the issues you raised:

1. Place. You mentioned that the Seduction Theory debate has its own heading, and you feel I should add my contribution there. After reading the relevant talk pages, it became clear to me that there is general consensus that criticism of Freud should be under the 'Legacy' heading, which is precisely where I put it in the first place, before you reverted it. As I said before, Miller and Masson specifically criticize the validity of Freud's supposed scientific theory, most notably his 'drive theory', so it seems right to add their critique under the 'Science' heading. Askedonty did not quite understand why you thought it should be under 'Ideas', and neither do I, to be frank.

2. You stated that you believe my contribution in the 'Science' section is not properly sourced. But look at it again, please. I believe I supplied ample sources.

3. Miller, Masson and Kupfersmid are not scientists? In that case Popper would not be a scientist either, nor would the other people mentioned in the 'Science' section. Miller, Masson and Kupfersmid all have a PhD in psychology, Miller also has a PhD in philosophy and sociology. I provided a verifiable source that demonstrates the scientific accreditation of Miller's work, but it has probably escaped your attention, possibly owing to our heated debate: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1993-05667-001 Alice Miller's revision of psychoanalysis. (American Psychological Association, 1992). For Masson, the NY Times article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0CEFDA123BF936A1575BC0A967948260. Kupfersmid is accredited by the APA. ( http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1996-00446-003 ) In any case, verifiable sources that demonstrate the scientific accreditation have not been provided for any of the other critics mentioned in the 'Science' section, so why is this suddenly an obligation, according to you? You can take my word for it that I respect the organisation of the material in the article. Almanacer, I call on you to find a solution for our differences of opinion together, and please not to let this thing escalate into some sort of edit war. I am open to all suggestions and promise I will do my best to come to a reasonable mutually agreed solution. Thank you for reading this, Jeroen1961 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It should be obvious to any reasonable editor why your text on Seduction Theory  belongs in the Ideas section. ALL previous editor's contributions on the topic (with the exception of a brief mention in the Biography section) are in that section.  None have considered it a topic which has bearings on the scientific credentials of Freud's work ie appropriate for the Science section.  That consituties a clear consensus and nothing you have written is a persuasive argument against it as Askedonty and I have stated.  There are, BTW, numerous contriarian remarks on Freud's work in the Ideas section which you have appear to overlooked.  If you are serious about respecting the organisation of material in the article you will respect this long-established consensus.


 * I'll reply to your other points in due course, when I've had a chance to consult you references but meanwhile I'd be interested if you could match re Freud being "outdated" the following recent assessment of Freud's work by a leading Oxford University psychiatrist (not NB a psychoanalyst):
 * "Psychoanalysis has irrevocably changed psychiatry....psychiatrists most opposed to its grand theories rely on its insights from day to day in practice." Tom Burns  Our Necessary Shadow, London:  Allen Lane 2013 p. 96-97 Almanacer (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Almanacer, please help me out here, I am willing to add my contribution in the 'Ideas' section, but under which heading do you propose I add it? My contribution is not about 'Seduction Theory', but about the rejection of Freud's 'Drive Theory', especially with regard to the 'Oedipus Complex', on the grounds of lack of scientific validity. One might argue it is a criticism on his 'idea' of infant sexual and destructive 'drives' as well. The problem is that there is no separate heading 'Drive Theory', but this is split up between 'Psychosexual Development' and 'Life and Death Drives'. Apart from that, the main body of criticism of Freud's work is in the 'Legacy' part of the article, and as far as I understand it, in the talk pages contributors to the article seem to have agreed to place criticism of Freud's work there, rather than in the 'Ideas' section. Correct me if I am wrong. In Frank Cioffi's obituary of last year in the Telegraph, it is stated that "Freud’s frequent departures from truthfulness are now conceded by even ardent admirers." ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9026176/Professor-Frank-Cioffi.html ) Jeroen1961 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeroen, yes I can see you have a problem, which is that the Ideas section is not that well organised, which makes it difficult but not impossible to rewite your material there. I still think the best place is the Seduction Theory sub-section as this is the point of departure for Miller/Masson. Your earlier suggestion of a section on the “Freud debate” was one I agree with and I hope this can be established in due course. The Science Section should, however, remain the preserve of scientists, philosophers of science (eg Popper) and reviewers of scientific research programmes (eg on dreams, neuroscience) linked to established academic institutions. I don’t’ doubt Miller/Masson’s academic credentials but they are not scientific in the latter sense. To follow your approach would be to open the section  to all and sundry, which would undermine encylopedic coherence.


 * I don’t think newspaper/magazine articles are authoritative enough sources to use when there is so much Freud scholarship, both pro and anti, available to cite. Almanacer (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I’ve now reverted your incorrect and unsourced edits re. “Freud subsequently avoided linking childhood sexual abuse with the development of (adult) psychopathology.”


 * See Laplanche and Pontalis The Language of Psychoanalysis, London: Karnac Books 1988, p. 406: “Right up to the end of his life, Freud continued to assert the existence, prevalence and pathogenic force of scenes of seduction actually experienced by children. Almanacer (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Almanacer, for making this change, although it must be said Laplanche's and Pontalis's views remain their opinion and are their interpretation of the facts. I added something to the paragraph to clarify the matter more. Laplanche seems to confirm, by the way, that Freud later attached too little importance to external factors: "By discussing the seduction theory we are doing justice to Freud, perhaps doing Freud better justice than he did himself. He forgot the importance of his theory, and its very meaning (...)." "When Freud said, "Now I am abandoning the idea of external causality and am turning to fantasy, he neglected this very dialectical theory he had between the external and the internal. He neglected, that is, the complex    play between the external and the internal." (Caruth, "An Interview with Jean Laplanche", http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/text-only/issue.101/11.2caruth.txt) I will add the part about Miller and Masson later, thanks, Jeroen1961 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I reworded the penultimate sentence under the heading 'Development of Psychoanalysis', in accordance with what is stated on page 606,6th paragraph, in the article What did Freud get right?: "However, Freud’s belief that repressed early sexual trauma was the cause of adult neurosis was short-lived. Within a year, following his own self-analysis, he began formulating the theory that was to become the cornerstone of Freudian psychoanalytic thought and practice: that the origins of adult neurosis were to be found in repressed infantile sexual impulses, rather than in actual traumatic events." (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_13-editionID_51-ArticleID_155-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/freud1.pdf) Thank you, Jeroen1961 (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with authors of  “What did Freud Get Right ” which you have been cut and pasting into the article, is that they fail to understand, in marked contrast to the Freud scholars cited below, that :
 * “What Freud gave up with his assumption of early sexual trauma .. was the belief that ucs memories of early sexual abuse in early childhood constitute the necessary and exclusive cause of neuroses – but not that such assaults happen and can be part of the eitilogy of neuroses.” J Brunner Freud and the Politics of Psychoanalysis New York Transaction Publishers 2001, p. 39


 * In this view the later theory thus encompasses sexual scenarios linked to either real events or fantasies. Which is more important is matter of case by case clinical judgement, which is what Freud’s argument with Freneczi was in part about, and does not involve any theoretical inconsistency as your cited authors (and the Masson’s conspiracy theory) claim.


