Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Working on the lede, kindly do not undo

Martinevans123, the deletion was intentional. I am restoring a mention of notable controversies in the lede per wiki guidelines. As I continue my edits. I will restore any deleted material to the extent it is encyclopedic and reflects NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWinner (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 May 2016

You might find that many other editors would want to discuss any such major change to the article first. The lede section is supposed to summarize the entire article. Your change seems to be wholly biased and partisan. Why delete all of that additional material which provides useful context? You haven't even given any edit summary explanation. You've not formatted that reference source and you haven't even signed your post here. Are you here just to promote the interview by Michael Cromartie with Paul Vitz, published by Christianity Today in their "Books and Culture" website section?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the stable version of the article. There is little point in naming individual critics in the lead, and even if there were, Peter D. Kramer, psychiatrist and faculty member of Brown Medical School, and Paul Vitz are hardly Freud's most important critics. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Philip72, you told me to take up things on the talk page. Perhaps you had not noticed that I had already commented here. You remarked that, "There was no good reason to undo NuclearWinner's revision." Yes, there was a good reason to revert her. I explained my reasons in my edit summary and here on the talk page. You ignored me, and made no attempt to respond. NuclearWinner removed a large amount of well-cited material without reason or explanation, thereby lowering the quality of the article. She also added undue mentions of minor figures such as Peter Kramer and Paul Vitz to the lead. Neither Kramer nor Vitz is especially well-noted as a critic of Freud, and there is of course no reason why they should be named in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
To EvergreenFir, I suggest that there is no reason to change "father" to "founder." The issue is not crucial, but I suspect you will find that reliable sources are more likely to use the term "father". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Not crucial and I'm sure sources use "father", but WP:GNL suggests we use gender neutral language when using wikipedia's voice. I don't think it changes the meaning and it does abide by GNL. If someone truly disagrees, I won't edit war over it. But I do like the change enough to have restored it. No comment on the other content though. Afterthought - "originator" would be another possibility. Perhaps a better choice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The changes made by NuclearWinner were definitely unhelpful. NuclearWinner could be encouraged to try to change the lead slowly and bit by bit instead of making massive, controversial changes that are likely to be reverted. Discussing things on the talk page would help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I had thought that a connotation of patriarchal domination was somehow quite appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It is disappointing to find that there has been no discussion on the talk page since the article was fully protected - the whole point of full protection is so that discussion can take place unimpeded by constant reverts at the article. Philip72 has not commented, even though he has edited since the article was protected; I take this to mean he has no further interest in the article. NuclearWinner, do you have any comment on the content issues? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time NuclearWinner has unsuccessfully attempted to introduce tendentious material into the Lead without any attempt at addressing objections or reasoned argumentation on this page. Hopefully in future any such attempts will be dealt with according to the guidelines on disruptive editing rather than being the occasion for admin intervening with full protection. Almanacer (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Racial supremacist

What's the big deal about mentioning this? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. An encyclopedia article does not mention everything about its subject, only things that reliable sources show to be significant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Friend, it was three words, sourced with a university press. There are other sources that use the exact same letter. It is significant, if you would read the source I used (could have used others). Freud himself, in the next line in the letter to Spielrein, says, "I know these are my prejudices." --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
One could use a university press to source any number of different statements about Freud. In the end, it is editors who must use their judgment about what statements should appear in the article, given that it cannot cover absolutely everything. I see no reason to believe that the specific expression "Jewish chauvinism" is so important that it must appear in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Those three words were "his "Jewish chauvinism"". That's quite a strong claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation redux

I just wanted to point out that James Joyce's pun here seems to imply a pronunciation /fraɪd/ (like fried) or /fraɪt/ (like fright), which could be a traditional, obsolete one, although it's also possible he intended a pronunciation like /frɔɪdənd/. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Or it could be that he was also making a joke about German pronunciation and hoping that the initial use of "yung" would help the reader hear the pun? Joyce's puns are often very far from close, in fact often obscure. Here's a short discussion about Joyce and psychoanalysis in the context of Lacan: [1] from Dublin-born writer and scholar Patrick Healy (who in 1992 read the entire novel for an audio book). I've adjusted the wording over at Word play to make it clear the quote comes from the novel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
A German pronunciation (I understand you mean a German-accented pronunciation of "young and easily frightened"?) wouldn't result in /jʊŋ/ and /frɔɪdənd/, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not from Dublin. And I wasn't trying to make a clever stream-of-unconciousness linguistic joke, of course. If you have another source for that "traditional, obsolete" pronunciation, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Regrettably, I don't. I was only speculating on the basis of this pun I encountered. Maybe Joyce's puns aren't very informative in this respect. However, I think that puns can be sources on pronunciations (and are used as such by linguists); for example, I've seen enough puns that rely on an apparent homonymy of Bach with back that I've concluded that a lot of people (who may or may not know how to pronounce German) must really pronounce Bach as /bæk/ (in an English context), rather than, say, /bɑːk/. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
"You say tomato..." [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Freud is pronounced as "FROYDT" in English (too lazy to look up the proper phonetic symbols. I speak near-fluent German. His name is colloquial adaptation of "Freude", which means joy. A terminal d in German gets a "t" sound. so Bad (bath) is "Baht." --(talk) 07:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
So, to what the experts are "the Blaschke/ Joyce" hypothesis now calling, you are your eminent support lending, no?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm couldn't parse that. All I know, is that I speak German, and that I repeatedly hear Freud's name pronounced incorrectly. And while it was being discussed, I might as well clear the air. What exactly did you mean? Passmic (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the faux Denglisch. As usual, I was being facetious. All I mean is - do you agree with the original poster? Thanks for clarifying the German pronunciation. As the article says, the English pronunciation is /ˈfrɔɪd/. But I'm still not sure about Rathgar. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant reference to feminism in article summary

I'm proposing the removal of the final clause in the first sentence of the third and final paragraph of the article summary. This clause "and whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause" sacrifices the article's neutral tone, and is not relevant in the preamble.

The offending sentence reads:

As such, it continues to generate extensive and highly contested debate with regard to its therapeutic efficacy, its scientific status, and whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause.[10]

To Flyer22 Reborn and Bonadea: In what way does this enhance the article? Why single out Freud's single most renowned theoretical work, psychoanalysis, to be referenced with regards to a single, particular ideology? It's an arbitrary choice. Psychoanalysis has opposition on all sides of the table. Singling out how feminists may or may not approve of the theory is irrelevant. You could just as easily choose Marxism, Utilitarianism, other contemporary psychological thought, or any other equally arbitrary ideology that Freud isn't entirely commensurable with, to equal effect.

I propose replacing this clause with the edit that I made, and instead, linking "scientific status" to the page regarding the Demarcation critereon in philosophy of science, which is a much more appropriate page link, given that the demarcation problem, in which the scientific suitability of psychoanalysis is one of the historically more controversial aspects of, is of direct significance to current standing of Freud's reputation within the scientific community. This edit is arguably more balanced, and links the reader to the greater debate surrounding Freud in a neural manner. The demarcation critereon article is excellently written, and should expose curious readers to a broader perspective.

The material featured in the latter part of the article regarding feminism, is available for those that want it, but it does not belong as a final clause within the final paragraph. It is a noteworthy side feature, which is thoroughly (and expertly) documented and referenced in the article contents. Appropriately keeping this material in a dedicated section does not sacrifice neutrality, as it relegates coverage to an area of understood, explicit focus. But placing this reference in the summary prefaces the entire article as if psychoanalysis' inherent conflict with feminism were the main noteworthy aspect of the theory, which is simply untrue. It's noteworthy enough to dedicate an article section towards, yes. But it need not sacrifice neutrality of the entire article in the way that it currently does.

