Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 2

message: The current introduction needs overhaul; i.e. it has to be in the form of a readable short paragraph or two designed to introduce Freud to the common reader, rather than a list of bullets on the psychoanalytic school.  Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro needs cleaning 

message: Freud shows up a lot in movies and TV shows (like Bill & Ted), and I'm wondering if that would be worth adding to his wiki entry.
JE: I think that would be fine in the pop culture section that's discussed below. -John Ericson 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media? 

message: Did he really say about the Irish: 'This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever'.
(or words to that effect)? If he really did, does anybody know where and what the context was? El Gringo 01:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud and the Irish

message: Surely the bulk of this article belongs at Freudianism? Adam 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulk of the article seems alright to me... but I agree that the beginning should be refocused on Freud rather than the school that followed him.  Part of the problem here might be that when we talk about "Freud," it's the standard interpretation of him that's most important, rather than his actual writings (which, rather than a coherent theory, were a jumble of related and sometimes contradictory ideas).  Still, the intro should give us the received view of Freud, rather than the movement that followed.--BrownApple 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: JA: I am creating this section as a place for discussing the continuing need to improve the status of the current article on Sigmund Freud with respect to the WP:POLICY of WP:VERIFIABILITY.  I have started by placing {citation needed} tags on a number of statements that are missing source data.  There is a vast amount of responsible scholarly discussion out there, and the article is in somewhat critical need of drawing on it, instead of resorting to one Blue Sky assertion after another.  Jon Awbrey 12:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- I have therefore delisted it as a GA plange 03:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VERIFY §1.  Improving the Verifiability of this Article

message: [Category:Agoraphobic_celebrities] lists Freud. I've never heard this before. Can anybody confirm or deny this? (Cite, please.) Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigmund Freud, agoraphobe?

message: Shouldn't this: 
Believing as he did that women are a kind of mutilated male, who must learn to accept their deformity (the lack of a penis) and submit to some imagined biological imperative, he contributed to the vocabulary of misogyny. 
''
be changed to:
In uncritically accepting the view common at the time that women are a kind of mutilated male...
Or is there evidence that his views on this were more misogynist than "normal"? The article even specifically points out that Freud was an early champion of both sexual freedom and education for women (Freud, "Civilized Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness").
--Espoo 10:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Shouldn't it be changed? Elsenrail 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I mean misogyny is was and always has been rife within Western culture, why should Freud be removed from his historical context? Elsenrail 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary view 

message: I thought we were using UK Eng here, until I saw that 'defence mechanisms' was spelled the US way. I started changing it (the wiki article is called Defence mechanisms FWIW) and then I thought I might offend someone by doing that. So, are we writing in UK or US English here? --Guinnog 16:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was UK also, defence is UK, defense is US, and apparently the Canadians use either, is that not correct? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think so. Would make sense as Freud lived in the UK and published from there, presumably in UK Eng. I'll copyedit it so the whole article is in the same spelling vaariant when I get the chance. Just didn't want to tread on anybody's toes, espececially not on the 4th of July! --Guinnog 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah. I hadn't realised he was only in London for a year and a half; thought it was longer. Serves me right for not reading the article carefully! --Guinnog 16:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH he never lived in the States. I support UK spelling. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Spelling should be consistent within an article. --Guinnog 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling in this article

message: The article says he was a neurologist, but it is in :Category:Austrian psychiatrists. Apokrif 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: psychoanalyst would be most accuratewhicky1978 talk 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freud always referred to himself as a physician
According to  Thomas Szasz, Freud was NOT a psychiatrist "Freud was not, and could not have been, a psychiatrist. Why not? Because he was a Jew"..."“Psychiatry” is a nineteenth-century term. What did it mean to be a psychiatrist in those days? It meant being an employee of the state in a state mental hospital"..."Since being a psychiatrist meant being an employee of a state hospital, in Austria-Hungary Jewish doctors could not become psychiatrists"Freud was not a psychiatrist--Mark v1.0 05:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurologist or psychiatrist? 

