Talk:The Uses of Enchantment

use of word/concept "plagia"
Just curious: can this assertion be sourced? I would presume it's a little controversial (perhaps not?) or in any case needs further context. Also since this word "plagia" is rather obscure in English. I assume the sentence is implying that the Bettelheim book plagiarises the predecessor. Totempoem (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

more on possible plagiarism aspect.
Dundes, Alan: "Bruno Bettelheim's Uses of Enchantment and Abuses of Scholarship". The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 104, N0. 411. (Winter, 1991): pages 74–83.

--

Bettelheim Plagiarized Book Ideas, Scholar Says : Authors: The late child psychologist is accused of 'wholesale borrowing' for study of fairy tales, Los Angeles Times, Anne C. Roark, Feb. 7, 1991.

' .  .  .  Writing in the latest issue of the Journal of American Folklore, Alan Dundes, a widely published expert on folklore and a 28-year veteran of Berkeley's anthropology department, details what he says is "wholesale borrowing," not only of "random passages" but also of "key ideas". . .  '

' .  .  .  The disclosure that many of the ideas in the book may have been lifted from other sources--particularly the work of Dr. Julius E. Heuscher, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford University's medical center--is causing a storm of controversy among scholars, although Heuscher said in an interview Wednesday that he personally is not bothered by the disclosure. . .  '

' .  .  .  Whether he stole his ideas intentionally or inadvertently, "it is clear he didn't do his homework" or that in some cases he did it selectively, said Robert A. Georges, a professor of folklore at UCLA. . .  .  '

--

A Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales: Their Origin, Meaning and Usefulness, Julius E. Heuscher, illus. by Melba Bennett, Springfield, Illinois: Thomas pub., 1963, 224 pages. See also A Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales: Their Origin, Meaning and Usefulness; an enlarged and thoroughly revised second edition, Julius E. Heuscher, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, publisher, April 1974, 422 pages.


 * Worth adding more to our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it our job to adjudicate?
The Accusations of plagiarism of our article currently states: "This accusation of plagiarism is not conclusive," citing the below Chicago Tribune source.

If we define conclusive as 100%, then very few things are going to be conclusive and this is not a very informative thing to tell our readers. I think we just give substantial, well-referenced information on both sides (and of course there might be more than merely two sides) and let each reader decide on his or her own. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

---

' .  .  .  claims that Bettelheim did not credit Stanford University professor and psychiatrist Julius Heuscher for several insights contained in Heuscher`s 1963 work, ``A Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales.``. . .  '

' .  .  .  Dundes said Bettelheim had, in ``The Uses of Enchantment,`` also borrowed from one of his own works, a 1967 article about Cinderella, and had never acknowledged Dundes` contribution either. . .  '

' .  .  .  Jack Zipes, a professor of German at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who has also written extensively about fairy tales, called Dundes ``a very serious scholar`` who would only make the accusations for legitimate reasons. Dundes is a former president of the American Folklore Association. . .  '

'Jacquelyn Sanders, the current director of the Orthogenic School at the University of Chicago, said she had read Dundes` article but did not believe many people would agree with his accusations.

'``I would not call that plagiarism,`` she said. ``I think the article is a reasonable scholarly endeavor, and calling it scholarly etiquette is appropriate. It is appropriate that this man deserved to be acknowledged and Bettelheim didn`t. . . . But I would not fail a student for doing that, and I don`t know anybody who would.``'

Bettelheim misrepresented his credentials

 * Just straight up, he did. I guess we can go with "self-taught psychologist."  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker, 8 December 1995. " .  .  despite claims to the contrary, possessed no psychology qualifications of any sort.  .  "

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-01-23/features/9701230196_1_orthogenic-school-bruno-bettelheim-pollak Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide], Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997, page 2: " . . But when the directorship of the Orthogenic School became available, he evidently gambled that because of the war no one would be able to check on his credentials. So he intimated to U. of C. officials that he had been cross-trained in psychology. Yet when his transcript was posthumously examined, it showed that he had taken but three introductory courses in the field. . "


 * And if you're interested, there's a ton more information on the bio article. But I think we should have a little bit here.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Whole summary of the book without any references ? ?