Passmic (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This does belongs in the lead. It is summarizing an aspect of the Legacy section. Per WP:Lead, feminism should obviously be noted in the lead of the Sigmund Freud article. If you continue to WP:Edit war, I will report you. Editors are busy. We do not have to stop everything we are doing to debate you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
So basically, Wikipedia editors don't have to actually pose arguments, because they are busy.... Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? [| feminists] actively edit Wikipedia to fit their ideological narrative. There is a reference to Stalin's opposition to Freud earlier in the article. We don't see this referenced. You're biased, and this is compromises the neutral tone of the article. Go ahead and report me. Wikipedia is such a vile ideological cesspool with people like you, that there's no use in even trying anymore. Passmic (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't like talking to socks, which is what you are. Furthermore, you don't understand the WP:Neutral policy. And pipelinking "scientific status" with Demarcation problem is wholly inappropriate. I will deal with you later. Whether Bonadea continues to challenge your edits or someone else does, it will not be remaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
How is linking to demarcation problem any more or less neutral that stating that issues persist regarding pscyhoanalysis' "scientific status". The two are SEMANTICALLY IDENTICAL. This is what the demarcation problem is. And that article, unlike this article, is neutrally written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passmic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Whether Bonadea continues to challenge your edits or someone else does, it will not be remaining."

- Seriously? You can't understand how this might just be a massive lapse in objectivity on your end? "It doesn't matter what you have to say. I will crush your edits." Really open-minded approach there Flyer22. Really what the community needs, or I guess, more of what it already has. You see, this is exactly what happens when you shut yourself off from opposing view points. You fundamentally lose the ability to engage in meaningful rhetoric. How can you not see how absurdly intolerant this is? Passmic (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


I would just like to point out, that under the response that you have given, you've provided absolutely no means through which the neutrality of this article could even be questioned, or, more importantly, restored and improved upon where edits like these are needed. Again, there is nothing special about feminism with regards to Freud. No more so than the overwhelming body of Western thought since the mid-20th century (Marxism is a perfectly equivalent substitution.) The lead policy does not dictate that any and all controversies be addressed. Only the main ones. It's already a disservice dedicating the amount of content that currently is towards the subtopic in the first place. It's just disingenuous (or deluded) to say that, from a historically-relevant perspective, Feminism was somehow Psychoanalysis' grand antithesis. And there are plenty of article sections that are not referenced in the lead. Why feminism is singled out, is beyond me. Simply put, allowing the feminism clause to remain unfairly weights this section, and thus unnecessarily biases the entire article.


Lastly, I am curious as to how I would qualify as a sock. I'm doing this of my own accord. This is my account. I mentioned having a previous account, when I was in middle school. The concept of Wikipedia was fairly novel, and it was something that I was naturally drawn to. Obviously, having the linguistic faculties and world experience of a 13-14 year old, I didn't have much to contribute, the account went dormant, and so I have no idea what the login credentials of that old account were. I set up an account because I was doing research for an article, and after stumbling across a blatantly unnecessary lapse in style, I felt a need to volunteer my time to place a much-needed edit, because I'm uncomfortable with a demonstrably ideologically driven minority of American academia getting college credit for systematically ruining what was once a great knowledge source of my youth (you didn't use to have to apply a filter to sensitive issues back in the day when you read Wikipedia articles. You could generally trust that the community would rigorously fight for neutrality, regardless of what the content was, and even if bias existed, it would get taken down). There's only so much of the identity politics-driven descent into rhetorical ruin that's happening within the anglosphere that you can really take before you feel that it's no longer acceptable. Anyway, I feel I've said my peace. Wikipedia is not something I wish to dedicate any more of my time towards. I sincerely appreciate your time, and am sorry that we had the disagreements that we did. Enjoy the spoils of your creation.Passmic (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Passmic, putting the sock stuff aside (I don't need another sock case right now), and reminding myself to cut the rudeness out (real-life issues can sometimes lead me to be snippy), why do you think the feminism stuff shouldn't be in the lead? There is an entire section about feminism in the article. Do you think the feminism aspect should be anywhere in the lead? Any compromise you can agree to? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly unproductive. I agree that trying to remove the mention of feminism from the lead does not improve the article, and that the material Passmic is trying to remove does meet the test of due weight. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And I apologize for losing my composure as well. You never stated explicit ideological preference, and I wasn't warranted in criticizing you directly on those grounds. But the immediate, unreasoned censorship that I was met with didn't help either. I honestly didn't think I was doing anything wrong, as that's not how the the edit-culture was back when I first started using Wikipedia several years ago. And with regards to my slip in composure, if you've been keeping up with US news, the American campus has truly become one of the most unhealthy of rhetorical environments right now, and it's an immensely frustrating situation to be in as a student. Honestly, the edit I proposed is a compromise. A cursory glance of the feminism section shows that this section is heavily directed. It claims "The decline in Freud's reputation has been attributed partly to the revival of feminism." By a small minority of feminist-scholars perhaps,, but as a general consensus, this is just not true. Freud's reputation sank because he was popularly-known to have endorsed cocaine at a time before its effects were understood, and because of the general ad-hoc nature of his theoretical framework, which led many to question its fundamental scientific value. Many feminists in academia are full, 100% pro-Freud. Particularly those in the arts. I just had to do a paper over the "psychoanalytics" of the famous Marlene Dietrich pose from Der Blaue Engel, which argued that the pose was so popular because Marlene Dietrich crossing her legs creates a momentary castration anxiety that our brains seek to resolve (because we can't see if she has a penis or not, and apparently, we just need to know...). Freud is immensely popular with the postmodernism crowd, which abounds in academia throughout the arts and humanities, or rather at least within a majority of who label themselves as feminists (this is the talk page, so I assume antecdotal evicdence is fair game here.) So to say (or at least strongly imply by virtue of its prominence in the article) that the downfall in popular opinion of Freud is largely due to feminism is just patently untrue. And so, as I've said several times now, to put such an emphasis in the lead is particularly unacceptable. I think it's unacceptable in the section format. But, again, it's best to keep the information available to those that want it. It's isolated to a section that most people from personal experience will understand to likely contain bias. But people seeing it in the lead will not generally have that luxury. Again, the official lead policy does not sufficiently require that this be in the lead. And I believe that the article's need for neutrality would trump an unwieldy interpretation of the lead policy any day of the week.