message: These sections are both massive, but I wanted to see if anybody wanted to comment on them before I cut them down some. On the former, it treats the article as a category; the latter, a collection of external links. Both are meant to include only essential information not found elsewhere in the article. Any input on shortening these down some? Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also and External links 

message: Despite the valid and sweeping criticisms of Freud's approaches from the mainstreams of both psychology in general and therapeutic psychiatry, i.e. from the fields in which the article claims a god-like status for the man, the article remains largely hagiographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.43.35.97 (talk • contribs) 
:No one, not even his strongest critics, denies that Freud was a tremendously influential figure, and I don't see anything in this article that amounts to "worship."  If there are particular phrases that gave you that impression, you should certainly temper them.
:As far as "valid and sweeping criticisms of Freud," you're certainly right that Freud has fallen out of fashion and is often dismissed as unscientific.  But the article addresses these points.  I'm going to remove the POV, but add it back if you strongly disagree.--BrownApple 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, however, think the intro could use a rewrite... including an earlier mention of how unpopular Freud is in modern psychology.  --BrownApple 23:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: First of all, I added Woodrow Wilson to the list of "People on whom psychoanalytic observations were published but who were not patients".  However, I didn't add the book that Freud co-wrote with William Bullitt about Woodrow Wilson to the list of "Major Works" because not many people know or have read this text, and it doesn't really pertain to his main theoretical contributions as defined by this article.  But my non-inclusion, and indeed the list of "Major Works" begs the question of what is "major".  Sure, the list as written includes the texts that one would find published seperately from the SE, and that one might assign for a intro course on psychoanalysis.   But then when one reconsiders, are they?  Hardly anyone reads Hysteria for an introduction to Freud, yet surely it is important as his first.  On Narcissism is an important essay, but relatively short and never published on its own as far as I know.  And why is Jokes in there at all, except that it is often quoted in quote books?  What about Uncanny, The Unconscious, or Dora, some of the most important works in my opinion?  What good is to list some, but not all?  Would it perhaps be better to have a link to the contents of the SE?  I think that directing the reader to some specific titles might be a good idea, but could we call the section something else other than "Major Works", because I think it is important to an understanding of Freud's corpus that sometimes the most important bits are found in the shortest essays and fragments.  Anyway, something to ponder.  --Adam Rothstein 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Works? 

message: That the article is hagiographic, is probably inevitable, since Freud lived in an age that had the utmost respect for great men and geniuses. But this is unneccesary: 
"Freud himself, and psychoanalysis generally, have proved sufficiently unheimlich (disturbing)THE UNCANNY - Sigmund Freud to many readers that something of a cottage industry in exposés of Freud's alleged personal faults has grown up, mostly in the USA, and especially starting from the 1980s. For example:"
It's enough that these are "biographical critiques", it is unneccesary to point out in the introduction that these books have no merit and that writing them is morally wrong. Juryen 09:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagiography

message: I am again going to remove the chabad.org link, for these reasons: 
# While it is "neutral and accurate material", it is not sufficiently relevant. WP:NOT tells us: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information." The article in question is a biography; as such it properly discusses the contributions of the subject individual, in this case Freud's theories. It also properly summarizes the most significant criticisms of his theories (in the absence of a separate in-depth article on Freudian theories). It is not the place for all criticisms and comments on psychoanlysis or even all moderately significant ones worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Such intermediate material is more properly linked to other articles, such as psychoanalysis.
# There are thousands or possibly 10s of thousands of "neutral and accurate" things on the web related to Freud; we're not going to include them all. Do we want every online doctoral thesis attached to this article? No; that's not what an encyclopedia is or does. 
# What is being linked to is a search engine result, not specific material. The search engine is returning at least one article arguably worthy of linking to psychoanalysis, but it is also returning utterly irrelevant results, such as " How Scientific is Torah?, which contains no references to Freud and just one weakly tangentally related bullet point: Torah understands the human psyche as being multi-layered and multifaceted -- there isn't just one person inside. Welcome to modern psychology. Linking to search engine results violates WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #10
# Finally, just because a religion has a perspective on an issue is not a sufficient reason for Wikipedia to link to some treatise about it. We need not link to Amish screeds in the electricity and television articles, Mormon and Muslim tracts in the brandy, wine, bourbon, and chardonnay articles. If we go down that road, then the next thing that will happen is that we'll have the laws of countries and states and counties and the rules and scriptures of every creed and sect stuck into the alcohol article. 
When we edit in Wikipedia we establish limits and draw boundaries, and I'm firmly convinced that adding the chabad link to this article is across the line. studerby 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You made some good points about it being in the psychoanalysis article. I will move the relevant link to that article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chabad.org link