 * In this context it should be apparent that their reference to “repressed infantile sexual impulses” (it is, BTW, repressed memories not impulses which Freud holds to be pathogenic) as opposed to “actual traumatic events”, the basis of their “inconsistency charge”, sets up a false dichotomy and constitutes an inaccurate account of the change in Freud’s views.


 * The following from J. Forrester The Seductions of Psychoanalysis  Cambridge University Press 1990, p. 75 is an accurate summary and has been added to the article in slightly amended form:


 * “In place of the theory that every neurosis can be traced back to the effects of infantile sexual abuse, Freud argued that the infantile scene still had a causative function, but it did not matter whether they were real or imagined scenes.” Almanacer (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Almanacer, I object to you stating I have 'cut and paste' text, which is clearly untrue. Please refrain from making accusations you cannot substantiate in future.

When you state that the problem is that the authors of the article in The Psychologist fail to understand Freud's meaning, you are stating your personal opinion. It seems to me that Andrews and Brewin, a Doctor and a Professor of Psychology at the Royal Holloway and University College in London, understand very well what they are writing. The article was published more than 10 years after the book by Forrester, a historian, that you are referring to. Since then insights have progressed. Andrews and Brewin make it very clear that Freud had the opinion "that the origins of adult neurosis were to be found in repressed infantile sexual impulses, rather than in actual events"(http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_13-editionID_51-ArticleID_155-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/freud1.pdf page 606) They report an actual dichotomy. You state it is "repressed memories not impulses which Freud holds to be pathogenic". Yes, but pathogenic memories stemming from impulses, NOT reality, according to Freud, that is the whole point of his drive theory. (see 'drive theory'). Freud may still have recognized childhood sexual abuse as an occurrence, but he no longer recognized it as a causative function. That was his shift: in his view neurosis was no longer caused by real trauma, caused by real events, but by 'phantasy', stemming from sexual and aggressive 'drives'. The possible reality of sexual trauma became irrelevant in relation to the origins of the neuroses, after he presented his drive theory. As Freud stated himself: before developing his drive theory, he had not 'freed' himself yet from his overvaluation of reality and his low valuation of 'phantasy', when he had presented his seduction theory. (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_13-editionID_51-ArticleID_155-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/freud1.pdf page 606)

I accept your statement that it is "the repressed memories not impulses which Freud holds to be pathogenic" and will reword my contribution, but otherwise I will change back to my original text, as a sound source was provided by me. Thank you for reading this. Jeroen1961 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

K.Ahbel-Rappe (2006) writes in her paper "I no longer believe": did Freud abandon the seduction theory?: "Recent accounts of the seduction theory and the question of its abandonment have emphasized the continuity of Freud's work before and after the seduction theory, claiming that Freud did not abandon his concern with the event of seduction but rather came to appreciate that an understanding of fantasy was also essential. This claim is challenged. It is shown that Freud did abandon the passionate concerns of his seduction theory for the most part; that he left behind his early interest in reconstructing unconscious infantile incest and focused instead on later, conscious seduction; that he at times clearly reduced apparent paternal incest to fantasy; that he turned away from the phenomenology of incest he had begun to develop; and that he theoretically nullified the value of the difference between real and fantasied seduction." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16602351)

Earlier (1995) Powell & Boer had stated in their paper "Did Freud misinterpret reported memories of sexual abuse as fantasies?": "Certain theoretical statements by Freud (..) indicate that he may have been significantly biased toward interpreting certain types of incest allegations as fantasies."(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8559882)

Thus Freud, in a profound turnaround, changed his psychoanalytical theory, now denying the significance of childhood sexual trauma as a causative factor in adult psychopathology. Jeroen1961 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are currently making your case for changing the article text on the basis of a magazine article, by two psychologists neither of whom have any track record in Freud studies and whose misrepresentation of Freud with regard to “repressed sexual impulses” you now acknowledge.   It’s quite frankly absurd that you propose to remove from the article a text sourced to a internationally renowned Freud scholar with an extensive list of publications in the field and whose detailed treatment of  “the complexity of Freud’s theory” runs to some 30 pages in contrast to a few brief paragraphs in a magazine article.


 * You’ve also been provided with two other sources (Laplanche/Pontalis and Brunner), all with full references given to Freud’s own texts, that demonstrate beyond any doubt that, in the words of Brunner’s summary of Freud’s views “… such [sexual] assaults happen and can be part of the eitilogy of neuroses”.  What exactly do you not understand about “the infantile scene still had a causative function..” (Forrester) ?


 * The articles you cite on Seduction Theory are relevant to discussions in the Ideas section but not to accounts of what Freud’s views were in 1905.


 * There is, by the way, no reference in the article you cite to drive theory so your change to the text in the Seduction Theory section is not supported by the source. Almanacer (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeroen, I agree with Almanacer, even though you may have not concretely made use of the cut and paste, your wording tends to keeping too narrowly to your sources. Please try to follow that view: I read the Psychologist's article, and although I very much do appreciate it for its content and its informations, I remain convinced with Almacer's views rather than with your own after it. That would be because I am taking an other direction from the article introduction that you do, I guess. Interpreting Freud's dispute with Ferenczi may have some importance. It is after all a very obvious case of "no, please will you not say that this is what I have been meaning". Andrews and Brewin besides start with the recall again of what I had not taken the risk of emphasizing, an obvious prudence of most psychologists regarding those very questions. --Askedonty (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Askedonty, I will do my best to avoid to keep too narrow to the sources in future. You agree with Almanacer, but the fact remains that the source I provided makes clear that Freud did no longer regard actual sexual abuse part of the etiology of psychopathology, but he felt instead that now fantasy was the causative factor. The view stated in the article is supported by the other sources I gave: Ahbel-Rappe and Powell & Boer, who maintain that Freud shifted from actual events as causative, to fantasy, after he dismissed Seduction Theory. In the words of Ahbel-Rappe: Freud "theoretically nullified the value of the difference between real and fantasied seduction." We cannot just ignore such a finding, for whatever reason, because we it would be misleading to the readers of this article. Thanks, Jeroen1961 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Almanacer, first of all, do not insult and do not use a patronizing tone, by asking me "What exactly do you not understand", referring to a difference of opinion, but implying a lack of intelligence on my part. It is not allowed in Wikipedia, and I shall have to report you, if you continue the discussions in this way. It is required of you, and me, to remain cordial and civil.

There is a reference in the article I cite to drive theory: "Freud was inconsistent concerning whether his later theory invalidated his earlier findings" (p606), meaning 'drive' as opposed to 'seduction' theory. I tried not to use the same words as in the article.

The sources I provided are perfectly reliable. I am not prepared move them to the 'Ideas section', as they directly refer to Freud's views in 1905. Powell & Boer and Ahbel-Rapp in 1995 and 2006 challenge the view of both Forrester and Laplanche/Pontalis and Brunner, that Freud still saw actual abuse as a causative function. As did Alice Miller (1981, 1984) and Masson (1984).