While I believe the material is biased and that it should be heavily revised, I don't believe there exists any conflict with taking the feminism reference out of the lead, but leaving the article. Information is always a good thing. And most people already know what they're getting when they read it.
Wikipedia pages like: [3] explain where I'm coming from rather nicely. This is actively happening. Left-leaning identity-politics groups are the only ones with enough of an organizational basis to readily and persistently "Storm Wikipedia" as they call it when they receive college credit for this. I would assume that the feminist touches on this article are a result of this work. I'm fine with having the feminism section as it is. More information is always a great thing, and most people that seek out that information are already pretty far down the ideological rabbit hole. But it just doesn't belong in any way, shape, or form, in the lead. Heck, the lead is all most people ever read. Freud deserves better than this. (I don't entirely dislike Freud, just to be clear. He was a profoundly important figure and has forever shaped psychology, arguably for the better. But the feminist phrasing just seems straight out of left field.) Passmic (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
In response to the admin, due weight would be leaving the feminist section in the article as it is, not leaving the clause I'm proposing removing in the lead. I think it's abundantly clear how this a win-win compromise. To my detractors, I just have to ask, Why should it remain? As far as referencing the feminist article, I believe this is unfair, as the lead doesn't do service to any of the other ideologies that Freud is an odds with. Due weight means you either equally give all some footing, or equally give all no footing, weighted by prominence. So, in my view, it comes down to either removing the feminist clause, or adding in the others. Which do you guys view as more preferable? Because if you really want to rebalance this thing in terms of Freud's criticisms, feminism is overrepresented here. Passmic (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Passmic, ideally (per the WP:Lead guideline), the lead should briefly summarize the most significant parts of an article; this means the sections (at least the most significant ones if the article is too long). Furthermore, as the guideline notes, many people only read the lead. The Freud and feminism thing is pretty big. When I read sources on Freud, the feminism stuff is commonly brought up in the sources. You stated, "So to say (or at least strongly imply by virtue of its prominence in the article) that the downfall in popular opinion of Freud is largely due to feminism is just patently untrue." Do you have any WP:Reliable sources to support you on that? FreeKnowledgeCreator is not an admin, but as for due weight, the WP:Due weight policy does not mean "you either equally give all some footing, or equally give all no footing." It means we give more weight to the majority viewpoints and the minority viewpoints get less weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
On a goofy sidenote, when you stated "Freud deserves better than this", it reminded me of "Lexa deserved better" (it's a saying about a fictional character, but the phrasing "[so and so] deserved better" has since been used for a lot of different things, like a meme). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the meme reference. I believe that it was clear that I addressed the majority-minority weighting. I explicitly stated this in the final clause in which I cited Due Weight. The undue weighting is exactly what I'm criticizing. That feminist critique is being over-represented here. While the feminist perspective is abundant, and non-negligible, the majority of Freud's ideological conflicts are centered elsewhere. Feminism comes up repeatedly, but again, it's a minority of the criticism again Freud. Just because something comes up often, doesn't mean it holds a majority weighting. Other criticisms come up even more often. It depends on how much other criticisms are brought up as well. And people are constantly criticizing Freud. There being an ample body of feminist criticism does not, a priori, imply a majority. Other criticisms come up far more frequently. People have been criticizing Freud's work long before third-wave feminism ever hit the scene. And Freud does deserve better. Any prolific figure in science does. What in all fairness hasn't become meme-like in nature? If we find a concept we like, we proliferate it. It's all been done under the sun.
As far a citing proof, formal proof for weighting will require undue statistical analysis, and would require access to article metadata and comprehensive database access that any of us would be hard pressed to find or process even if available to us. Is it not enough to appeal to your common rationality, that from your anecdotal experience, that the overwhelming bulk of criticism agin Freud, from an ideological perspective, has been non-Feminist? If you're well versed in feminism, Freud probably comes up pretty often (for the reasons I stated earlier, Freud is very appealing to lay people) and it would be easy to make the mistake of thinking that feminism poses an unduly significant/weighted criticism of Freud. It does not. Even when approaching the subject from an ideological perspective, other radical-leaning ideologies have criticized him more heavily. And while I respect that you feel that feminism has this relationship with Freud, I can't help but feel that any cursory glance into the academic body of material regarding this subject would lead any reasonable person to find that feminism is over represented in this article with regards to applicability to Freud.
As I said earlier, I hate getting rid of information. The feminist article should stay. But the feminist clause in the lead must be removed to preserve due weight and the neutrality of the article. As you said, and as I have already said, people generally only read the article lead. This is why I'm making a fuss. Passmic (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think you're exerting a huge effort over a minor issue. The feminism issue is of key importance, and there is nothing one could nominate to replace the mention of feminism in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Passmic; the reference to feminism alone is inappropriate. It seems to be setting up a dipole of "Freud <===> Feminism" as a primary way to view Freud's ideology. That is a minority view. NuclearWinner (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

