Freud's ideas are certainly much discussed today, and I would be the first to agree that they must be grappled with and dealt with seriously, if only because of their currency.  So Freud deserves a long and thorough article in Wikipedia.  I believe that a balanced article would include A) explanations of Freud's theories, and B) the status of Freudianism today.  The existing article is quite thorough on "A" and had almost nothing on "B".  A neophyte who read the article as it stood a month ago would imagine that Freud's work has the same relation to current psychology that Darwin's work has to current biology.  

Let's compare them:  Darwinism thoroughly permeates modern biology, and his fundamentals, built on copious observation and collegial collaboration, now much extended with new data and new theories, continue to provide accurate predictions and fruitful avenues of exploration.  Freud's fundamental ideas were founded on minimal and dubious observations, and his theories do not meet the test of being logical, minimal, reproducible explanations of the data.  As far as Jung goes, I haven't gotten to him yet  ), and I don't know anything about Maslow.  Freud draws my fire precisely because he is so high profile, so influential, and so wrong.  I was required to study The Interpretation of Dreams in high school as if it were scientific fact, and the disgust I felt when I later realized it was all as stupid as it sounded has turned me into - yes - a Freud critic.  Of course, I am striving for NPOV.  Do you really feel that presenting Freud's pseudoscience without comment is NPOV, whereas quoting one of many eminent critics is not?   21:55, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)