Talk:Frederick Crews

message: According to the publication information page of my 2003 edition copy of the Pooh Perplex, it was first published in '63 by E.P. Dutton & Co. The ISBN I have given was on the back of the 2003 edition,  though, so might be incorrect. Edward Wakelin 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of "Pooh Perplex" publication, ISBN # 

message: The article currently reads, 'It is likely that Crews will eventually be best remembered for this playfully witty book [ie, the Pooh Perplex].' This is speculation that does not belong in the article, and I am going to remove it.Skoojal (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted speculation 

message: I note that the article has recently been reduced to a stub. I do not necessarily think that this was a mistake, although much of the material described as 'opinion and speculation' seems clearly correct to me. That, for instance, 'Crews achieved fame in the popular press because of a controversy over his two essays critiquing Freud, Freudian theory and the recovered memory movement' seems clearly correct, even though there was no reference. One part of what was removed - a mention of the publication of Crews's articles about the recovered memory movement in The New York Review of Books and their subsequent publication as a book - was simply a neutral statement of fact. So I wonder why that had to be removed. Skoojal (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Clearly correct" isn't the standard of inclusion, verifiability is, especially in biographies.  There's no reason any proper information couldn't be replaced with sources. Shell babelfish 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does proper information include mention of criticisms Crews has made of other people? I have in mind specifically Crews's suggestion that Judith Butler interpreted one of his remarks as homophobic. Can this be mentioned in the article, and if so under what conditions? Skoojal (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as what you want to include was reported by a reliable secondary source and you add it in an appropriate weight (for instance, if you write five paragraphs on the incident, it would be out of proportion since the entire article isn't that large) it shouldn't be a problem at all.  If you haven't taken a look at the policy on biographies for living people, it wouldn't hurt to read it over. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 08:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubbification of the article 

message: Someone recently restored the article to the way it was before it was stubbified. It should be pointed out that, while much of the material in the article does indeed have a source, it also contains an inaccuracy: it suggests that Judith Butler used the word 'homophobic' to describe Crews. This did not happen. Butler said some things about Crews that he interpreted as an accusation of homophobia, but she did not use the word 'homophobic.' Those who want to see what Butler actually said can find it in Whose Freud?, by Peter Brooks and Alex Woloch. Skoojal (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. Go ahead and correct it. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure why you would suggest that I correct the article. It was you, not me, who re-inserted this material. The fact that I was aware that it wasn't 100% accurate was one of the reasons why I didn't re-insert it myself. Surely it is at least as much your responsibility to correct the article as it is mine? Skoojal (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, I suppose I really can't let the article remain the way it was, so I have corrected it. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: No, Xxanthippe, don't delete it. Other sources can be provided if necessary, and this is not trivial. Skoojal (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have temporarily removed the exchange between Butler and Crews. This will eventually be restored with the proper source, the book by Brooks and Woloch. Skoojal (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-Stubbification of the article 

message: I have deleted the following passage from the article: 'especially in its decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual'. I have done this because I think the article is quite damning enough without it - there is no need to spell out the obvious. Skoojal (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I made a recent change 

message: Xxanthippe, I have undone your recent edit to the article on Frederick Crews. If you are going to undo my edits, you might at least be sure to get your facts right - Slate Magazine is not a "blog." Skoojal (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment was placed on my talk page. I put it here where it belongs. The entry about Crews that I excised is abusive, defamatory and inconsistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, to quote: "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The entry is removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I won't immediately undo your edit, I think that was a mistake. Try looking at what other controversial writers have in their criticism sections (Camille Paglia is someone who comes to mind). The criticism does tend to be robust. If someone writes that someone else gives every indication of being a maniac in apparent seriousness, then it should be fine to mention this. The quote from the BLP policy does not appear to be relevant, because it seems to concern only how other people's comments can be reported and not what kinds of comments can be reported. My reporting of Sullivan's comment was written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. As for Wikipedia's blocking policy, you do not appear to be an administrator, so I am not sure why you are mentioning this. It looks arrogant and bullying. Skoojal (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frederick Crews 

message: This is an explanation for the  that was added to this article.  Due to Skoojal's admission of bias in regard to this subject site policy demands the article be tagged with  to warn readers that there may be a problem with the article's accuracy.
Having only reviewed it quickly I've removed some quotes and some criticisms in accordance with WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP.  Further examination of this page is necessary it is still a coat-rack and may, in fact, need to be stubbified--Cailil  talk 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not surprise me. I've been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time, and I'm not in the least bothered. What wikipedia does to this article may prove something about wikipedia, but it can't save Crews. Nothing can. Skoojal (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a little puzzled. What statements presently in the article do you think violate BLP? DGG (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. The note at the top of the article says, 'This biography of a living person may contain unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial claims.' Well does it or doesn't it? If it does, remove those claims, and the note with them. If not, just remove the note. Skoojal (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed tag 

