Talk:Dora (case study)

message: Cool article.  While you're working on it, could you add some reference?  I'd like to read more about Ida.  Rklawton 18:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As with most of the articles in Wikipedia about Freud, this is poorly written (the first two paragraphs are almost devoid of punctuation; phrases such as "comments like" rather than "comments such as"), and is entirely negative in its assessment.  It immediately offers a supposed feminist critique (but links to no outside sources and gives no references) of Freud, and offers a total of one footnote to an article calling Freud a fraud that includes an interview with Frederick Crews, Freud's most vocal opponent.  No balance of any kind is suggested. The article gives no summary of the case or introduction to the characters involved, and hence later comments about "Herr K" will likely be unintelligible to readers.  The "criticism of Freud's account" is almost entirely a summary of the case, and does not offer a critique—it merely asserts that it was malpractice, without saying why.  It's also just a long quote of another web page, which isn't allowed.
I've fixed the grammar and punctuation of the first part of the article, and will remove the portion about feminist critiques--this does not belong in a biographical article about Ida Bauer, and it is repeated verbatim (equally poorly punctuated) in the main article about Freud--also with no citation to any outside sources of actual feminists actually criticizing Freud. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to simply quote long portions of other people's writing, and so I am deleting the section on "criticism of Freud's account" for the time being.  Does anyone want to write a summary of some of the critiques of Dora?  And does anyone have any more biographical information about Ida Bauer, which is what the bulk of this page should probably actually be about?
Prosopopeia 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quality; neutral pov 

message: This is a HUGE quote, and nothing but the first sentence appears to be "criticism". The rest of the quote is merely going over what Dora told Freud and what Freud made of it. I'm removing it (again). Feel free to put in another "Criticism" section (as the article will need it), but do not replace the quote. --DearPrudence 09:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Freud's handling of the "Dora" case can only be described as a case of gross misconduct.  Here are the facts known to Freud (please see Fredrick Crew's article "The Unknown Freud", New Review of Books, 1993 and Lakoff and Coyne's book "Father Knows Best: The Use and Abuse of Power in Freud's Case of Dora", Teachers College Press).
1. D's father was syphilitic and having an affair with wife of close family friend, Herr K.
2. Herr K had sexual interest in D when she was only 14 and pressed his interest on her again when D went to Freud at age 18.
3. D's father in an attempt to appease Herr K and to mitigate his own indiscretions with Herr K's wife, tells D to accept Herr K's advances.
4. D confronts father about this and he sends her to see Freud.
Freud's analysis with these facts in hand? D is told to accept her responsibility and to go along with the wishes of both her father and Herr K.  Why? So that Freud could claim that D was hysterical and that in denying the advances of the pedophilic Herr K, she was repressing her own sexual desires.  His advice to D, just go along with her father and Herr K and everything would be okay.  That type of advice in today's standards of practise would likely result in a removal of one's license to practise for professional misconduct.
The importance of D's case for the psychoanalytic approach is that it represents one of many clear examples of why the "scientific" foundation on which it is built is at best shaky and at worst delusional  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.242.137 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malpractice 

message: I've tried to clean it up a little, demarcate some space for expansion. I will have some more content in the next few days.Phyesalis (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: In the article it is said: "Freud gave her the name 'Dora' after a maid working in the Freud house by the same name." Is there any reference for that statement?
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.61 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The name 'Dora'

message: , ,
, , engl., engl., engl..
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.61 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some more information

message: "Freud's case study was condemned in its first review as a form of mental masturbation, an immoral misuse of his medical position." When my friends have used the term mental masturbation, they use it to mean engaging in meaningless thought. But in the context of this article, it seems to have a more sinister definition. Wiktionary seems to support that definition, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mental_masturbation. Should the term we use here be changed?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental masturbation? 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_%28case_study%29&diff=656722914&oldid=626975466 One of my changes here as to simplify the language.  I changed the word recounted to described, the word rationale to reason, the word pendant to appendix,etc. I think those changes are good beyond dispute. H.W. Fowler said in The King's English, that when writing in English, one should use the simplest words possible. I changed "as early as" to "beginning", because in the context of that time period, and in Austria where the legal age for sexual activity was 14 then and still is, it was not that unusual that this man was interested in her. Although it would be unusual today, it wasn't that unusual for the time's standards. I felt like saying, "as early as" might be editorializing. However, I do not care as much about that change simplifying the language, so if other editors want to revert that change back I do not care.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:PaulBustion88 is a WP:Sockpuppet of User:RJR3333. See here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes I made here.