So I suggest we incorporate both your and my sourced text in this particular paragraph. I will make an attempt to do so, which I hope you can accept. Thanks, Jeroen1961 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * He "did no longer regard actual sexual abuse part of the etiology of psychopathology" is wrong, even though "he felt that fantasy was the causative factor" is fact. You do not think that fantasies will do arise up after - abuse ? --Askedonty (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Askedonty, the point is that Freud now saw fantasy, but no longer the occurrence of abuse as the cause of psychopathology. In the etiology he no longer attached value to real events as such, in other words. Thank you. Jeroen1961 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this is because he wants to be talking about psychopathology, not about criminal justice. Your opinion that he is not attaching value to the event is an extrapolation outside of the field which he is documenting. He is defining the position that has been required of a legal expert, which is abstraction of preliminary moral biases, and is not contradictory with scientific requirements at this step. -- Askedonty (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Askedonty, it is not my opinion that Freud no longer attached value to real traumatic events as the origin of mental disease, but the conclusion of the people I cited. It has nothing to do with questions of criminal justice, but it has to do with questions of the cause of the illness. Thanks Jeroen1961 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I wrote it as if you had not mentioned the word etiology indeed. I did not think for real that it was your own opinion, I just wanted to add that light on the question undocumented. You will find without excessive pain other opinions opposite to those you've presented, this you already know. I will not discuss the cause of the illness: an illness, does not equate a wound. Now at best it's a controversy, I gave you my view. Thanks. --Askedonty (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Almanacer, I would like to comment on your statement that "two psychologists neither of whom have any track record in Freud studies and whose misrepresentation of Freud with regard to “repressed sexual impulses” you now acknowledge". First of all, they are highly qualified psychologists, who would not make such statements lightly. Secondly they provide valid sources for their statements (Bowlby, Miller, Masson). Thirdly, it is your personal opinion that they misrepresent Freud. I do not doubt that Forrester has a track record on Freud, but so does Miller, and so does Masson. Thank you. Jeroen1961 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I added Miller's criticism of the Oedipus Complex under 'Psychosexual Development', and added "Others, however, have challenged this view" in the same paragraph, to balance the preceding citation. Thanks, Jeroen1961 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To date your claims have been:


 * “Freud has been debunked and “is generally regarded as outdated””


 * “Freud subsequently avoided linking childhood sexual abuse with the development of (adult) psychopathology.”


 * “Notwithstanding his abandonment of the seduction theory, Freud always recognized that some neurotics had experienced childhood sexual abuse, but he no longer linked this with the development of (adult) psychopathology.”


 * Freud changed his theory, “denying the significance of sexual trauma as a causative factor in psychopathology”


 * All these claims are demonstrably false but despite clear refutation from reputable sources who refer to Freud’s own words (see Gay below) you continue to make them and introduce edits based on them.  To add one further source Gay, Freud’s most authoritative biographer states:


 * Freud insisted that not everything he had written in the mid-1890s on the sexual abuse of children deserved to be rejected: “Seduction has retained a certain significance for eitiology”.  He explicitly noted that two of his earlier cases …. had been assaulted by their father. Gay Freud p. 95 citing SE III, 168n (note added in 1924 to The Aietiology of Hysteria)


 * Neither Powell & Boer or K.Ahbel-Rappe contradict Gay’s account, your claim that they do is spurious unless you can cite chapter and verse.


 * You are now on the verge of Disruptive Editing  The current consensus on the Talk Page is opposed to your current contributions. Almanacer (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Almanacer, I stand by what I said, I have backed it up, and will back it up again. My 'claims' are not 'demonstrably false', although you may believe them to be.

According to many reports in the press during the last 20 years, Freud's psychonalytical theory has been debunked (e.g. Jerry Adler in Newsweek, March 27, 2006). As Donald Clark puts it: '' "Little of Freud’s theories are now used in modern psychology. Popper’s critique of his theory on philosophical grounds and for failing to satisfy even minimal scientific standards prepared the way for serious scientific critiques. On the whole they show that Freud’s theories are poorly researched, based on single cases, tiny samples and his own self-analysis. They claim his theories are speculative, subjective, self-fulfilling and not scientific in the sense that Freud claimed they were." ''(http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.nl/2012/04/freud-1856-1923-therapy-culture-lives.html) I called it outdated, as nowadays in psychology and in psychiatry Freud's drive theory is no longer generally accepted and used.

Once again: Andrews and Brewin make it clear that Freud had the opinion "that the origins of adult neurosis were to be found in repressed infantile sexual impulses, rather than in actual events". (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_13-editionID_51-ArticleID_155-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/freud1.pdf page 606) Indeed, this is what Freud postulates in his drive theory, the cause of neurosis is fantasy, which has its origins in the child's impulses, not reality.

Ahbel-Rappe states that Freud "did abandon the passionate concerns of his seduction theory", "that he turned away from the phenomenology of incest he had begun to develop; and that he theoretically nullified the value of the difference between real and fantasied seduction." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16602351) Nullifying the value of the difference is another way of saying there is no difference between the value of mere fantasy and actual abuse. In other words abuse does not get the weight it deserves (i.e. more than fantasy) as a significant causative factor.

Powell & Boer showed Freud leaned to fantasy rather than fact. They concluded: "Certain theoretical statements by Freud as well as his advice to Jung concerning a 6-yr.-old patient who had accused her foster-father of sexual abuse indicate that he may have been significantly biased toward interpreting certain types of incest allegations as fantasies." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8559882). This is certainly an indication that Freud showed bias towards fantasy rather than fact.

All indications are, as I have shown, that Freud diminished the role of actual abuse in favour of fantasy to explain mental illness. You may think that he did attach importance to actual abuse to explain mental illness, but so far you have provided very little hard evidence, apart from providing opinions by a historian and some others. You cite Gay: "He explicitly noted that two of his earlier cases …. had been assaulted by their father." That in itself is no evidence that Freud believed the assault was part of the etiology of later mental disturbance: Freud only noted it.

About your latest change: you state: "the pathogenic effect only occurred when acting as a repressed memory." It is not clear to me what you actually mean by this statement. An effect that only occurs when that effect acts as a repressed memory? How can an effect of an illness act as a memory? What do you mean, in clear English? Do you mean: the pathogenic effect only occurred as a result of repressed memory? Thank you. Jeroen1961 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Two more examples that show Freud evaded real abuse as the cause of mental illness:

"Ferenczi: The immediate explanation - that these are only sexual fantasies of the child, a kind of hysterical lying - is unfortunately made invalid by the number of such confessions, e.g. of assaults upon children, committed by patients actually in analysis. (..) More recently, in 1973, shortly before his death, Dr. Robert Fliess, a psychiatrist and son of Freud's dearest Wilhelm, quoted Ferenczi approvingly and added: I would now contradict him (Freud) head on: no one is ever made sick by his fantasies. "(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0CEFDA123BF936A1575BC0A967948260 "Did Freud's Isolation Lead Him to Reverse Theory on Neurosis?"] New York Times, August 25, 1981, page 3 )

Masson writes, in the preface of the 2012 version of his book Assault on Truth: '' "As part of our training, we were taught that if a female patient described a memory of incest, we were to regard this as anything but a true memory: it could be a deliberate lie. It could be self deception. It could mask the wish for incest. It could be a delusion. It could be a false memory. It could be, in all its various forms, a mere fantasy. It could, in fact, be just about anything. The one thing it could not be, however, was a genuine memory." ''