rewrite of material to avoid copyvio

See temporary page. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "Friendship and collaboration with Fliess" content

Almanacer, how is this content you removed unreliably sourced? The sources pass the WP:Reliable sources standard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn Unfortunately I accidentally saved before finishing my comment box entry which should have said "the content on Fliess has been reworded with better citations and relocated to the Development of Psychoanalysis section." Since most of the content (both before and after the changes) covers events in Freud's life rather than ideas this seems to me to be the better location.
Re the citations/reliability issues – the standards for this article are necessarily high and you will find precise page references to peer-reviewed sources are generally given throughout the article. This was not the case with the previous content and with regard to the most substantive claim viz: “ Jeffrey Masson claims that the Eckstein incident led to Freud's belief that sexual fantasies, rather than past trauma, are the main causes of neurotic behavior” the citation is entirely absent. The most substantive citation in the previous content – to Sulloway's book – has been retained in the new content. The new citations to Gay 2006 biography are an improvement on the previous ones because Gay’s reputation as a Freud scholar contrasts favourably with Martin Gardner who is a mathematician and popular science writer. If Stepansky's and Masson's work is properly cited (this would not in my view include a non-peer reviewed journal such as The Atlantic) there is no reason reference them could not be added back in - though preferably in the Ideas section as the biography part of the article is best left free of commentary. Having said that I have to say I find the very large claims made eg. Masson as cited above and Stepansky "Freud relied heavily upon Fliess' theory of innate bisexuality in arriving at key constituents of the psychoanalytic theory of neurosis" are at odds with more informed scholarship. Almanacer (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I have rewritten the two paragraphs on Fliess you added, readding some on the previous material with Gardner taken out as a source and Masson's book instead of The Atlantic. Sources seem to be vague on the precise justification for the surgery on Eckstein so I went with the phrasing from the Freud Encyclopedia. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Almanacer, thanks for explaining. When it comes to the sourcing, I know that media sourcing is not best. What I saw was scholarly book sourcing, which is reliable enough for this topic unless it's of undue weight or fringe quality. Lesser supported ideas can also be allowed some weight, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn, NPalgan2 I think the sourcing is better now, thanks for that. However I have to take issue with the removal of the content – contrary to NPalgan2's claim (and POV on the topic) there is ample support in the citation to Gay (2006) pp. 84-87 for the sentence: “He [Freud] also came to be troubled by his reliance on Fliess’s clinical judgement.”
1. Gay describes how Freud fled in panic from the operation removing the gauze.(p.85). 2. He notes that Freud sent Fliess a letter in which he linked, albeit it “delicately,” Eckstein’s profuse, recurrent bleeding to his “disastrous intervention.” (p. 85). 3. He refers to “Freud’s anxiety to conceal his doubts about Fliess not just from Fliess but from himself.” (p. 86).
I have introduced some of this material into the article. Almanacer (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Almanacer, I have reverted your changes as I still think the sentence I removed was whitewashing, downplaying Freud's excuse-making for Fliess. It is true that Freud fled the room in horror, but quoting Gay: "But Freud was not satisfied merely to reassert his full confidence in Fliess's skills and attentiveness, he made Eckstein responsible for the whole catastrophe." NPalgan2 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Almanacer, I think I'm fairly familiar with NPalgan2...from when he edited under a different Wikipedia account. Because of that, I will leave this matter between you two. But I will state that NPalgan2 doesn't fully understand this site's rules. I suggest you take disputes such as this to the appropriate noticeboard or start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hat tip @Flyer22 Reborn. I've now re-worded/re-structured the content. So let's see if that helps. @NPalgan2Please note WP guidelines advise adding to or re-wording content is preferable to removing content which is appropriately sourced, repeated instances of which constitute disruptive editing. Re.Freud "came to be troubled by his reliance on Fliess’s clinical judgement” - I've removed the disputed sentence in my rewording, not that I agree with you that it is false (see above citations from Gay) or whitewashing for that matter. Almanacer (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn I don't believe I've interacted with you before. I've also used to use the old accounts NPalgan and Kolyaaylok which I stopped using because I forgot the passwords. And surely Almanacer removed a great deal of the content I added - e.g. [edit sorry missed this] the Kepler of biology quote was removed when it would have been very easy to find other RSs quoting it but I readded it with another source rather than claim Almanacer was engaged in 'disruptive editing'. (sorry, missed the move) The issue is whether "came to be troubled by his reliance on Fliess’s clinical judgement” is misleading in the overall context of what Gay says on p84-87. NPalgan2 (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I do however stand by my objection to the removal of "Freud, however, subsequently came to the conclusion that Eckstein's "wish-bleedings" were caused by her hysterical longing for the affection of others." If anything this is toned down from Gay's "But Freud was not satisfied merely to reassert his full confidence in Fliess's skills and attentiveness, he made Eckstein responsible for the whole catastrophe." As Almanacer currently phrases it, Freud could've been talking about Eckstein's menstruation. If Freud later came to restate his full confidence in Fliess, the current phrasing is highly misleading. NPalgan2 (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I have slightly expanded the discussion, see article. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Re. the "wish-bleeding" it would have helped if you hadn't removed the previous reference to her nasal bleeding (pre-operation), but that said I have no objection to the wording you have added. Almanacer (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no reference to pre (as opposed to post) operative nasal bleeding; I have restored the wording as you had it in this older revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=748983779&oldid=748983711 NPalgan2 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK I just looked through the old versions and Gay indeed does say "hysterical anxiety symptoms, Emma Eckstein suffered severely from pains in, and bloody secretions from, her nose" and that was the reason that Freud asked Fliess to operate. But every other source I could find says something like "stomach and menstrual problems". I think that Gay simply made a mistake (confused a reference to post-operative symptoms with pre-operative diagnosis in a primary source/his notes?), but in any case we should follow the weight of RSs with the wording in the article as it is now. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the NPalgan and Kolyaaylok accounts. I was already aware that your NPalgan2 account is a continuation of your NPalgan account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Then I'm not whoever it was you had a run-in with. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If that's the story you want to stick to, so be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2 There is no confusion or mistake on Gay’s part in his account as you suggest. You have overlooked that Gay cites Masson (Assault on Truth…) as one of his sources where Masson cites Freud’s reference to Emma’s nasal haemorrhaging (“as a child she suffered from severe nose bleeding”) and heavy menstrual bleeding (she would eventually need a hysterectomy) prior to the Fliess operation in his correspondence. These sources are more substantive RSs than Erwin so I have restored the citation to Gay and amended the content and removed superfluous citations. Almanacer (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Almanacer I had read that page of Masson you linked to, where he states “But Fliess had not decided to operate on Emma Eckstein because of hysterical bleeding. The bleeding, even by Freud’s account, was a product of the operation, not its causal antecedent". So Masson directly contradicts the current wording "Freud ... referred his patient Emma Eckstein to him for treatment of ... nasal haemorrhaging". NPalgan2 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
You say "Freud’s reference to Emma’s nasal haemorrhaging (“as a child she suffered from severe nose bleeding”) .... prior to the Fliess operation". Do you mean there was a letter referencing Eckstein's nasal bleeding (written prior to the operation) or a letter referencing childhood nasal bleeding written after the operation when Freud was desperately trying to find a way to shift the blame from Fliess? NPalgan2 (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The citation is to Gay’s description/account of her pre-operative condition where she presented with a range of symptoms including nasal bleeding. So whether or not is corresponds precisely with the Masson account, which Gay clearly has taken into consideration, is not at issue. Note that Masson does not challenge Freud’s accounts (whenever written) of her pre-operative symptoms, including her nasal bleeding. His points are (1) that Freud in citing “evidence … that she suffered from nosebleeds in childhood” as a “causal antecedent” to the profuse post-operative bleeding is being wholly implausible. (2) that bleeding of such profuseness was not the reason for the original referral to Fliess. I don’t read this as the direct contradiction you claim it to be if read in context since it allows for less profuse nasal bleeding to be part of a set of symptoms Emma presented with, as Gay records. Almanacer (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Almanacer A quick roundup of the sources. The weight of RSs does not support current wording:
We really don’t need tertiary sources or college textbooks or texts with brief mentions of the case (as listed above) when there are substantive accounts of the episode in good secondary sources – eg Masson and most recently The Cut and the Building of Psychoanalysis, Volume I: Sigmund Freud and Emma Eckstein by Carlos Bonomi (2015). According to Freud’s various accounts of Emma her main difficulty in entering analysis were the severe leg pains and consequent difficulty in walking – as mentioned by Masson (Chapter 3 after mentioning the stomach/menstrual pains). We also know from Freud’s correspondence (eg letter to Fliess of 17 May 1896) – which is documented in Masson - about her habitual masturbation, severe menstrual bleeding, nasal bleeding and adolescent self harming (cutting). She was, as Freud puts it “always a bleeder”. Her own correspondence with Freud confirms this. Masson’s view is that her habitual masturbation was the likely reason for the referral to Fliess. Bonomi concurs. Almanacer (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Masson may quote the 17 May 1896 letter, but he does not suggest that discussion of nasal bleedings occurred before the operation, so to say "her [preoperative] symptoms were ... severe nasal bleeding" citing Masson is misleading. I think it's best just to follow Masson and Bonomi and say Eckstein was dysmennorrheal -> Freud and Fliess thought this was caused by masturbation -> surgery. I have quoted a bit more from the 17 May letter to clarify what was meant by 'hysterical wish-bleedings'. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
We’ve no exact details of what was discussed between Freud and Fliess at the time of the referral. What we know of the range of Eckstein’s symptoms comes form Freud’s correspondence which Masson documents – he also specifically refers to her pre-op nosebleeds (as does Gay). The earlier symptoms provide context for Freud's attempted exculpation of Fliess, as Masson points out. Please to not remove relevant content from the article without agreement on this page. Almanacer (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best to say before the operation Eckstein had stomach and menstrual pains, as this is what all sources agree on, then mention, after the operation how Freud interpreted the others symptoms and occurrences discussed with E in analysis. See current wording. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
"which probably occurred on the "sexually relevant" biorhythmic dates" is unintelligible without further explanatory context which would not in any case be relevant or appropriate as Freud specifically declares himself unable to apply Fliess’s periodic theory to the Eckstein case. Almanacer (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New 3rd paragraph lead

I propose rewriting this as follows, and updating some references in the footnote:

The intellectual influence of psychoanalysis peaked in the middle of the 20th century. Although it remains influential in much of the humanities, the rise of biologically based psychopharmaceutical treatment and other methods such as cognitive behavioral therapy in psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy has seen psychoanalysis enter into decline (with the notable exceptions of Argentina and France[1][2]).[3][4][5][6] Psychoanalysis continues to generate extensive and highly contested debate as to whether it outperforms placebo therapy or other treatment methods, whether it is a pseudoscience, and whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause.[7] Nonetheless, Freud's work suffused Western thought and popular culture. In the words of W. H. Auden's 1940 poetic tribute, by the time of Freud's death, he had become "a whole climate of opinion / under whom we conduct our different lives."[8]