message: This, under "The unconscious", might make sense to someone, but not to me:
"Perhaps the most significant contribution Freud has made to to Mount Ayr Community was unconscious."
Please rewrite this so it is (a) in English and (b) does not reference "Mount Ayr Community" - whatever that is - without apparent relevance.  A suggested rewrite:
"Perhaps the most significant contribution Freud made to western culture was the concept of the unconscious."
yoyo 07:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A small nonsense

message: Someone just deleted a lot of text on instincts, without comment. Is it wrong? Why? If you cannot explain, then please put it back. Roger 16:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instincts

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Sigmund Freud]] 

message: I am the person who replaced a passage under the section "Psychosexual development" on 30 October 2006. It was removed within hours. (To back up the replacement paragraph I did link to a lengthy article from "History of Psychiatry", one which would have taken some time to examine with any closeness.) I would like to reinstate a revised version of what I wrote, this time following what is already present, to indicate there is a different view of events arrived at by numerous researchers who, unlike those who recycle the received story as told by Freud in his later career, have closely examined the original documents. To quote one of the most recent of these revised versions, Kurt Eissler writes (2001, p. 115) of Freud’s clinical methodology in the seduction theory period that its deficiencies "reduce the probability of gaining reliable data to zero". Close readings of letters and papers from that period indicate that patients did not report sexual abuse in early childhood as Freud later claimed; he arrived at his (preconceived) 'findings' by analytic inference, heavily dependent on the symbolic interpretation of patients' symptoms. Nor did Freud's claims involve the culpability of fathers. This innovation only came into his published accounts as late as 1925. 
The issue here is whether Wikipedia is to be a vehicle for the received story that held for most of the twentieth story, even though that story is based on Freud's inconsistent retrospective accounts of the episode that varied in accordance with the latest stage of his theorizing. Naturally, as a Freud researcher with several publications to my name, I think that Wikipedia articles should include recent, well-documented, research that challenges received opinion.
The most detailed presentations of the above conclusions are in the following articles:
Schimek, J. G. (1987), "Fact and fantasy in the seduction theory: a historical review." Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 35, 937-65.
Esterson, A. (1998), "Jeffrey Masson and Freud's seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths." History of the Human Sciences, 11 (1), 1-21:
http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm 
Esterson, A. (2001). "The mythologizing of psychoanalytic history: deception and self deception in Freud’s accounts of the seduction theory episode." History of Psychiatry, xii, pp. 329-352: http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm 
Several other authors have arrived at essentially the same conclusions in the following publications:
Cioffi, F. (1998 [1974]), "Was Freud a liar?", reprinted in Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience (Chicago and La Salle: Open Court, 1998), 199-204.
Schatzman, M. (1992), "Freud: who seduced whom?", New Scientist, 21, 34-7.
Israëls, H. and Schatzman, M. (1993), "The Seduction Theory", History of Psychiatry, iv, 23-59.
 
Esterson, A. (1993). Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud. (Chicago and La Salle: Open Court).
Scharnberg, M. (1993). The Non-Authentic Nature of Freud's Observations, Vol. 1, The Seduction Theory. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International).
 