My question to you, Almanacer, is: how can it seriously be maintained, in the light of all the sources and examples I gave to the contrary, that, as you state in the article, Freud was "now arguing that infantile sexual scenarios still had a causative function, but it did not matter whether they were real or imagined"? It seems clear that Freud rejected genuine memories of abuse, and instead said these accounts were fantasies. At best, on the basis of the evidence we both provided, I think one could say Freud grossly underestimated, evaded and fudged the part childhood sexual abuse played in the etiology of psychopathology. In my opinion, this article should reflect this evidence. Do you agree? Thanks. Jeroen1961 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeroen, try to be serious instead of using vocabulary such as "grossly", "fudging" etc. This is not a puppet show. You are the one, ( with Ferenczi ), who are associating the qualifier "only" to fantasies:   ( those people's trade had been hypnosis in the first place, didn't you remember ? ) I'm still expecting to see where that picture of a Big Bad Freud stubbornly rejecting genuine memories has taken its roots. Masson's revolt may be genuine and based on very genuine memories, we have no indication that it was Freud personally who'd been teaching him what we're told he was. Research's got to go deeper than that. --Askedonty (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well, Askedonty, I will no longer use the words 'gross' and 'fudge'. I did not use the term 'big bad Freud', however. In answer to your question: Andrews and Brewin state Freud had the opinion "that the origins of adult neurosis were to be found in repressed infantile sexual impulses, rather than in actual events". (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_13-editionID_51-ArticleID_155-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/freud1.pdf page 606) Jeroen1961 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahbel-Rappe states, referring to a passage from Freud's Introductory Lectures of 1916/1917: "its meaning is clear: infantile seductions by adults, the cornerstone of the seduction theory, are elided. Women’s fantasies of having been seduced by their fathers are uniformly interpreted via oedipal desire. The reality of these seductions is denied. What remains of real incest here are seductions by other children and from later childhood, defensively transposed into the early years that are crucial in the seduction theory. In the seduction theory, such seductions of children by other children were themselves referred to infantile seductions by adults. That link is gone. Further, the real acts of seduction to which Freud refers here are clear and “unimpeachable” historical events, not the unconscious experiences of childhood requiring determined and laborious reconstruction that Freud worked on with the seduction theory. There has been a shift in the very meaning of seduction." (http://www.apsa.org/portals/1/docs/japa/541/ahbel-rappe--4-pp.171-199.pdf, page 181) Jeroen1961 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally do not see a problem there. Focusing on a vector restricted to the individual patient allows for avoiding the emotional shift redirecting towards the others partners in the trauma. Instead we'll get transference. Pardon me but these critics and complains in fact sound rather like the revolt of narcissism to me. If I remember well my reading of Freud ( I've never liked it but I've read him ) it would be even easier to answer Andrews and Brewin, who I'm not certain they would fully agree with the view you are taking out of their article. They may also have had some problems copyediting themselves or making such a complex question that short but I'm not certain; they say: 1) "However, Freud’s belief that repressed early sexual trauma was the cause of adult neurosis was short-lived. Within a year ( ... )", 2) " the origins of adult neurosis were to be found in repressed infantile sexual impulses (..)". In the two sentences there is the word "repressed". Whereas repressed impulses is easy to comprehend, it is less clear what a repressed trauma might be ( which is why I'm not sure that Andrews and Brewin are accurate.) From what I remember the repressed trauma meaning in fact the repressed expression of it, would be why Freud could turn focusing on the impulse. A trauma is the occasion of a frustration, that frustration encountered by being unable of expressing the trauma. Expression means the impulse of expressing oneself, or expressing something, anything. Thus we could track neuroses even not related to a trauma, or not obviously related to a trauma if you will. This is what I remember from my reading of Freud, and I've never found a trace of his refusal of reality although I found some bits I did not necessarily fully agree with but I did not detect any intolerance and certainly no taboo refusal. Even more, I do not find in the practice nor even of those rejecting him an other attitude regarding expression that what he teached. If we were talking about Jung or Jacques Lacan for some perspective I would certainly better agree that there may be some subjects for discussion. --Askedonty (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don’t think Andrews and Brewin are totally clear, they are, after all, writing introductory material for the special issue of The Psychologist on Freud which cannot be expected to have the same precision, depth and research references of eg Forrester’s account. Their own words are in my view ambiguous. If they are read, not as in your view as denying causation, but as saying repressed material (putting aside it’s memories in Freud’s account, not impulses as in their’s) is at the origin of neuroses rather than actual traumatic events they are in agreement with Forrester viz: “the trauma became effective in causing neurosis only by acting as a memory”. p. 76. This entails recognizing there are levels of causation and that there is no single cause and effect model of traumatic sexual abuse followed by neurotic effect. I've now modified the amended text for clarity- thanks for your input, and yes that is what Freud is claiming with regard to the psychoneuroses in 1905. IE the pathogentic effect of the trauma necessarily takes place through repressed memories – I hope this is clear enough. Please bear in mind we are not in the Development Section covering the Freud’s clinical practice over its 30 year history regarding which Ahbel-Rappeand Powell & Boer raise the legitimate issues (over-valuation/undervaluation – not of denial ) you refer to. I agree the article should cover these matters in the Ideas or Legacy sections. But if the Biography section becomes interpolated with debating points about Freud’s views (for which there is adequate space elsewhere) it will lose narrative coherence and its structure will not be consistent with WP articles about other controversial figures eg Marx, Wittengestein, Derrida, etc, etc. I hope we can agree on this. BTW if you are going to reference these texts you need, in accordance with the editorial standards set throughout this article, to cite specific passages, not just the abstract, nor just a book title or a large chunk of text. Where opinions are so polarised on Freud, precise referencing of sources for claims made is essential. WP:VERIFY, WP:INCITE. The reference to undesirable cutting and pasting I made earlier was in regard to your addition to the Psychosexual Development Section. I don’t understand the inconsistency charge made here. If Freud is saying about Ferenzci he overvalues his patient accounts of real events then that, whether justified or not, is perfectly consistent with the passage Andrews/Brewin quote from Freud on his own overvaluation of reality. Perhaps you could clarify ? BTW all Freud asked of Ferenzci was to postpone publication of a paper for a year (according to the correspondence Masson cites). Your objection that Gay’s passage provides no evidence to contradict your specific claim that Freud “no longer recognized it [sexual abuse] as a causative function” leads me to ask why do you not accept Freud’s own formulation as cited by Gay, viz: “Seduction has retained a certain significance for eitiology”? Almanacer (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Askedonty, you question the validity of Andrew's and Brewin's argument, of which I have taken note. You question whether they would fully agree with the view I am taking from their article. My response is that I have cited them literally. In other words, I do not take any view from their article, other than their own.


 * Almanacer, you express reservations about the clarity of Andrew's and Brewin's statement, namely that in your view their own words are ambiguous, "putting aside it’s memories in Freud’s account, not impulses as in their’s" as the cause of neuroses. But it's the child's impulses that lead to the memories in the first place, according to Freud. They cannot be seen separate from each other. The point Andrews and Brewing are making, is that Freud now postulated that the child's instinctive impulses are ultimately at the root of neurosis, rather than real events. I do not see any ambiguity here.


 * I agree with you that the Biography section should not become interpolated with debating points about Freud’s views, for clarity's sake, but the account has to be faithful to the truth. You are probably right that we should leave your contribution as it is, however, I do suggest brief but explicit mention is made of the fact that it refers to Freud's views in 1905, and that his views later changed, or something to that effect.


 * You mention Ahbel-Rappe and Powell & Boer "raise the legitimate issues (over-valuation/undervaluation – not of denial)." However, Ahbel Rappe does make mention of actual denial (see citation above: "The reality of these seductions is denied.") Nevertheless, the issue is complex, because Freud seemed to waver a great deal in the early 20th Century. Ahbel-Rappe makes the case however, that Freud later rejected real events as cause of mental illness: "In Freud’s 1933 account of the abandonment of the seduction theory, the reconstruction of trauma disappears completely. “In the period in which the main interest was directed to discovering infantile sexual traumas, almost all my women patients told me that they had been seduced by their father. I was driven to recognize that these reports were untrue and so came to understand that hysterical symptoms are derived from phantasies and not from real occurrences. It was only later that I was able to recognize in this phantasy of being seduced by the father the expression of the typical Oedipus complex in women” (p. 120). .... The rhetorical force of the passages is not that some scenes of infantile sexual trauma turn out, as a matter of fact, to be derived from fantasies (the point Freud seems to make in the 1906 essay), but that scenes of infantile sexual trauma just are derived from fantasy." (http://www.apsa.org/portals/1/docs/japa/541/ahbel-rappe--4-pp.171-199.pdf, pp. 184-185).


 * I agree with you that reference should be in accordance with the editorial standards set throughout this article. I am not so experienced at doing so, however, and may need to ask your help later, not only with regard to referencing, but also with regard to position within the article and proper wording, that we can all agree on. Problem is, I do not possess all sources in the English language.


 * You state: "If Freud is saying about Ferenzci he overvalues his patient accounts of real events then that, whether justified or not, is perfectly consistent with the passage Andrews/Brewin quote from Freud on his own overvaluation of reality." That is true, however, Freud did not say about Ferenzci he overvalued his patients accounts, but he said Ferenzci misinterpreted his patients' accounts altogether, rejecting "reports of abuse were real memories." Andrews/Brewin cite Freud to show he seemed to acknowledge the occurrence of real events as significant, whether overvalued or not, whereas later rejected them altogether.


 * With regard to Freud’s own formulation as cited by Gay, viz: “Seduction has retained a certain significance for eitiology”, Ahbel-Rappe argues: "Freud does make occasional comments after 1897 to the effect that seductions occur and are harmful. But I have found that what Freud says about seduction is often cited out of context in a way that distorts its import and conceals significant departures from essential aspects of the seduction theory."(Ahbel-Rappe, p.180) and: “The “paternal etiology” (Freud 1986, p. 237) was never presented directly in any of Freud's published writings, although in later writings when Freud described the seduction theory as a sort of mistake, it was often in reference to the father version. That is, when Freud referred back to the seduction theory, he often did so as if the seduction theory had always been a theory about fathers, and, as we'll see, he often reduced paternal incest via the theory of oedipal fantasy he had developed in the meantime. The father etiology, then, is a sort of doubled phantom—never appearing in public, and scotomized in Freud’s later theorizing." (Ahbel-Rappe, p.174)

Jeroen1961 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I do agree for “The “paternal etiology” as a subject of interest. Regarding Freud's suspected refusal of reality, I promised you that opposite views would be not at all difficult to recover. Here is one: Misconceptions about Freud's Seduction Theory: Comment on Gleaves and Hernandez (1999) Allen Esterson ""Gleaves and Hernandez (1999, p. 338) note that Freud (1896/1962a) wrote: "In most of my cases I found that two or more of these aetiologies [by different categories of assailants] were in operation together; in a few instances the accumulation of sexual experiences was truly amazing" (p. 208). However, they fail to appreciate that this actually militates against their contention that Freud made genuine discoveries of infantile sexual abuse. The sheer number of infantile "sexual scenes" supposedly uncovered in such a short time, from an age never previously reported by Freud, is a further indication that his 1896 claims were essentially based on the analytic interpretation of symptoms (of which most patients would have had several).""

Askedonty (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Askedonty, thank you, but this argument is not relevant to the question whether Freud believed infantile sexual trauma to be derived from fantasies or real events, after departing from his seduction theory in the 20th Century.

Thanks, Jeroen1961 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed some text from 'development of psychoanalysis' that was repeated by mistake, and slightly changed the last sentence, for more clarity, to: "This transition from the theory of infantile sexual trauma to that of an autonomous infantile sexuality to explain neuroses, provided the basis for Freud’s subsequent formulation of the theory of the Oedipus complex." Further I still think the penultimate sentence could be clearer. I propose changing "and that in either case their pathogenic causation only occurred when acting as a repressed memory" to "and that in either case neurosis only occurred as a result of repressed memory." I also added a citation of Ahbel-Rappe to the 'Psychosexual development' section, with proper reference.

Jeroen1961 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not seem to me that the questions on this page have been limited on whether Freud believed infantile sexual trauma to be derived from fantasies or real events, and even if it was, the illusion that Freud excluded reality from aetiology is based, particularly following Masson, on Freud's acknowledgement that his original conclusions had been mistaken, regarding the truthfulness of his patients allegations. So I'm a little bit at a loss understanding how you can fail to appreciate that Gleaves and Hernandez are supporting the same argument you did. -- Askedonty (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that I supported the argument that Freud acknowledged his original conclusions had been mistaken? I do not think I referred to this argument, and if I did, what is the relevance?

Jeroen1961 (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the part about Miller and Masson under the 'Psychosexual Development' heading, until I am able to cite the relevant pages more precisely.

Jeroen1961 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Askedonty that Andrew/Brewin is not clear and unamibiguous support for the claims/edits you are making about Freud. As I have pointed out, their charge of inconsistency and the passage they cite from Freud make no sense according to your account (that they claim Freud denied the causative role of “actual events”). Your response is quite frankly incoherent viz:  “Andrews/Brewin cite Freud to show he seemed to acknowledge the occurrence of real events as significant, whether overvalued or not, whereas later (when ? where ?) rejected them altogether”. This clearly contradicts your account of their view as Freud denying the causative role of “actual events”.


 * Your reference to Ahbel-Rappe conflates a controversial account of Freud’s interpretation of case material with his stated theoretical position as cited by Gay and the other sources I have given.


 * Your (proposed) changes to the Development Section are departures form the cited sources. I have restored the previous text and made a further minor rewording. I acknowledge your efforts/intentions regarding citations.

Almanacer (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Almanacer, I think your edit to the development section is an improvement, which makes the text easier to understand. I still think attention should be given to dates, because it is not entirely clear yet in what timespan the transition took place, in my opinion.

What I mean with regard to the Andrew/Brewin citation is that whereas Freud first acknowledged the occurrence of childhood sexual abuse, he later, in rejecting Ferenczi's claim that his patients’ reports of sexual molestation were actual memories instead of fantasies, rejected it.