Thank you for opening a discussion here. I agree that the influence of psychoanalysis has declined. The decline has occurred for numerous different reasons, however, and I believe that your proposed wording overstates the importance of psychopharmaceutical treatment and cognitive behavioral therapy. The mention of France and Argentina is perhaps undue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that France/Argentina is at least worth a footnote for global perspective and as counterweight. Most of the relevant area of the article details Eysenck/Gruenbaum and other Freud warriors, so I think there should be more in the lead than the current "generate extensive and highly contested debate about its scientific status". Need to conisder WP:WEIGHT of current expert opinion in psychiatry.NPalgan2 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps there should be more, but considering how many people have contributed to the debates over Freud's work, it can be difficult or controversial to determine whose contributions are most significant. Incidentally, I don't believe that removing the word "has" from the article's penultimate sentence is justified. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that mentioning one critic by name would be unbalanced. I didn't want the wording to suggest that CBT and drugs were responsible for the decline but the paragraph should indicate what exactly supplanted Freudianism in clinical practice. Ok, I'm fine with keeping the 'has'. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with FKC that the range of sources and complexity of the debates indicates that your proposed content is not appropriate for the lead given the need to keep the lead a concise summary with reference to the main areas of controversy. Specifics of the debates can then be detailed in the body of the article which allow for a NPOV presentation. That said, in adding your content to these sections it would be preferable not to have Freud-war rhetoric in the article about pseudoscience or statements about what supplanted Freudianism stated as incontrovertible fact. Also the general claim that "The intellectual influence of psychoanalysis peaked in the middle of the 20th century" is challengeable from a range of reliable sources which would need to be represented according to NPOV guidelines. It is of course generally agreed that psa in in general decline clinically which the phrase "psa remains influential" does not adequately convey. I've added to the sentence accordingly. Almanacer (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Almanacer, why replace “[absolute] decline [by multiple measures]”, supported by the sources given, with "relative decline [in the field of clinical practice]”? Psychoanalysis has clearly experienced an absolute decline by multiple measures, number of analysts entering the profession, scientific prestige, leadership positions in university departments (outside of niches in the humanities). See references already given, or "The psychoanalytic societies in Germany as in many other countries are concerned by a decline in the number of candidates for full psychoanalytic training." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26751021 or here "From a British perspective, the idea that psychoanalysis might ever have played a central role in academic psychiatry is scarcely believable – and from your reviewer’s point of view highly enviable. Yet for a generation almost every Chair of psychiatry in the USA was occupied by a psychoanalyst...Today all has changed “ http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/187/3/294.1 What the justification for your “relative? NPalgan2 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see “relative” as essential wording (I meant relative to the 50s/60s). I've renmoved it and added “overall” to allow for the exceptions you rightly mention. Also added “diagnostic” since the DSM typologies are what displaced the Freudian ones – hence the turn-around in academic psychiatry (as mentioned in the article) but in cultural studies the trend is in the opposite direction – see, Forrester as cited, Frosh, etc largely due to the impetus of Lacanianism. Also added Gay p. 745 to the citations but I don't see the others you list as needed in the lead. The Michels text covers the "decline" issue. Almanacer (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Anti-psychonalysistic bias easily smelled from faraway

...Too much for an encyclopedia. You just don't do justice to his legacy. It seems "the whole English language is meant to pay tribute to Skinner instead". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.201.157.47 (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC) --Quinceps (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has essentially been reverted back to the version of 03:18, 10 June 2016‎? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I've looked, and that does not seem to be the case. You can compare the version you mentioned above to the latest version here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
So exactly what was causing the copyright issue? Are we allowed to be told? All of the changes between 03:18, 10 June 2016‎ and 20:43, 21 December 2016‎ are no longer visible in the article history? Why is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Simply put, because they contained copyright violations. I'm sure you can ask Diannaa for further explanations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it's a logical paradox to be able to be able see the copyright violations, so that other editors could avoid them in future and learn what is "too close" as far as paraphrasing is concerned? Without an inkling of what are these were in, it seems a bit pointless asking Dianaa and also causing her extra work. Is there no process that could aid this? It's like some kind of bizarre "trial and error" guessing game. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It was an exact copy of a blogpost. The copyvio was available (but hidden) on the article page for several months. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see, thanks. That's why we have such an apparently large rollback. So it was User:SamJosephs who added it (whoever that was). I remember questioning the source. My edit summaries don't remind me if or why I hid that text. That was seven months ago. If so I should have removed it or challenged it more strongly. I imagine that its non-visibility would reduce the severity of the copyright breach. But I wouldn't be surprised to be told that it makes no difference. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the Literature section

Hello, I suggest adding, to the literature section, that Carol Ann Duffy wrote a poem "Frau Freud", appearing in her collection "The World's Wife", written from the point of view of Freud's wife. Clemho (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Kierkegaard, Anxiety, and Freud

The Danish Philosopher Kierkegaard explored a very important topic for psychology, the concept of anxiety. There are many sources that point that Freud had influence on Kierkegaard on the concept of Angst that has to do with human freedom, that we are free to destroy ourselves at any moment, and that part of us wants to do it. Freud reformulated this idea in the form of the Death drive. User:WhiteKnight138 —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As already noted, you would need a suitable citation showing that Kierkegaard influenced Freud to add any such information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

Twice this article says that Dr. Freud was born in the Austria-Hungarian Empire in 1856. But Austria-Hungary didn't exist until 1867. He was born in the Austrian Empire. 173.77.163.207 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done This is correct, but actually three places. All updated and linked to correct article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2017

Sigmund Freud is Czech, not Austrian ! Andrea Rusciano (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In 1856 Freiberg was in the Austrian Empire? In any case wouldn't "Moravian" be more accurate than "Czech"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. He was born in the Austrian Empire; therefore, he is considered to be Austrian. Border changes that occur later do not matter unless the person specifically identifies as such. Nihlus 14:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Id, ego and superego

The section on the id, ego and superego could clarify how Freud never used these terms - he used the term "es" (id), "ich" (I) and "uberich" (over-I). The terms id, ego and superego were introduced into English by the American translators of Freud's books into English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorbee (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have added a note. Perhaps this could be expanded. There is a bit of detail about the origin of das Es.It's clearer at the Id, ego and super-ego article (but not totally?). Does clarification require any source or is it self-evident from the original German language works? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Freud was well aware of how the terms he used were translated into English and there is no record of him objecting to this, the “Standard Edition” translation. Nor has the issue of any lack of clarity in the translation been raised in the relevant literature as far as I know. Almanacer (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Except that they weren't translated into English, they were translated into Latin. I think there may be many people who assume Freud used these Latin terms himself. I'm not sure anyone has claimed there was any "objection" or "lack of clarity". I just thought it was worth a note. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Almanacer. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Philosopher

Was Freud a philosopher? Hasn't he been described/ classed as one? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

All sorts of people have been categorized as philosophers, sometimes quite wrongly. If you look through Talk:Timothy Leary/Archive 1, you will see that there was once a major battle over whether Timothy Leary should be described as a philosopher. In the end, after an enormous struggle, it was decided that Leary did not, in fact, qualify as a philosopher, and that Wikipedia should not label him one. Freud is probably called a philosopher more often than Leary is, but it is nevertheless factually wrong to identify him as one. Freud was not a philosopher, and stated explicitly that he was not. That should be good enough for anyone. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. Well comparing Leary and Freud looks to me a little like comparing a mountain with something smaller. I wonder could you tell us when Freud stated that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I was not actually comparing Leary with Freud - that really wasn't the point of my comment. I agree that in general they are very different. It's simply that neither man was a philosopher, despite the existence of various sources falsely describing them that way, and the discussion I linked to above shows what can happen when someone tries to wrongly describe someone as a philosopher on Wikipedia. For Freud's statements distinguishing his work from philosophy, you can refer to "The Question of a Weltanschauung" in New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, and also to Freud's autobiographical study. It's perfectly clear that labeling Freud a philosopher totally falsifies and misrepresents Freud's own understanding of what he thought he was doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Please forgive my misrepresentation. I was aware of your point; and I tend to agree with you even though he appears here, etc. We don't usually provide sources for things a person was not. So perhaps we just leave things exactly as they are. But I'm not sure things are quite as clear cut as you make out, as this article in The New York Times suggests. I find those remarks by Jonathan Glover quite insightful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Freud appears in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but note that he is described there as "a physiologist, medical doctor, psychologist and influential thinker of the early twentieth century" - not a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
True. This discisison looks pertient. But I've never heard of Richard Boothby. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Literature section

could someone add about how DH Lawrences Sons and Lovers was freud influenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.131.207 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