Webster, R. (1995). Why Freud Was Wrong. (London: HarperCollins).
Eissler, K. R. (2001). Freud and the Seduction Theory. (New York: Int. Univ. Press).
Esterson 08:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a contentious discussion and I respect your research.  I have one main suggestion for now: it does not belong in the sections that provide a general exposition of Freud's work and thought.  To do so, while complying with NPOV (which would mean including defenses of Freud and alternate debates) would make this an similar sections overwrought.  I suggest that part of the article just explain the development of Freud's ideas through his published work, and then a separate section go over various debates over (including critiques of) different dimensions of his work.  Your research would be perfectly appropriate there. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can help you make section headings, but basically you use any number equal signs.  My suggestion: take note of the "table of contents" of the article.  Then, hit the button to edit the whole page - this will reveal all the codes, and you can see how the section heads that constitute the TOC are formatted (the TOC is automatically generated based on how people use those equal signs - where they put them and whether it is two, three, or four in a row).  You write "that I believe are documentably erroneous" and this reveals two big issues you need to work on.  first, review our NPOV policy carefully.  You cannot put your own POV in the article, and we need to identiy any and all views as just that, views.  Certainly, there is a major view that freud's clinical work is invalid - if you look a section or two above us in this talk page you will see I provided a number of citations (but not full references) on just this point.  Still, this remains one view.  Read our policy page on verifiability too: we care about verifiability, not truth.  It doesn't matter how strongly you believe this view to be true, what we care about is only whether it is a verifiable (see the policy) view or not.  And you surely know others disagree with you and hold opposing views.  In Wikipedia their views are valid too, as long as they are verifiable, and it is not our job to weigh the evidence or argue for or against any view.  Also, look at our No original research policy.  You are wise to provide all the citations you provided; I just want to emphasize that what you think just doesn't matter (what I think doesn't matter either).  I continue to feel strongly that debates over controversial issues belongs in a latter section.  it is enough to say that "Although Freud's claims were at the time, and continue to be, controversial (see (name the section) below), this section provides a summary of Freud's own account of his work..."  You communicate that this is Freud's point of view, and that others exist which are treated later in the article.  This should satisfy everyone and conform to our policies.  regarding Anna O. - you CANNOT post your own account of any travesty.  If someone else has written about this in a verifiable and reliable source you can include it.  Please consult our core policies.  Good luck, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychosexual development 

message: *Freud on Women: A Reader (editor) (Norton, 1992, ISBN 0-393-30870-7), written by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.4.143 (talk • contribs) 
:*I'm going to add this to Books about Freud and psychoanalysis. Sofeil 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you. Austerlitz 88.72.1.147 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud on women 

message: The referencing of this article seems a little non-traditional. Usually the "Notes" section and the "References" section are seperate, but it looks like they're mixed together in this article. I'm going to make a ==Notes== section and move the note there. Sofeil 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: Did this article never have an infobox for Freud, or did it get deleted? Robert K S 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it has (many biographical pages don't have infoboxes yet) but we should add one.  should we use a scientist infobox, a philosopher infobox or a generic biography infobox?Acornwithwings 03:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: Every other edit on here seems to be vandalism, so i'm going to put it on the list of requests for protection.  i hope that's ok. Acornwithwings 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have protected this from editing by unregistered or new users, others can still edit. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you! Acornwithwings 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Most German language sources that neglect IPA (which is most), say that the standard German "r"  is an alveolar approximant /ɹ/ just like the English "r", but this article says the "r" in Freud's name is an alveolar trill /r/, which would be a rolled r like in the Spanish perro. Both are wrong, the latter being farther from the truth. The standard German "r" in this position (not after a vowel) is an uvular approximant /ʁ̞/, uvular fricative /ʁ̝/, or uvular trill /ʀ/, /ʁ̞/ being the most standard and common, therefore the one that should be posted as the general pronunciation. So it should be [fʁ̞ɔit]. Oh, I just realized: the /ʏ/ is just absurd, that's an u-umlaut sound (ü)—no where near an "i" sound. I can understand the difficulty with the "r", but I can tell whoever put the IPA pronunciation here was thinking in English and not phonetics. I've corrected this obvious mistake. Legendsword 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mistaken: [ɔʏ] is the more accurate transcription of that diphthong - look at German language or German phonology. The offglide of that diphthong tends to be rounded in modern German, so it does in fact sound more like ü than i. "Whoever put the IPA pronunciation here" knew exactly what they were talking about. --Lazar Taxon 03:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German pronunciation of Freud 

message: Was surprised to see no mention of the very scholarly work of Frederick C. Crews and Richard Webster on this page.  Added quotes from, and references to, both. AD 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics: Crews and Webster 

message: I am surprised that the introduction leaves one with the impression that Freud is still highly regarded and that his legacy is generally regarded as positive. This is far from the case. I reckon the intro should give some indication that Freud and his theories are not now generally held in the esteem that they once were. I have added some wording to this effect. Ben Finn 10:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ben. There's an ample section detailing objections to Freud; it's unusual in an encyclopedia to leap into criticisms straight away. His work is moreover very highly regarded by many people; there's no possibility of representing a 'general' view of Freud's legacy in the opening paragraph, since he's a highly divisive figure. All significant modern thinkers cause controversy, so I'm not sure your addition adds anything. Ajcounter 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Changing title to Oedipus Tyrannus, not rex, since the former is the Greek name, whilst the latter is the name of later versions in Latin. Ste175 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophocles 