Ahbel-Rappe makes the case that there was clearly a tendency in Freud towards a denial of the reality of seductions, which seems relevant in this particular context.

Jeroen1961 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"See also" link to Conversion therapy
I'm removing the "See also" link to Conversion therapy (hocus-pocus pseudo-therapeutic attempts to modify the sexuality of non-heterosexuals). Freud had nothing to do with it. He was a pioneer (arguably inventor) of psychotherapy, but "conversion therapy" should not be confused with psychotherapy. (As a side note, Freud explicitly stated that homosexuality is not a disease and should not be subject to "treatment".) Nsteinberg (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Freud nominated, denied Nobel 12 times; Nobel-hired expert says "not scientific"
Hi Freud euthusiasts. Thought I'd throw this into the mix; I just heard of it (on KALW "Minds over Matter"), but looked it up and it looks legitimate. "The Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was nominated for 12 years for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In 1929, the Nobel Committee for Medicine engaged an expert who came to the conclusion that a further investigation in Freud was not necessary, since Freud's work was of no proven scientific value" ( < http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/literature/ > ). (He was also nominated, once, for the Nobel in Literature; also didn't win.)  I'm a physician and scientist, and my take on Freudian psychoanalysis is that, while containing some provocative ideas, it's at best a set of unscientific speculations. IMHO. . Full disclosure: I am *not* specifically trained in psychiatry, psychology, neurology, or other neurosciences. Nonetheless, regarding the scientific backing, or lack thereof, for Freudian psychoanalysis, it seems to me that a statement regarding this non-win of the Nobel (12 times! backed by an expert reviewer!) would be a useful addition to the Freud article. Anyone care to put it in somewheres? Thanks. Lanephil (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A very good point of interest without the trace of any doubt; not an easy matter either given the notoriety and importance of the one as well as the other subject in consideration. To not leaving it anecdotic in the context of the article on Freud, which would not be relevant on the contrary to the same in the article on the Nobel Prize which you are giving in reference, one must note that Freud being considered as the founder of psychoanalysis this is also submitting the question of the place of psychoanalysis relatively to medicine and other related disciplines, and to science itself naturally.
 * As is explained in our Psychoanalytic theory article psychoanalysis tends to leading to the conclusion that human behaviors are deterministic. The conclusion by most psychoanalytic theorists in consequence according to the article is that there is no free will and others will conclude that this also means that freedom does not exist.
 * Determinism and predeterminism being two different views, a deterministic view of the being is not contradictory with science ( most of the "hard" disciplines enjoy the benefits of being deterministic ), but whereas this determinism was useful for determining the basis of a method a confusion between determinism and predeterminism would be an obvious cause of endless discussion inside the fields of social sciences ( see for an example Hermeneutic circle or Determinism With Free Will ), which explains a nomination for Literature ( there is no Nobel Prize in Philosophy ), and whereas a Nomination is not always the ambition of the nominate himself if it is expressing the wish of its promoters and also can be considered as an advertisement itself. Consequently it seems that the information does not necessarily belong in the article about Dr. Freud in priority, but could also be considered for the articles Psychoanalytic theory and Psychoanalysis; a discussion regarding its inclusion into the Nobel Prize article might be of interest although imho its conclusion would be the best in being "no".
 * -- Askedonty (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ashes
Regarding the placement of his ashes, there's this:  following a rearrangement intended to not entering excessive personality flattering that could have been engendered by time.

What does this even mean? I find it incomprehensible. -- Michael K Smith Talk 12:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A good faith edit, no doubt, but unsourced and obviously lacking in appropriate English grammar/syntax. There were other problems with the Death section, eg wrong date of death, which I hope I have now corrected. Almanacer (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Add source to previous edit
Source: Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion.Pacific Publishing Studio. United States. 2010. Print. (32-33)

Rscheuring (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: it's a bit difficult to track down publications from Pacific Publishing Studio. Other books with this title are easy to find, but one from 2008 makes no mention of Marcuse. The caption makes an extraordinarily bold claim -- and I strongly doubt its valididty. For now, I've changed it to "Herbert Marcuse saw similarities between psychoanalysis and Marxism." If we find a source that really justifies that claim, we can change it back, of course. Meanwhile, could you provide an ISBN please? --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I Doubt This
The page now starts off calling him a neurologist. As far as I know he was doing drugs, pushing drugs, doing psychology stuff, and doing perverted stuff. But, now he's a neurologist? Since when? Neurology didn't even exist, it's a very modern science. Psychology is not neurology. Neurology is a study of the physical brain itself, which they couldn't even do until our time, as it requires technology that didn't exist in his time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.240.244 (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do revisit the themes both of "Neurology" and "Sigmund Freud" such as they are treated in depth and in several articles here in Wikipedia - you will perhaps find that you do not want to change your opinion regarding Dr Freud; you will also find that view not sustainable following that present angle nonetheless. --80.185.61.191 (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Marcuse did what?
Hello, there is a sentence which says, Marcuse synthesized psychoanalysis with Marxism. I think that it makes no sense. ~ R . T . G  12:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And it's been fixed by somebody, thanks ~  R . T . G  19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Venturing outside of area
Maybe there should be something about how when he tried to annex other areas to psychoanalysis, the result was not generally a happy one -- "Totem and Taboo" and "Moses and Monotheism" would likely be regarded by modern anthropologists and scholars of the history of religion as risible and almost completely worthless as contributions to their fields (which is by no means the case for all books in those areas published in 1913-1937)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is probably not terribly surprising that books on religion and anthropology which were written by a psychologist are not considered to be useful to religion and anthropology specialists 70-100 years later. &mdash; goethean 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- there are works from that era which are considered classics and are still read today with interest (though obviously not up-to-date), such as the writings of Bronislaw Malinowski in anthropology etc., and then there are works which have not worn well at all (were probably not too sound when they were first published, and nowadays come across as quite bizarre as any kind of attempted contribution to scholarship), and Freud's out-of-area books very conspicuously fall into the second category with respect to their non-psychiatric areas. See further Talk:Totem and Taboo... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So you want to write in the article that his books outside of psychology are not classics in their respective fields? Seems obvious. &mdash; goethean 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Goethean -- From some points of view that could be considered an expected result, but there's still a somewhat striking discrepancy between Freud's grandiose aspirations to use psychology as a master key to explain other areas, and the fact that very few experts in those areas were ever persuaded by Freud, and that his out-of-area books have aged very poorly... AnonMoos (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't true that Freud's Totem and Taboo has not been influential. It's influence on René Girard's Violence and the Sacred is well-known. Girard disagrees with Freud in numerous ways, but still finds the book useful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said on Talk:Totem and Taboo, the book might be a fertile source of intriguing metaphors, but as a serious scientific effort to explain the origins of human societies it's completely defunct. AnonMoos (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your point being? Criticism of Totem and Taboo seems more appropriate for an article specifically about the book, than for this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that both of the big prominent out-of-area books have been conspicuous failures from most points of view (other than being sources for striking metaphors)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Really, well my point remains that any criticism of the books is more appropriate to articles specifically about those books than it is to this article (you avoided answering this). I'm really not interested in debating the books for the sake of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology
WikiProject Psychology is re-evaluating the articles that are labelled as "Top" importance for that particular wikiproject. You are welcome to join in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology on the rating that should be given to the Sigmund Freud article. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there's no mention of Hobbes' influence on Hobbes is absurd
There are many references to the work of Thomas Hobbes in Freud's works: - Zukunft einer Illusion: the description of mankind, ending with the famous hobbesian quote -- "homo homini lupus". - Totem und Tabu: the idea that after the parricide the brothers are left in a state of "war against all ("bellum omnium contra omnes" -- another hobbesian quote) and the fact that the "totem is a contract with the dead father" are also other references to the hobbesian philosophy and the totem can be seen as the Leviathan of Hobbes' book of the same name. There are many other references but I'm not here to lecture, only to point a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.234.135.216 (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuing problems with the lead
Nearly a year after the issue was previously raised, the lead still:

1) Quotes a W.H Auden poem in support of Freud's work suffusing contempory thought and popular culture, yet the poem was written in 1939. And it is misrepresented because the line continues: "...if often he was wrong and, at times, absurd...." Sighola3 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again Sighola - we've been round the block on the Auden quote before and I don't see you adding anything new to your previous comments.  To repeat the key points from my previous posts:  1. the existing text is the product of a consensus with a number of editors with different viewpoints contributing;  2. The citation to Thurschwell's 2009 book (in Note 8  ) is there because she cites the Auden poem as of contemporary relevance; 3. There is no misrepresentation of Auden. The  passage cited is linked in the sentence to the extent of Freud's influence on contemporary thought, not to the varying degrees of agreement/disagreement over his work  ("he was often wrong", etc) which is a different topic. Almanacer (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * a) 75 years ago is no longer generally considered contemporary.
 * b) A poem is not a methodic survey of influence. If citing someone using it as such, they should be referred to in the text not the poet.
 * c) The line actually starts: "if often he was wrong and, at times, absurd", thus putting into context the subsequent clauses, which otherwise appears to almost deify Freud as more than a person. Sighola3 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Almanacer, you have subsequently edited the relevant text. Please confirm if you believe some or all of the points above have now been addressed. Sighola3 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * While waiting I'll note regarding 1c that Thurschwell (2009) quotes the full line ": if often he was wrong and, at times, absurd, to us he is no more a person now but a whole climate of opinion under whom we conduct our different lives:" She specifically picks up on the first clause "And if psychoanalysis really is ‘often wrong and sometimes absurd’, why read it at all?" (I note this is rhetorical, the english professor does defend it). The other source Alexander (Yale wiki, 2008?) describes it and the preceding stanza as "The lines in which Auden recognizes and excuses Freud’s faults have become famous in their own right". Sighola3 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The new wording makes it clear that the claim about Freud's wide influence is not based exclusively on Auden. To repeat, the Thurschwell citation is there to support claim as of contemporary (ie currently applicable as of the date of her 2009 book) relevance. She is not quoted directly therefore no reference to her in the text is needed. I would be astonished if you were to challenge this claim - even Freud's most ardent detractors acknowledge the extent of his influence. See point 3 above re your point c. Nothing you have added in your latest post warrants a change to the existing text, in my view. Almanacer (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please leave aside conditional tense ad hominems about ardent detractors. Please address the fact that the lead is quoting Auden out of context in a way that the sources do not - that is, leaving out the critical aspects for which those stanzas are apparently famous for and which Thurschwell also highlights. It now doesn't even include the subjective element "to us he is" (who is 'us'?). I believe that the full stanza should be quoted within the article body under Legacy, and as per wp:lead the lead should be a summation of the article at a more general level. Sighola3 (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Auden quotation is perfectly appropriate to the lead. It's a quite famous, well-known, observation on Freud by a famous figure, and if you want to select one quotation about Freud to put in the lead, then it certainly should be the one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * wp:lead: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" ... "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Sighola3 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is about your fifth line of argumentation against the material. Something tells me that following WP:LEAD is not the real issue. &mdash; goethean 13:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Err it's all on the same theme of an apparently biased use of a partial quotation in the lead contra its own sources. That seems to be a second (and second innacurate) ad hominem; a third and I will report. Sighola3 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not ad hominem to note that your arguments against the material are constantly shifting. &mdash; goethean 15:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is to comment on 'something' telling you what the 'real issue' is for me. My real issue has all along been about a partial use of the quotation in the lead. I haven't even got to my point 2 yet. Sighola3 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In reply to your quote from wp:lead, I think the Auden comment serves very well both to introduce the article, and to summarize one of its most important aspects. If the Auden quote isn't covered in the rest of the article, then it can be briefly mentioned there. You're trying to create a problem where none exists. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC
 * Please refrain from pejorative declarations about my efforts. I appreciate the acknowledgement that the criticism and subjectivity incorporated by Auden should not be entirely omitted from the article, just the lead. That connects on to the second issue I tried to raise before about the lead and will do again shortly. Sighola3 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from pejorative declarations about my efforts.
 * You expect us to stop using our faculties of critical reason when addressing you? Not going to happen. See WP:TALK. &mdash; goethean 12:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? wp:talk confirms "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and "Do not misrepresent other people". My comment was in reaction to "You're trying to create a problem where none exists." No, I am quite obviously not trying to do that. 188.29.164.70 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To return to what Sighola claims to be the "real issue", there is no “quoting out of context”, in the extract from the Auden poem in the Lead since a “climate of opinion” can be read as inclusive of both negative and positive opinions about Freud. There is, therefore, no need for the further quotes Sighola wishes to add and the unnecessary rewriting and expansion, inappropriate for the Lead, of the last paragraph that would entail. Almanacer (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What I claim to be the "real issue", what are you talking about or implying Almanacer? I have contested a partial (in both senses of the word) extract of a quotation in the lead not even expanded upon in the article. I'm not sure exactly what you're accepting or objecting to for the body/lead: the last relevant comment in the thread above that you departed from was: "I appreciate the acknowledgement that the criticism and subjectivity incorporated by Auden should not be entirely omitted from the article, just the lead." Sighola3 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My point is, Sighola, that the various objections (partial, misrepresentation, bias etc) you have made to the current wording of the Lead (the last paragraph) have not stood up to scrutiny by other editors. I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence but if it means you are no longer arguing for any of your previously proposed changes to the Lead I welcome and acknowledge your collaborative engagement in this matter. Almanacer (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Freud's work has, nonetheless, suffused contemporary Western thought and popular culture" Change this
Can this "Freud's work has, nonetheless, suffused contemporary Western thought and popular culture" be changed to "Freud's work has, nonetheless, suffused contemporary Jewish thought and jewish culture"? Most gentile people do not agree with Freud's thoughts on anything. The few gentiles who do agree with freud only do it to suck up to jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.138.235 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no scholarly consensus known which is supporting that opinion. Could That list perhaps better illustrate your reflexion regarding gentiles ? ( Where I'm concerned personaly I have a similar opinion to yours, but this, regarding a different person. It is about Jean Piaget. Do you advise I should transmit the information to the article there ? ) --Askedonty (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The lead of this article seems a little tangled, and also perhaps over-elaborate in its explanations of Freud's ideas. I wonder whether it couldn't be simplified? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical statements should be removed. The rest looks fine to me. &mdash; goethean 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree - a definite improvement Almanacer (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"FreeKnowledgeCreator"
I need relief from what seem, to me, to be constant and ill-informed attacks on my work on the Sigmund Freud page by another user operating under the title “FreeKnowledgeCreator”; and, moreover, it seems, from his/her user page, that I am not the only one to protest about his activities.