Sigmund Freud's cousin also had a great great great grandson called Nico Freud. 202.77.54.132 (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Great news. But how does that affect this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 10:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Undue images

I agree with @User:Avaya1 re. removing: "undue - editorializing, images of other writers on a figure's biography. Little precedent for this on Wikipedia." I can't find any similar article with such images. There's no Hayek in the Marx article !? Formatting issues should not weigh significantly in determining content. Almanacer (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by the reason I gave for restoring the images, which is the same reason I have given in previous discussions of this subject: "The images serve a legitimate function by making the article more readable by breaking up the monotony of so much text." This is not an issue of "formatting", but of basic article readability. Including those pictures in the article is not at all comparable to including a picture of Hayek in the Marx article. The fact of the matter is that Hayek is not mentioned in the Marx article; in contrast, the people whose pictures are included in the Freud article - Herbert Marcuse, Karl Popper, and Betty Friedan - are mentioned in its text. The images are therefore neither unreasonable nor "undue"; removing the images would lower the article's quality, for no valid reason at all. The reference to "editorializing" is also mistaken; there is no "editorializing" or expression of editorial opinion in the captions of those images. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced but not concerned enough to argue the point any further. Almanacer (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The images seem absolutely fine to me. They follow a very long stretch with no images at all. Some of his family/descendants might be good though. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I think FreeKnowledgeCreator's argument has some merit, but is pretty borderline. I think we must also take account of the quality of any of these additional "padding" images. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no precedent in Wikipedia for adding these undue images. The particular choices seem to be based on an editor's point of view - choosing minor figures (Friedan, Marcuse), the former with a very minimal relation to Freud's ideas. Avaya1 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I am aware it is considered appropriate for Wikipedia articles to be illustrated when possible. The figures in question are mentioned in the text, so why shouldn't the article also contain pictures of them? The rationale for this has been explained already, and complaining about the pictures of these figures while ignoring the inclusion of text about them simply seems strange. Why object to the pictures of these people but not to text about them and their views? While you criticize these choices as being based on "an editor's point of view", the idea that they involve "minor figures" is obviously only your point of view. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The figures have one sentence related to them (already in a quite offtopic part of the text), have apparently been selected quite randomly (there's no correlation between their selection and the amount of text devoted to them, or any important relation to Freud), and they've been given full images inside one of Wikipedia's major biographies, about an important historical figure. Aside from these problems, there is also no precedent for this in other Wikipedia articles. All these figures have their own articles - there's no reason to randomly impose them on the Freud article. (They are not even important in the history of psychoanalysis or the history of Freud, or even his legacy - only Marcuse has some relation to the latter, as he uses some Freudian ideas). All of them are minor in relation to Freud or his biography (search how often they are mentioned in any Freud biography, or any book on his legacy). Avaya1 (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The exact amount of text devoted to them is not relevant. The rationale for the inclusion of their pictures is still clear. They all happen to be very influential figures whether you like that or not, and the inclusion is thus certainly not random, as you wrongly suggest; they are all important in relation to Freud's legacy, and you are simply wrong to claim otherwise. Popper, for example, is very well known as a critic of Freud, so how foolish to claim that he has no importance to Freud's legacy. You appear to be motivated by dislike or hostility to the people in question, whom you call them minor - your personal view of them, which may not be shared by other editors, should not be relevant at all. I do not know what you mean by saying that the text is in "a quite offtopic part of the text". That expression may mean something to you, but it means nothing to me. That "there is also no precedent for this in other Wikipedia articles" is your assertion, and I don't care about it, since it is unsupported. It is also irrelevant that "All these figures have their own articles"; there is no reason an image cannot be in multiple articles if it is relevant to multiple articles. Please don't make up worthless reasons for removing article content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I should also note that you fail completely to explain why you have made no objection to the text about these people. If they were genuinely unimportant, as you wrongly claim, why not try to get the text about them removed? Focusing on the images by themselves is totally bizarre, and you have made no convincing case for removing them. So far I count three editors - myself, Martinevans123, and Johnbod, in favor of including them, and you and Almanacer against. There is thus more support than opposition for inclusion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Note on sources

Since Alamancer requested some evidence about the relevance of Saul Rosenzweig's study of repression to this article ("Why does this particular research project merit mentioning?"), I should note the following observation by Juris G. Drauns, in the anthology The Concept of Defense Mechanisms in Contemporary Psychology: Freud's "response to one of the earliest studies of repression is well known and is often quoted" (he here quotes Freud's letter to Rosenzweig). Drauns's comments are visible here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of article content

Almanacer removed some content I added to the legacy section in this edit, without explanation. In another edit, Almanacer commented, "meant to add content belongs in Ideas not Legacy though as rewritten WP article content of dubious value". I don't understand that comment. The content does not belong in the "Ideas" section, since it primarily concerns how other thinkers (eg, Saul Rosenzweig) reacted to Freud's work, and is only secondarily about the reaction Freud offered in turn to them. It would clearly be inappropriate and excessive detail for the "Ideas" section, as one can obviously describe Freud's work without mentioning someone like Rosenzweig. As for Almanacer's apparent suggestion that the content is of "dubious value", I find that totally unsupported. The content is not of "dubious value", and in fact it should be expanded upon, since it is of crucial importance. I would have thought it was clear why, but if it is not, then I suppose I should spell things out. The content concerns how Freud's work was responded to and misunderstood by American psychologists, which happens to be a major part of Freud's legacy. Misunderstandings of this type have in fact plagued attempts to test psychoanalytic theory, as I have been pointing out on my user page for some time now, for the benefit of anyone who might be interested. This material should be further developed and elaborated, not removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You might want to spell out here how Freud's work was misunderstood by Rosenzweig. Would you say Rosenzweig's was the most notable case? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Rosenzweig was apparently under the impression that Freud would respond favorably to his attempts to study repression. Rosenzweig believed that his studies showed that repression did indeed occur, and that Freud would welcome such evidence. Rosenzweig discovered that Freud actually didn't give a damn about his studies (though Freud was a great deal more polite in the language he used, that was still his fundamental response, underneath that polite language). Freud didn't care about Rosenzweig's studies because of course Freud believed that psychoanalytic assertions were independent of experimental verification. Rosenzweig's failure to appreciate that this was Freud's view is just one small part of a whole larger tragedy, the fundamental misunderstanding of psychoanalysis by researchers who were interested in testing it but never truly grasped what it was they were trying to test, and were guilty in some cases of comical-seeming misinterpretations of it. Clark Glymour is the author who has summed the issue up most succinctly. It does not concern only attempts to study repression, but attempts to study any kind of psychoanalytic claim or theory. As he says, attempts to test psychoanalysis often involve testing hypotheses that are only "surrogates for the genuine article" and "inferences from the falsity of such ersatz hypotheses to the falsity of psychoanalysis are not legitimate." The article would be doing its readers a favor by explaining this issue to them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I tend to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Why does this particular research project merit mentioning? There are, as the prior sentence states, hundreds of such research projects so, in my view, you need to demonstrate the exceptional relevance of this one to justify referencing it. Otherwise the floodgates would be open. There are also WP:SYNTH issues in the added content eg “dismisses” attributed to Freud. I agree with you there is scope for further elaboration of the topic and referencing Glymour and the background you provide is helpful for this, more so than your rewrite of content from the Rosenzweig article which omits Freud’s expression of “interest”. (BTW do we have sight of his letter or are we relying on Rosenzweig’s account?) Almanacer (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It merits mentioning because it happens to be a notable example of attempts at testing psychoanalysis. It is discussed not only in Donald W. MacKinnon and William F. Dukes's article in Psychology in the Making but also, for example, in Peter Gay's biography of Freud. One could provide a list of additional sources discussing Freud in which it is mentioned, but why should this be necessary? No one is demanding such sources for any other content in the legacy section, so why insist that they are necessary in this particular case? I agree that the article should not mention just any research project at all, but this happens to be an important representative example. The other reason for mentioning it is that it illustrates very well Freud's response to attempts to experimentally test psychoanalytic ideas, an obviously important issue. MacKinnon and Dukes quote from Freud's letter, and it has been reproduced elsewhere as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
My basic objection was that what Freud thought, argued about, etc was not, by definition, appropriate for the Legacy section which could become overloaded with such content, compromising the structure of the article. If this doesn't happen well and good. Thank you for the sources. Almanacer (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
For a long time, I considered adding something about Rosenzweig, and Freud's response to Rosenzweig, to the article, but even though the subject is clearly important, I held back from adding anything because a discussion of these matters did not seem to fit well into the section on Freud's life. It was only after a good deal of thought that I eventually decided to add something to the reception section. In general, material about what Freud said or did does not belong in the reception section, but in this case, I believe it does. Though the material is obviously relevant to both Freud and Rosenzweig, it relates more to the latter man, hence its appropriateness to the reception section. I am glad the source I mentioned below, which explains that Freud's "response to one of the earliest studies of repression is well known and is often quoted", was helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Important New Book on Freud's Career