 * Nor anywhere else in our article either. And the Structure and contents section without references, too.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Theorizing About Myth, Robert Alan Segal, University of Massachusetts Press, 1999, page 61:

"It is the disjunction between Bettelheim's up-to-date approach to fairy tales and his old-fashioned approach to myths that is striking."


 * Here's one. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

-


 * And here's another one which is an archived book review from the New York Times 1976. This is the kind of thing we need to be using, rather than simply trusting some long-ago wiki editor who apparently just made it up on the fly.  It might actually be a good summary, I mean what we currently have.  We just don't know that.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Frog King as Sex Education, New York Times, Books of the Times, Christopher Lehiyiann-Haltpt, May 5, 1976.

' .  .  .  He believes traditional folk fairy tales, such as “Cinderella,” “Little Red Riding Hood” and “The Frog King,” are far more valuable to children than modern “realistic” stories. Therefore he intends in this study to reveal the deep psychological content of fairy tales, and to demonstrate how it aids children in solving certain enduring existential predicaments, most prominent among them separation anxiety, sibling rivalry and oedipal conflict. . .  '

' .  .  .  And one need only consider his defense of the extreme violence and ugly emotions represented in fairy tales — which is that they serve to reflect and defuse what is going on in the child's mind anyway — to realize how very shortsighted and superficial is the contemporary rationalist's belief that a child ought not to be exposed to such things, because they implant in him or her unmanageable thoughts and feelings. . .  '

' .  .  .  The child's “unrealistic fears require unrealistic hopes,” concludes Dr. Bettelheim. “By comparison with the child's wishes, realistic and limited promises are experienced as deep disappointment, not as consolation. But they are all that a relatively realistic story can offer.”. . .  '

' .  .  .  or the case he tries to make that “The Frog King” is superior to modern sex education in its “understanding that the child may find sex disgusting, and that this viewpoint has an important protective function for the child….”. . .  '

demoted summary without reference
"Bettelheim discusses the emotional and symbolic importance of fairy tales for children, including traditional tales at one time considered too dark, such as those collected and published by the Brothers Grimm. Bettelheim suggested that traditional fairy tales, with the darkness of abandonment, death, witches, and injuries, allowed children to grapple with their fears in remote, symbolic terms. If they could read and interpret these fairy tales in their own way, he believed, they would get a greater sense of meaning and purpose. Bettelheim thought that by engaging with these socially evolved stories, children would go through emotional growth that would better prepare them for their own futures."


 * This may be excellent. Someone may have read the book very attentively.  But we don't know that.  As it now stands, this is merely in the category of "someone on the Internet."  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Bettelheim exposed after his death as a fraud, we have to talk about this
It's a book which at the time it was published was purported to be written by a specialist in the field. Yes, we should matter-of-factly include his lack of credentials.

I like the professor standard: If there's a professor with whom I share mutual respect and he or she asks me, hey, what's the deal with Bettelheim, I'm going to briefly give him or her the whole story, including the fake credentials.

In one edit I wrote something of the sort, "Although a reader should avoid falling into the trap of ad hominem argumention . . . " Someone removed this. And I decided, yeah, it was probably too preachy. We're adults, and we know this anyway. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

---

https://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/archives/portfolio/books/book411.html


 * " .  .  .  Bettelheim was found out for being a fraud.  .  .  "

-

There are abundant other references about this in the Bettelheim article. There's no reason to give this guy a free ride, other than perhaps misplaced politeness, and that's not what we're about here at Wikipedia. We want to be right down the middle, neither overstating nor understating. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

-

Turbulent dreams of a damaged saint, The Independent [UK], Nicholas Tucker, 8 December 1995.


 * " .  .  .  despite claims to the contrary, possessed no psychology qualifications of any sort.  .  .  "

---

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-01-23/features/9701230196_1_orthogenic-school-bruno-bettelheim-pollak Genius Or Fraud? Bettelheim's Biographers Can't Seem To Decide], Chicago Tribune, Ron Grossman, January 23, 1997.