Given that, at least, to some, Sigmund Freud is a very significant figure in the history of psychology/psychiatry, and given that the earlier illustration of Charcot at work had been deliberately cropped in order to disguise the fact that there was an image on the back wall of of Charcot’s lecture theatre, that almost exactly matched the configuration of his subject, it was important that the entire image be displayed.

Secondly, given the fact that Freud placed great value on this painting and displayed a lithographic copy of the painting above his treatment couch, regardless of his clinic’s location (for a photograph verifying this, see: and scroll down entry).

I am now being prevented, by this user, from providing links to (historically) highly significant and extremely important and relevant information about the eminent individuals in the painting; and, moreover, providing it as a “reference”, rather than as text beneath the painting’s image on the page. [please see https://www.dropbox.com/s/qa9dcml3iw69vbx/Key%20to%20Painting.jpeg ; it will be there for three days]. I need some relief from this activity; because, as genuine knowledge creator, I am far too busy to continue playing cat and mouse with this individual – and, unless you can stop him/her, I must leave Freud’s article alone. Please intervene.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the most part, this is a content dispute, which is not an administrative matter: an administrator has no more ability to deal with this than any other editor. You may or may not find it helpful to look at Dispute resolution. The one part of this which may be subject to administrative action is the fact that the dispute is developing into an edit war, which is unacceptable, and which may lead to being blocked from editing if it continues. However, having said that, I should also say that it seems to me that FreeKnowledgeCreator is right: you are trying to give excessive weight to matters which have only marginal relevance to the subject of the article. The fact that Freud had a copy of the picture on display may possibly be regarded as significant information about him, but detailed commentary about the people shown in the picture is getting somewhat away from the subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not a "content dispute" at all; it is the deliberate vandalism and restriction of pertinent information relating to one of Freud's most important training places. Despite the fact that my future non-engagement with this "person", and your refusal to act to stop their unwarranted interference, will only encourage them, and despite my considerable disappointment in your refusal to use your power to stop this user, I will simply accept the fact that you outrank me and, as a professional historian, throw my hands up in the air and walk way greatly saddened by your inaction.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you do not have much experience with Wikipedia, but yes, this a content dispute. Accusing me of vandalism because you disagreed with my edits will get you nowhere. Most experienced editors are familiar with the phenomenon of users who call any edit they disagree with vandalism, and they generally recognize them as people who have little understanding of Wikipedia and need help in dealing with other users. Suggesting that I am not a real person, by placing "person" in scare quotes, is childish stuff. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored the original caption wording which has the merit of mentioning the artist. In my view the other content in question as discussed above belongs in the Charcot article and is WP:UNDUE in the caption.Almanacer (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you can say "It is certainly not a 'content dispute' at all": it is clearly a dispute about what content should be included in the article. Suggesting that is is "deliberate vandalism" is almost equally odd: are you suggesting that nobody could possibly in good faith hold the view that the content is unsuitable for inclusion in the article, and that all the reasons given by different editors claiming to hold that view must therefore be lies? As for "as a professional historian, throw my hands up in the air and walk way greatly saddened", I can only wonder what you would do if you decided, instead of acting as a "professional historian", to act like a spoilt child who can't get his or her way. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Seduction theory
Almanacer recently removed a large amount of material on the seduction theory with this edit. I did read the edit summary, but it's still not fully clear to me why that material was removed. It would help if Almanacer could give a more detailed explanation for the removal. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason for my removal of the paragraph is that 1. its topic is seduction theory (and its relation to Freud's clinical practice) for which a separate section already exists; 2. as such it has no direct bearing on Freud's theories of psychosexual development  which he formulated after he had abandoned the theory;  3. it interrupts and is unrelated to the previous para on the Oedipus Complex or the following para on libido theory both of which are relevant contributions.   I hope that clarifies my rationale - I've no objection to the material being included in the seduction theory section though it will need some rewriting to avoid duplication of the existing content. Almanacer (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Psychosexual development
Looking at the remaining exiting content of this section, most of it is original research with citations directly to Freud’s texts. I’ve therefore provided an alternative wording with secondary source citations where appropriate. The claim in the last paragraph “Freud felt that masturbation was unwise and harmful” is unsupported by the cited text that claims only that it “cannot a priori be presented as harmless”. I suggest this content needs to be rewritten for the Early Ideas section. Almanacer (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo credit?
An attribution to Max Halberstadt is given for the photo in the infobox. Presumably this was his son-in-law, married to his second daughter Sophie? He doesn't seem to have been otherwise notable (as far as Wikipedia is concerned anyway). Should the family connection at least be noted? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Photographic memory?
In her 1971 book Freud, Penelope Balough, writes:
 * "Freud passed his final examination with the grade "excellent" in March 1881. He attributed this result entirely to his photographic memory, which enabled him to reproduce parts of text-books which he had skimmed through merely once, in the greatest haste, during his short revision." (p. 18).

Can this claim be corroborated? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, or at least, very seriously questioned:, . This Sense and Nonsensibility: Lampoons of Learning and Literature by Lawrence Douglas and Alexander George, is establishing an interesting parallel leading to a further splash into unavoidable although no less freudian mysterious unknowns. We might introduce new interrogations perhaps by taking into account that Freud himself, following the last, used as an expression: "pho n ographic memory". --Askedonty (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Askedonty. Good to see you again! Ah, my computer struggles with Dutch Google, alas. But that extract in Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and Sonu Shamdasani (2011) is quite fascinating. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Same pleasure for me! The third link is a hoax in fact. I was about to remove it. --Askedonty (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A hoax? Whatever next! You'll have us believing in fear caused by the large penises of horses or some such cock-and-bull story. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But why. You just do not have to look where it is of no use to you. I was following the parallel Lawrence Douglas are giving with Muybridge's experiments and I quit giving attention I guess. --Askedonty (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Poor old Muybridge received quite a lot of psychological attention thanks to a runaway stage-coach. But even he didn't have a photographic memory, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well where it's about text I guess "photographic memory" does exist, occasionally. You can type again a text you've lost although it will be about method, not Eidetic memory properly speaking. The image in that case will be rather "phonographic", following flow. But that's about something you have been building yourself, not a foreign impression. Coming back to the point, I think we could trust Freud for having been able to develop methods. Perhaps the content of these text-books were altogether only too predictable for him.  --Askedonty (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in Ernest Jones, 1953: The life and work of Sigmund Freud, Volume 1 - p.57 + idem, and also Sigmund Freud: Life and Work: The young Freud, 1856-1900. Google books finds the anecdote relayed again once or twice in the 1960's, and perhaps Freud reused the idea of photographic memory in a commentary about a painting of Da Vinci. In: The Photographic Memory: Press Photography - Twelve Insights ( the snipet does not show ) --Askedonty (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)