An important new book about Freud was published in 2017.

Freud: The Making of an Illusion, by Frederick Crews. Crews is a professor emeritus of English. His book is a critical look at the history of Freud's development of his psychoanalytic system.

Robert1947 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Lurie lineage

Should this be mentioned at all? See Family tree#Notable examples. (I have searched the archives here, to see if this has been asked previously, but something a bit odd seems to have happened to them and I don't see any way of searching - any ideas?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Libido in Intro

In the intro, Libido is mentioned as being postulated by Freud as various energies. From my readings of his works, he seems to make it clear that the libido is the sexual drive in the unconscious id. Various sources of mine say the same. What do you guys think? Xemplar (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The source of this formulation of libido as energy (singular) is given in the article as Rycroft's Dictionary Of Psa. It is also consistent with the definition in Laplanche and Pontalis The Language of Psa: Libido = "energy postulated by Freud ...." (p. 239). In my view these are substantive enough sources to keep the current wording. Almanacer (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The Laplanche and Pontalis source you put forth in that same sentence says, "Energy postulated by Freud as underlying the transformations of the sexual instinct with respect to its object". In his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality under The Libido Theory, Freud writes, "We have defined the concept of libido as a quantitatively variable force which could serve as a measure of processes and transformations occurring in the field of sexual excitation." (Gay, p. 285)In his autobiographical study, he also writes, "I gave the name libido to the energy of the sexual instincts and to that form of energy alone." in p. 22 of Peter Gay's "A Freud Reader". Would this warrant atleast mentioning the relation to sexual forces within the wiki page?Xemplar (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Added "sexualised" before energy. Along with "generates erotic attachments" I think this is sufficient in this respect for the Lead. Almanacer (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Putting Empedocles, Plato, and Sophocles as Influences is just virtue signalling

How come they aren't listed as Influences of Franz Brentano, Josef Breuer, Jean-Martin Charcot, Charles Darwin, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Gustav Fechner, Wilhelm Fliess, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann, Johann Friedrich Herbart, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, William Shakespeare, Eugen Bleuler, or Carl Jung? Nobody in Freud's Influences or Influenced list has Empedocles, Plato, or Sophocles listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbabbitt (talk • contribs) 01:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to go and ask at those articles, I guess. But yes, it would be better to have some source(s) to support Empedocles, Plato and Sophocles here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to review the list and distinguish between authors Freud references as precursors or anticipators of some of his theories (as identified above) and - not the same thing - influences as identified in the article.Almanacer (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The advice at Template:Infobox scientist is simply: "Any notable people who influenced the scientist significantly." So they need not be identified in the article as such? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding comment on happiness

Almanacer (talk | contribs) (Reverted 2 edits by JCJC777: You need to explain on the Talk Page why you think your edit is consistent with the no original research guidelines and why you think the topic merits its own section heading (TW)) Tag: Undo 1. I'm just quoting Freud's own work. 2. Happiness, wellbeing are increasingly central subjects to the journey of our species.

”Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.” See WP:OR. To merit a new section an overview of Freud’s work on the topic would need to be included. Don’t forget to sign yourself. Almanacer (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Almanacer, that's very helpful and clear.Best, JCJC777

Monuments and memorials

Statue of Sigmund Freud hanging by one hand, by David Černý

Commons has a category for Monuments and memorials to Sigmund Freud. It's perhaps surprising that only one is featured here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

W. H. Auden's tribute

Almanacer, regarding this and this, per WP:Lead and WP:Due, the material should not even be in the lead. And regarding "In the words of," it is not encyclopedic. It should be what I changed it to or reworded in some other way. And this material should absolutely be moved out of the lead. I'd rather not spend days debating this. So if we can't compromise on it and swiftly, I will start an RfC on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Almanacer that poems don't really "state" things as if they are facts. The item should not appear only in the lead. But I'm also slightly doubtful if it really belongs in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The Auden quote has been in the lead for 10 years or more - yes including it stretches the guidelines somewhat ("poetic license"?) and this has been discussed before. Basically it's just a way of saying - as stated in the article - that Freud was widely influential so I don't see a problem with it. Happy to include mention of it in the article body if that helps. Hardly an RfC issue in my view. Almanacer (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It certainly would "help" to also place it, sourced, in the main body, as it is policy that the lead section should have nothing unique. I'm very surprised if it's been like this for "10 years or more". And yes, Auden is a very well-know poet. But if is this particular reference to Freud really is that notable, I'd suggest it needs more than just the primary source of the poem itself to support its inclusion in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
For ten years? That doesn't mean it's WP:Due for the lead. It clearly isn't. I first edited this article in March 2014. Back then, the text was worded the following way: "Freud's work has, nonetheless, suffused contemporary thought and popular culture to the extent that in 1939 W. H. Auden wrote, in a poem dedicated to him: 'to us he is no more a person / now but a whole climate of opinion / under whom we conduct our different lives.'" Later in 2014, the "In the words of" wording was there. For some reason, I didn't pay much attention to the quote until now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm following this discussion. I don't really have a firm opinion about whether the Auden quotation belongs in the lead and could be convinced either way. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
It’s one of the most famous quotes about Freud from a famous poet and is widely cited in the secondary literature an RS example of which is cited. It conveys in poetic and more engaging terms what the article states re the extent of Freud’s influence. Almanacer (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I've copied the quote into the body, where the poem was already mentioned and sourced. And I've moved that secondary source there too. Please tweak further if necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
So why is that citation also required in the lead section? Is that claim in some way controversial? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry our edits crossed - didn’t notice your helpful intervention. Almanacer (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Do we need that citation in the lead? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Let’s leave it in because it supports the previous sentence as well. Almanacer (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, the claim that "Freud's work has suffused contemporary Western thought and popular culture" can't be just in the lead section. The lead section is meant to be a summary of the entire article. I think sources are required in the lead only if a claim is controversial. I've added a link and changed the ref to cite book format. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I might start an RfC on its placement in the lead. Even with the little bit on it lower in the article's body, it's still not lead material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Almanacer, regarding this, I don't see how it provides greater support for the Auden tribute if that's what you meant. Either way, it needed WP:In-text attribution. So I added it. If quoting people or text like that, it should be attributed via in-text. We also need to keep WP:WIKIVOICE in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I've noticed that although Freud appears as a character in far far more many movies and plays than Carl Jung, the Jung article on Wikipedia has a "In Popular Culture" section while this article has none.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an omission. Although plays such as The Visitor are included the Nav box template at the bottom of the page under "Cultural depictions". A bit hidden down there? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I plan to create such a section in the next couple of days.--(talk) 03:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Even though there are many items with their own Wikipedia articles, you'll need to add citations to reliable sources to support everything, if it's to stand a ghost of a chance of surviving... Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem the message re citations has got through. The curent text is original research and will have to go. Sorry WickerGuy you were warned.Almanacer (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I planned to wait a day to add the refs and let that stand as a draft, but you fellows were right. Section restored with references. The refs could be improved on the Dora stuff and I will work on that.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Excellent reworking edits Martinevans123. It's been about 8 years since I made major edits on Wikipedia although between 2007-2012 I was very active. --WickerGuy (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I only make all these punctuation corrections because it makes me feel better. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Influences

It seems to me odd that Sophocles is not present in the list of Freud's influences, given the well-known impact the Oedipus trilogy had on Freud's ideas, albeit only in providing the as it were imaginative content of his later theories. I also suggest that Dostoevsky be added, for reasons I can discuss if necessary, but which should be well known to those well-acquainted with Freud's life and ideas. I vaguely recall that both authors were listed until quite recently.