message: I have restructured the article and pruned trivia in an attempt to make the article more balanced and NPOV. I have not found it necessary to retain a blow-by-blow account of decade-old controversies. The article contains direct quotes from Crews. The accuracy of these quotes needs to be verified. From the point of view of balance the article may need attention from editors more familiar with Crew's work than I or previous editors. I would like to see a more substantial treatment of Crews' literary criticism, for example "Postmodern Pooh", rather than what seems to be an overblown concentration on psychiatry. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to undo your edits, since I'm in sin bin at the moment, but some of them seem clearly mistaken to me. For example, there is absolutely no point in saying that writers more supportive of Freud have criticised Crews, and then citing the book by Brooks and Woloch. Just that reference, without a quote, gives readers no idea at all what the basis of the criticism is. Moreover, the general point that writers supportive of Freud have criticised Crews can be made without mentioning that book, so it's ridiculous as it stands. Skoojal (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: A couple of other things. Does the main section of the article really have to be called, 'Publications, work, research and criticism.' Wouldn't something a bit more concise be better? Also, the material in this section is not arranged properly by chronology; the publication of The Critics Bear It Away, in 1992, should come before the publication of Crews's articles about the recovered memory issue in The New York Review of Books, not after. Skoojal (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure

message: I've been away from this page for a while, and it is strange to come back to it and find almost all the information of Crews' major published controversial works reduced to a  sentence or two. This can be seen rather frequently in pages where strong and unwarranted POV  has been expressed--in the discussions that follow, the material on one side or the other is removed by various parties, until almost nothing is left. In this case, inappropriate negative criticism has been removed, but essentially none of the wide range of critical material supporting as well as attacking his views have been added.  Time to start, with a neutral POV spirit, readding appropriate sourced material. There should be full references at least to the major critics. and an explanation of what he actually said in his major works.  DGG (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The History tells the story. This BLP had to be protected from an editor who was making abusive and defamatory comments about its subject. Removal of this material does indeed leave the article sparse but at least basically NPOV. I join DGG in hoping for improvements. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: missing material

message: [Comment moved from user talk by Xxanthipppe]: What the heck was going through your mind when you removed a talk page comment of mine from the Crews article?! It's both absurd and rather disrespectful of other editors (i.e. me).  The comment I made about Crews (alleged) homophobia was no different in that respect from multiple other comments in the discussion; but even if it were new, it was conditioned as my opinion (and in talk space not article space).  Moreover, by removing the antecedent sentence, it makes the remainder of my comment nonsensical.  Don't do this! LotLE×talk 23:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have transferred the above from my talk page to this page where it belongs. In the jurisdiction in which I live the only defence against a claim of defamation is proof of truth. For example, if a person were to publish the statement "I think X is homophobic, a paedophile, a necrophiliac and a Neo-Nazi, but that's just my personal belief." they would be required to prove the truth of each of their statements to be immune from damages in court. Defamation law is a complex matter: it best left to lawyers and it is best to avoid even the appearance of defamation. LotLE shouild not find it hard to rewrite his comment in a more neutral form. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, WP servers are located in Florida, USA, not in whatever jurisdiction you reside in.  If you have some actual defamation concern, bring it up with WP's existing legal committee for BLP issues, they can act if there is some actual need.  However, I think this supposed concern is really nothing more than an asnine attempt to flamebait other editors; it's hard to imagine how anyone could seriously imagine such a concern existed from comments made on this talk page.  Hint: I know far, far more about these issues, including WP's history with it, than you do... cutting out the crap deletions are the right thing to do here.  But failing that, see WP:BLP for correct procedures. LotLE×talk 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We often include attributed opinions in Wikipedia articles, especially if they are from notable sources. It is not false to say that "Joe Schmo has written that Sally Smith sings off key" if Schmo has written that. Whether Smith actually sings off key is a separate matter. We have no way of knowing whether or not the subject of this article is actually homophobic. We do know whether or not people have said that. If it's a significant point of view it should be included, per WP:NPOV.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw. to Will Beback or other editors.  This little tempest of deletion by Xxanthippe isn't even about anything in article space.  At the urging of another editor here, I added an opinion above recently.  You can read that earlier thing, but basically I wrote that I think Crews is (somewhat) homophobic, but that fact does not ascend to notability for the article.  For no apparent reason, Xxanthipe decided that s/he needed to delete my comments in a stupendous failure of WP:AGF... the mild irony is that I basically agree with her/him that the homophobia thing isn't worth discussing in the article. LotLE×talk 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be acceptable to some people to quote opinions of notable secondary sources about living persons, even though the opinions could be considered to be offensive. I try not to do this myself. What was being done in this case is that an editor was quoting opinions of his own, quite a different matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF?! 