message: For them, there is not any more any doubt that Freud was well a charlatan, and a liar. All the psychoanalysis rests on untrue legends of a width without any precedent in the history of the ideas. But these legends around Freud and of his psychoanalysis (its private science), are particularly tough in France, where the misinformation and intellectual terrorism still make it possible these legends to maintain the psychoanalysis and the freudism in their statute of single thought and dominant ideology. Does this situation so typically French interest the Anglo-Saxon observers and the Anglo-Saxon participants of wikipedia ?
	
In addition, I noted that there was not, except error of my part, any reference to work of Jacques Bénesteau (author of In french : "Mensonges freudiens. Histoire d'une désinformation séculaire". Edition Mardaga, Sprimont, 2002) and Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen (in French : "Folies à plusieurs", and, with Sonu Shamdasanni, in French : "Le dossier Freud. Enquête sur l'histoire de la psychanalyse".)… --Darkbook 11:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only know Borch-Jacobsen but my reading of his work is that he admires Freud and does not think Freud a charlatan. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know the books of Borch-Jacobsen. I think it is quite impossible to say that he admires Freud and does not think he was a charlatan. All along his last book wroten with Shamdasani, he focuses on the fact that Freud was a liar, that he constantly cheated with his clinical data, and that he worked to built untrue legends on him and psychoanalysis. I can say to you that the judgement of Borch-Jacobsen on Freud is one of the most severe that i have ever read. (Excuse my english...)--Darkbook 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Freudian Subject is rather admiring. I will have to look for the book you mention. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "is it probable that Freud's entire 50 year career was in bad faith ?" Borch-Jacobsen & Sonu Shamdasani, make the overpowering demonstration of it, in their last book heading "Le dossier Freud. Enquête sur l'histoire de la psychanalyse". All along this book we have many informations, explanations, quotations and facts, that show, without any ambiguity, their opinion on Freud and its psychoanalysis. But Borch-Jacobsen was already severe in "Folies à plusieurs" in which he examines those questions : "was Freud a liar ?" Or : "how the freudian fable became a truth ?". As for is chapter on "neurotica, Freud and the seduction theory", makes sure that it's quite impossible to say, firstly, that Borch-Jacobsen "admires" (?) Freud, and secondly, that there is anybody or anything to prove about Freud's liars, charlatanism and untrue legends. On Freud's liars, charlatanism and untrue legends, we have now, in France, the book of Jacques Bénesteau, "Mensonges freudiens. Histoire d'une désinformation séculaire", Mardaga, Sprimont, 2002. Freud was a liar, and a charlatan. There are too much evidence now to deny it. I think that the problem is : "how to show this in wikipedia ?" --Darkbook 13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You write "Freud was a liar, and a charlatan. There are too much evidence now to deny it. I think that the problem is : "how to show this in wikipedia ?"" which suggests you do not understand Wikipedia policies.  We do not care about truth, only verifiability.  NPOV requires we include multiple points of view and ATT requires that these come from verifiable sources.  It is not up to any editor or group of editors to weigh evidence and pronounce the truth.  There are many views of Freud.  You are claiming to describe the views of a particular group of scholars.  Their views certainly ought to be included in the article, but as a particular point of view and not as the truth. (As to Borch Jacobsen, I guess then you have not read the freudian Subject.) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have "Le sujet Freudien" ("the freudian subject"). The "freudien subject", is the inconscious, "the other" ("l'autre") who is in each one of us and who acts according to his own rules. Borch-Jacobsen "admires" Freud not to have been a great scientist, but to have built a "great" myth : "the inconscious", that is to say, "the freudian subject". In the chapter "dramatis personae", Borch-Jacobsen explains the logical problem of inconscious (p. 15). I do not think it's possible to say that, in this book, Borch-Jacobsen "admires" Freud, as you said...I agree with neutrality requirements of wikipédia. But from Ellenberger to Jacques Bénesteau, and with Sulloway, Borch-Jacobsen, Crews, Webster, Cioffi, Esterson, Israëls, Debray-Ritzen, Politzer, Eysenck, Grünbaum, Stengers, etc., we know that psychoanalysis is entirely based on untrue legends which width is single in history of sciences. --Darkbook 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: !? Borch-Jacobsen shows that psychoanalysis (and Freud, of course) manufactures the facts. The clinical data. And he shows how Freud refuses to recognize this "method"... You should read "Le dossier Freud. Enquête sur l'histoire de la psychanalyse", and "Folies à plusieurs", also "Le livre noir de la psychanalyse". In the last book writen with Shamdasani, Borch-Jacobsen constantly shows how Freud manufactured his clinical data, how he built his untrue legends, and how he lied constantly (Béneteau, showed those facts, in his book, in a more severe way than Borch-Jacobsen). But it's also true that Borch-Jacobsen identifies psychonalysis as a positivist science. In "Le dossier Freud.", there is a chapter called "L'immaculée induction" ("immaculate induction"). The conclusion of his last book is that psychoanalysis is a "zero theory". --Darkbook 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bénesteau, Borch-Jacobsen , Van Rillaer, Wilcocks, Sulloway, ...

message: by Daniel Burston
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.22.59 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud, the Serpent and the Sexual Enlightenment of Children 

message: *"Burying Freud"
*"Jeffrey Masson and Freud's seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths"
*"The Faults and Frauds of Freud"
*"Freudian mythology"
*"Freud’s false memories. Psychoanalysis and the Recovered Memory Movement"
*"International Network of Freud Critics (INFC)."
*"Adolf Grünbaum. Writings on psychoanalysis"
*"Allen Esterson. Myths, Damned Myths, and Psychoanalytic Case Histories"
*"Frank J. Sulloway. Freud, Biologist of the Mind"
*"Jacques Bénesteau. Mensonges freudiens. Histoire d'une désinformation séculaire" 
--Darkbook 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Freud...

message: Surely the photo caption is wrong. Freud is seen mounting the steps of a Lufthansa flight. But Freud left Vienna by train on 4 June 1938 and travelled to London via Paris. Mick gold 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud's airplane? 

message: From a letter Freud allegedly wrote to Sandor Ferenczi after Freud's daughter's, Sophie's, death: "Since I am profoundly irreligious ... there is no one I can accuse."  Itayb 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud was not religious 

message: :However in recent decades several researchers have returned to the original documents and found that the received story, based on Freud's late retrospective account of the episode, is false in many aspects. In 1896 Freud posited that the symptoms of 'hysteria' and obsessional neurosis derived from unconscious memories of sexual abuse in infancy, and claimed that he had uncovered such incidents for every single one of his current patients (one third of whom were men). However a close reading of his papers and letters from this period indicates that these patients did not report early childhood sexual abuse as he later claimed: rather, he arrived at his findings by analytically inferring the supposed incidents, using a procedure that was heavily dependent on the symbolic interpretation of somatic symptoms. 
The first sentence does not go with the rest of the paragraph.  Freud positing that he had found these symptoms in every one of his pationts is not at all contradicted by the claim that some, most, or none of his patients reported sexual abuse. Freud was even clear about this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction in paragraph 

message: I have created categories  - one of people who influenced Freud, one of critics of Freud - which may be germane to this article. ACEOREVIVED 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After discussing the rationale for one of these categories with ACEOREVIVED on the category talk page for the critics category I have decided to nominate both categories for deletion. See notification templates at the top of this page. __meco 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: I am not sure why Freud's religion is marked as Judaism as he did not believe in it. Secondly I don't think it is appropriate to describe him as an Austrian-Jewish psychoanalyst as if that was somehow different to an Austrian one (I am not aware of any other reference work that describes people as Nationality-Jewish). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but that doesn't mean he practiced or believed in Judaism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, he did, but Judaism was marked as his religion in the infobox which I don't think is accurate. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: This article has a major omission in information on Freud's forebears and descendants. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: "Gay, 1988" is used twice as reference material in this article. Anyone know what this is referring to so the source information can be expanded? — Sam 21:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably referring to Peter Gay's Freud: A Life for Our Time (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988). --BorgQueen 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks for clearing that up. — Sam 02:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gay" reference