Daedalus 96 (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hemorrhoids

I had assumed that the alleged cockney rhyming slang of "Sigmund Freuds" for hemorrhoids was something invented by Nobby's Piles in Viz magazine. But it seems a source no less impressive than The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, edited by Tom Dalzell and Terry Victor, lists the name of his great-granddaughter Emma Freud as rhyming slang for the same: [4]. So now I'm not so sure. I guess I'll have to "sit on the fence" over this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Kurt Jacobsen's book

In this addition, @Nightfire23 added a book in the Science section. I am not convinced of this books notability. Unlike the other books mentioned in this section, this book doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in the media or literature. The author, Kurt Jacobsen, seems to lack notability and relevant experience in the field. In other words, there don't seem to be any secondary sources to corroborate the notability of this book for Wikipedia's purposes. Rather than removing it outright, I have started a discussion here. What do other people think? Megaman en m (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. An expert need not necessarily be notable from Wikipedia's point of view. But I also can't see any good secondary sources/ reviews. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Do take a look at the book's Amazon page for a dozen or so endorsements of the book by major figures in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightfire23 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Well OK, there's the historian Russell Jacoby, But not too sure about Michael Rustin, Sylvia Zwettler-Otte and Eli Zaretsky. Amazon is just trying to sell copies, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Seriously considered conversion

Endless independent university sources including his wifes own words and Jones biography on him say he seriously considered conversion to protestantism to avoid the jewish ceremony. Its a fact that belongs right where it is talking about his jewish wedding and of course i state he didnt end up converting. The jones biography says nothing about it being not a matter of religion on page 183 i already read through it here https://archive.org/details/lifeworkofsigm01jone/page/n209/mode/2up?q=Protestant. Foorgood (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added what I believe to be a more authoritatively sourced account. None of the major biographies (Jones, Gay, Clark, Roudinesco) reference that Freud "seriously considered conversion to Protestantism". Jones states: "Freud did once, it is true, for five minutes toy with the idea, but for anti-religious reasons." (Vol 2. pp. 19-20). Jones then refers back to p. 183 of Vol. 1 where he refers to considering "joining the Protestant 'Confession' " which in a footnote he explains was a designation "apart from any religious views." There was no "serious consideration" of conversion and to claim so is a misrepresentation of Freud, who was, as all reliable sources state, a lifelong atheist. Please note the reference to the Jones biography are to the Hogarth Press UK edition not the US Basic Books edition you have consulted. This article requires high standards in sources as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP which means books and journals with academic credentials and authors with track record in Freud scholarship published in "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Almanacer (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok thank you I was gonna say you could rewrite the sentence how you'd like.Foorgood (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
You’re welcome Almanacer (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Neurologist"

He isn't in any good faith one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.50.248 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To be a little more clear, calling him a Neurologist is like calling an Astrologist an Astronomer. He did not study the actual function of the brain so much as tease it. 72.186.50.248 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Neurology in the 1880s in Vienna was not what it is today. "He was appointed a docent in neuropathology and became an affiliated professor in 1902." Britannica also describes him like that. Maybe its more like calling a star-gazer an astronomer. He only moved on to real astrology later. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I just looked him up and that was how he was described today, in the first sentence on Google. This is very misleading, no? 72.186.50.248 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
No. That's what he was. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Replace "Sigmund Freud was an Austrian neurologist" with "Sigmund Freud was an Austrian psychologist" and you are actually describing what he was in modern terms. 72.186.50.248 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Especially for an opening introduction to the man. 72.186.50.248 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd say "psychologist" would be even less defensible. "Psychoanalyst" might be better, but happy to hear the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree that Psychoanalyst would be even better. 72.186.50.248 (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
If it wasn't the second half of the first sentence that should have been the primary point. 72.186.50.248 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
To be clear he is the first person one thinks of when they mention psychology. He isn't at all mentioned in neurology, and he should not be because he did nothing to contribute to it.72.186.50.248 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Atheist

Ernest Jones in his The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud says: "There is no reason to think that Freud ever cudgelled his brains about the purpose of the universe - he was always an unrepentant atheist - but that mankind was moved by various purposes, aims, motives, many of which may not be evident..." Where is the evidence that we was not an atheist? This question has arisen a few times in the Talk page archives. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So Category:Austrian atheist writers and Category:Jewish atheists seem to be perfectly accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: following the doses of morphine, Freud slipped into a coma prior to his death. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Manderson, Lenore; Cartwright, Elizabeth; Hardon, Anita (2016). The Routledge Handbook of Medical Anthropology. Routledge. p. 103. ISBN 9781317743781.
  2. ^ Sharpe, Matthew; Faulkner, Joanne (2014). Understanding Psychoanalysis. Routledge. p. 172. ISBN 9781317492955.
  3. ^ Strenger, Carlo (2016). Freud’s Legacy in the Global Era. Routledge. p. 173. ISBN 9781317556343.
  4. ^ Burnham, John (2008). After Freud Left: A Century of Psychoanalysis in America. University of Chicago Press. p. 164. ISBN 9780226081397.
  5. ^ Shapiro, Arthur K.; Shapiro, Elaine (1996). The Powerful Placebo: From Ancient Priest to Modern Physician. JHU Press. p. 68. ISBN 9781421401348.
  6. ^ Cohen, Patricia (25 November 2007). "Freud Is Widely Taught at Universities, Except in the Psychology Department". The New York Times.
  7. ^ For its efficacy and the influence of psychoanalysis on psychiatry and psychotherapy, see The Challenge to Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Chapter 9, Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry: A Changing Relationship by Robert Michels, 1999 and Tom Burns Our Necessary Shadow: The Nature and Meaning of Psychiatry London: Allen Lane 2013 p. 96-97.
    • For the influence on psychology, see The Psychologist, December 2000
    • For the influence of psychoanalysis in the humanities, see J. Forrester The Seductions of Psychoanalysis Cambridge University Press 1990, pp. 2–3.
    • For its efficacy, see for example Fonagy, Peter (9 December 2016). "The effectiveness of psychodynamic psychotherapies: An update". World Psychiatry. 14 (2): 137–150. doi:10.1002/wps.20235. ISSN 1723-8617.
    • For the debate on the scientific status of psychoanalysis see Cioffi, Frank. Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Peru, IL: Open Court, 1999 and Gay, Peter. Freud: A Life for Our Time. W. W. Norton & Company, 2006, p. 745.
    • For the debate on psychoanalysis and feminism, see Appignanesi, Lisa & Forrester, John. Freud's Women. London: Penguin Books, 1992, pp. 455–474
  8. ^ Auden 1940
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sigmund_Freud/Archive_12&oldid=1194368118"