message: WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: User:WLU evidently prefers that this article state that Crews rejected "Freud's work" in the early 1980s. This is a misleading and unfortunate way of putting things - Crews rejected psychoanalysis, which, as we all know, includes much more than only Freud's work. The language prefered by WLU doesn't correspond to the language Crews himself used; Crews didn't use the expression "Freud's work." Crews writes in Skeptical Engagements about Analysis Terminable, in which he announced his change of view, "I wrote this essay in 1980 to explain the grounds of my disaffection from psychoanalysis." And indeed, the essay does just that. It isn't only about Freud, as WLU is suggesting. WLU used the edit summary, 'rejected Freud's work in totality, which includes more than just therapy but also developmental theory, etc', which seems to suggest that he thinks "psychoanalysis" refers only to therapy, which is incorrect. The term psychoanalysis refers to both a therapy and a developmental theory. Henry James Fan (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: .  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That website may not count as a reliable source. Even if it does, the article you link to is irrelevant and does not, in any obvious way, support your preferred version of the lead, which contradicts what anyone can see from reading Crews's work from Analysis Terminable onward, and indeed contradicts what he explicitly says about his own work. Just to state the obvious, Analysis Terminable didn't criticise and reject only Freud - it criticised psychoanalysis in general, including (for instance) the work of Heniz Kohut. If you must have a source for what is in the lead, then Skeptical Engagements will do, since Crews states in no uncertain way there that he rejected psychoanalysis in general and not only Freud. Henry James Fan (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times Literary Supplement doesn't count as a reliable source?  Crews rejects psychoanalysis and it's myriad theoretical underpinnings.  Whether that's rejecting Freud, Freud's work, or just psychoanalysis is hairsplitting as far as I'm concerned, and so long as his attacks on Freud's ethics and research are also mentioned, I'll consider it settled.  Books get italics, essays and chapters within a book do not.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  Note that I have undone your change to the page - the interview was not removed, I created a new EL section called ===Interviews===, added a second interview I found online, and harmonzied the appearance of both.  It is now Interview with Whoever hosted the interview.  Nothing was removed, only reformatted.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crews rejected psychoanalysis 

message: Please change "Bibliography" to "Works" - properly speaking, the list of Crews' books is not a bibliography, which is a list of sources used in a book or article.
203.118.185.245 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bibliography can also mean "A list of the books of a particular author, printer, or country, or of those dealing with any particular theme; the literature of a subject" (oed). Doesn't seem particularly necessary to change it. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 07:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 203.118.185.245, 18 September 2011 

message: The link for ref#2 to Crew's Emeritus page at Berkeley is old and needs to be updated to <http://english.berkeley.edu/profiles/87>.Kvadla (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating broken links 

message: My recent edit to this article was reverted by Xxanthippe with the comment, "Which Wikipedia policy do you cite for this edit?" I could ask Xxanthippe the same thing, as he did not cite any Wikipedia policy for his edit. Remember that a fundamental principle of links is that when people click on them, they should know where they are going. When someone clicks on a link in Wikipedia, it's almost always to a Wikipedia article or a disambiguation page, not to an off-site resource such as Google Books. Is there any reason why three links at this article - links to The Foundations of Psychoanalysis, Freud, Biologist of the Mind, and Freud Evaluated - should be exceptions? Based on how links normally work on Wikipedia, people will expect those links to go to the Wikipedia articles about those books, not to Google Books, a different website entirely. Note that there is a link to The Discovery of the Unconscious in this article and it leads to the article on the book. There is absolutely no logical reason why that article should connect to the relevant book while other links on books should not. For one link for a book to go to the article and for others not to is confusing, to say the least. I respectfully suggest Xxanthippe self-revert.
(I should not really have to cite a policy, as my edit was a common-sense improvement, but WP:EL clearly supports the principle that links to other websites belong in the external links section: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." The very reason we have an "external links" section is that links to other websites do not belong in the main text of an article). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct FKC - I've reverted Xxanthippe. WP:EL is quite clear about this--Cailil  talk 19:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this proper approach to the WP:BRD cycle. My thinking was based on policy WP:Circular "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources." Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the change discussed above had nothing to do with using Wikipedia articles as sources. That was never the objective of the edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: This edit is very harmful and needs reverting. Note that the edit summary (" But there was no "wave of false accusations. . . " One of the co-founders of the FMSF was forced to resign because of his advocacy for pedophiles.") states personal opinion as fact and gives a completely illogical rationale for removing well-cited information. Does it show that there "was no wave of false accusations" because one of the co-founders of the FMSF was forced to resign? No.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.243.96.25 (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad editing by Sturunner 