 * " .  .  .  when his transcript was posthumously examined, it showed he had taken but three introductory courses in the field.  .  .  "

--

If there were two paragraphs from a philosophy book, that would stand or fall on it's own, no matter who had written it. But for Enchantment, the author is purporting to give advice at least on certain aspects of how to raise children. So, I say his exaggerated and falsely claimed credentials are relevant. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we talk about multiple reports of Bettelheim's violence against students?
I think so, especially since one journalist labeled him a hypocrite.

Now the very interesting part, in spite of all, the man wrote books which a number of people found very inspiring. Weird. I guess it just shows that people are complicated, that con artists can be very engaging, etc. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the article should not discuss Bettelheim's violence against students. The article concerns a book about fairy tales, and is not about the entire story of Bruno Bettelheim's life. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about a shady real estate deal completely unrelated to his professional life. The guy wrote a book where he basically gives advice on how to raise children.  So, I think it is relevant how he actually treated children during his tenure as the director of the Orthogenic School. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As already noted, the article is about a book called "The Uses of Enchantment". Therefore, material in the article should be either directly about that book or have some kind of clear and indisputable relevance to it. Bettelheim hitting people, and matters of that nature, are not relevant to his book on fairy tales. Continue to add inappropriate and irrelevant material and I will have little choice but to report you for disruptive editing, FriendlyRiverOtter. As an additional note, filling the talk page full of multiple threads and posts to which no one has any inclination to respond is also disruptive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, we have a clear disagreement about a subject area. Let's try and draw upon the strength of the Wikipedia community.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made a request on Third opinion using their recommended method of five tildes which produces a date but no signature. I hope we can continue to work together constructively in spite of this disagreement.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted on your talk page, the request was biased and inaccurate. There is no "Debate over how upfront to be about Bettelheim's fraudulent credentials" - the "debate" is over whether Bettelheim's alleged misrepresentation of his credentials are relevant in any way to his book on fairy tales. As I have always maintained, it is not relevant at all. Unless sources discuss how Bettelheim's misrepresentation of his credentials is relevant to his book on fairy tales, it is not up to Wikipedia to imply that the one is relevant to the other. You also confused matters by linking at WP:3O to a post by you to which no one responded. You should have linked instead to what actual discussion occurred. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I also included, "Please also see next discussion section on whether to include multiple reports of his violence against students." And it is not simply a book on fairy tales as if it were entirely free standing, say like a philosophy book.  It is a book on which he gives advice on how to raise children.  His credentials, or lack there of, are relevant.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * None of that supposed relevance can be seen in the material you restored here, which does not discuss child-rearing, and you have failed to provide reliable sources that make any such connection. The bottom line is that if there is no suggestion in reliable sources that this issue is relevant to The Uses of Enchantment, then it shouldn't be considered relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Frog King as Sex Education, New York Times, Books of the Times, Christopher Lehiyiann-Haltpt, May 5, 1976: "Therefore he intends in this study to reveal the deep psychological content of fairy tales, and to demonstrate how it aids children in solving certain enduring existential predicaments, most prominent among them separation anxiety, sibling rivalry and oedipal conflict."
 * This is from a reference already used in our article. Bettelheim is giving the type of advice a psychiatrist might give.  The fact that he was discovered after his death to have used exaggerated and fake credentials is relevant. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That reference, a New York Times article, is from 1976, and does not say anything about Bettelheim misrepresenting his credentials. That Bettelheim's falsification of his credentials is relevant to his book on fairy tales has never been stated anywhere by a reliable source. Absent any such source, no such relevance has been established. You are welcome to your personal opinion that the issue is indeed relevant, but I reject it, and do not consider it a basis for adding content to the article. Essentially you are trying to divert the article from its actual topic, a book about a fairy tales, by adding material about its author's personal history. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's one of the interesting parts. Bettelheim was not exposed until after his death, for example, this source, presumably from the same guy:

An Icon of Psychology Falls From His Pedestal, New York Times, Books, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, review of The Creation of Dr. B by Richard Pollak, Jan. 13, 1997. " .  .  .  concocting a new formula for snake oil and selling it to the public with flummery.  .  .  "
 * And I'm generally going to assume the spelling of his name from the more recent source is the correct one. And no, he doesn't specifically criticize the 1976 book in this later book review.  Perhaps he felt he had bigger fish.  And again, I do not view Uses of Enchantment to merely be a book about fairy tales, but rather a book which also and even primarily gives advice about raising children.  And I like the professor standard—if a professor which whom I share mutual respect asks me, hey, what's the deal about this Uses of Enchantment, I'm going to give him or her the whole story, including the fraudulent credentials. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

3O Response:

There seem to be two issues here.

The first is whether to include Bettelheim's violence against students. My opinion is that doesn’t belong in this article. This book may well give advice on rearing children, but I see no evidence that it gives any opinion on the use of corporal punishment. Even if it did, that would just make Bettelheim a hypocrite, it wouldn’t provide any useful information about this boo or aid readers in evaluating this book. Any advice the book contains on child rearing could still be perfectly sound even if Bettelheim never followed it himself. So unless we can find a reliable source that notes that Bettelheim’s behavior is pertinent to an evaluation of this book, it’s simply not notable.

The second issue is whether Bettelheim’s credentials are pertinent to this article. IMO, they are, and should be noted, but not at the length proposed.

This is a book that psychoanalyses fairy tales. Bettelheim notes within the book that he is writing because “an educator and therapist of severely disturbed children” he was “deeply dissatisfied with much of the literature intended to develop the child’s mind”. It seems obvious that the credentials of the author in the fields of psychoanalysis are pertinent to any evaluation of the book.

I do not think that the issue of Bettelheim’s qualifications deserve anything like the depth of coverage they are given. That seems like a breach of WP:DUE. With the proposed edits, ~20% of the article is on the issue. There is no way that 20% of the reliable sources discussing this book focus on Bettelheims crednetials. IMO they deserve only a couple of sentences.

It might be beneficial to quote from http://www.nytimes.com/1976/05/23/archives/the-uses-of-enchantment.html or the book itself to highlight why this pertinent and circumvent any future versions of this disagreement. Perhaps “Bettleheim wrote the book as an educator and therapist of severely disturbed children he was dissatisfied with much of the literature intended to develop the children’s minds. However his credentials in those fields were found to be faked and Bettelheim held no psychology qualifications of any sort.” Mark Marathon (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC) .Mark Marathon (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, Mark Marathon. I am not sure, however, that it would be possible to add the text that you propose without violating WP:SYNTHESIS. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Mark, thanks for your response. What you recommend is briefer than I'd like, but I'm going to see how it works out.  And Free, hopefully we can avoid synthesis as long as we stay factual and matter-of-fact.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With this edit, you added content about Bettelheim's falsification of his credentials to the lead of the article. There was never agreement for that, and I consider it inappropriate. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I do not agree that this issue is one of the "most important" parts of the article. As the lead is meant to be a summary of the article's most important contents, it is quite simply wrong to mention the issue in the lead at all if it is not discussed elsewhere in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, we can ride with our current article for a while. But in the longterm, with the New York Times saying "concocting a new formula for snake oil" and the copyright page of the book saying: "Bibliography p:  1. Fairy tales—History and criticism.  2.  Psychoanalysis.    3. Folk-lore and children." yes, I do want us to find a way to be front and center about his lack of credentials.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

solid secondary sources, such as Sarah Boxer's review of Pollak's book.
Identifying reliable sources


 * "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.  For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.  When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.   See No original research and Neutral point of view."

---

And that's exactly what Sarah Boxer's review of Richard Pollak's book is:

The Man He Always Wanted to Be, New York Times, Books, Sarah Boxer, January 26, 1997.


 * "Mr. Pollak gives a damning passage-for-passage comparison of the two. [Bettelheim's book and Julius Heuscher's 1963 A Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales]"

This is much more solid than me simply as a person on the Internet saying, Pollak gives a passage-for-passage. This is the New York Times saying "a damning passage-for-passage comparison of the two." FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)