message: Xxanthippe, I do not understand the purpose of this edit. To me, it seems that bullet point lists are normally undesirable, as they have no generally accepted place in writing. They are certainly unnecessary in this case. What purpose can it possibly serve to list Crews's contributions in the New York Review of Books with bullet points when they can instead be summarized in normal prose - which is what one usually expects to find in an encyclopedia? You asked me how my change was an improvement; I could equally well ask why you see the current version as better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for responding to WP:BRD. An explanation is helpful for changes to a mature article on an important topic that has been much vandalized in the past. To be candid, I can't see much improvement over the previous version. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just given you an explanation, Xxanthippe. You have rejected it without argument. To be candid, that is not an acceptable response. Please reconsider your approach. You should give a reason for your views: why is the article better with the bullet points than without? Perhaps you believe that because the article is "mature" it cannot be further improved and making further changes is pointless? If that is your position (please do clarify) then it is unfortunate and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Opposing change for the sake of opposing change is neither constructive nor appropriate. Your position would be slightly more comprehensible (although still misguided) if this were an A-quality article, but as may know it is only B-quality. So further improvement is needed, and I think removing the bullet points helps. You do not seem to have considered, for instance, that if someone wanted to discuss Crews's reviews in slightly more detail, that would be easier if his views are not summarized using bullet points. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Frederick Crews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090531230939/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/health/jan-june99/freud.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june99/freud.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frederick Crews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925212504/http://www.csmmh.org/fellows.html to http://www.csmmh.org/fellows.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221073837/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/health/jan-june99/freud_crews.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june99/freud_crews.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frederick Crews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201183908/http://www.cis.vt.edu/modernworld/d/Freudeval.html to http://www.cis.vt.edu/modernworld/d/Freudeval.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june99/freud_crews.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Frederick Crews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316093958/http://www.pen.org/page.php/prmID/907 to http://www.pen.org/page.php/prmID/907
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603234203/http://www.gf.org/fellows/all?index=c&page=20 to http://www.gf.org/fellows/all?index=c&page=20
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213005910/http://teaching.berkeley.edu/goodteachers/crews.html to http://teaching.berkeley.edu/goodteachers/crews.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the first paragraph under the heading "Literary criticism," I would like to change the comma after "(1904)" to a period and delete the rest of the sentence, which reads, "analyzing the function and tensions within a system of manners, the interaction between an individual's ethics and their reflection within the values of a community.[12][14]."
My problem is that, when I delete it, a problem with another footnote arises. The problem, which I see when I click "Show preview," is in fn.16, concerning Kreisler, even though the footnote containing Kreisler is #3.  In fn.16, I get the message: "Cite warning:  tag with name Kreisler 1999 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all."
I don't know what that means. This problem occurred even when, as an experiment, I deleted the text after "(1904)" but retained footnotes 12 and 14. I don't need to understand what is going on; I would just be grateful if someone would make the change I describe in the first paragraph of this comment. Thank you.Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can make the change but I don't understand your reason for wanting the rest of the sentence to be deleted. I can, however, tell you that the message you are viewing is a warning but not an error (in this instance). Because you're only editing a section of the page, and "Kreisler 1999" is mentioned but not defined in that section, the preview can't tell whether that reference is defined in another section of the article (causing no problem) or isn't defined in the rest of the article (causing a reference error). In this case it's the former and so the warning can be safely ignored. The warning is just there for you to compare against any changes you have made which could have caused an error, but in this case your change is unrelated to the warning. — Bilorv (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

text: To be clear: you can either make the change yourself, now knowing that the warning is not an issue, or explain to me the reason why the rest of the sentence should be deleted and I will make the change myself if I agree. — Bilorv (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting something