Jump to content

Talk:Sigmund Freud: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Working on the lede, kindly do not undo and discuss here first
Line 72: Line 72:
:::{{ping|Martinevans123}} {{ping|FreeKnowledgeCreator}} I've been trying to get discussion going about the (lack of) consensus surrounding the use of [[Template:Google Doodle]], and just nominated it for deletion at [[WP:TfD]]. Anyone interested in chiming in should head over there to give your opinion. [[Special:Contributions/2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9|2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9]] ([[User talk:2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9|talk]]) 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Martinevans123}} {{ping|FreeKnowledgeCreator}} I've been trying to get discussion going about the (lack of) consensus surrounding the use of [[Template:Google Doodle]], and just nominated it for deletion at [[WP:TfD]]. Anyone interested in chiming in should head over there to give your opinion. [[Special:Contributions/2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9|2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9]] ([[User talk:2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9|talk]]) 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Well, it certainly [[Bertha Pappenheim|tested my patience]] here. I thought Google used to typically link to our articles? What happened here? Do you see any doodle? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 22:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Well, it certainly [[Bertha Pappenheim|tested my patience]] here. I thought Google used to typically link to our articles? What happened here? Do you see any doodle? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 22:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

==Working on the lede, kindly do not undo==
Martinevans123, the deletion was intentional. I am restoring a mention of notable controversies in the lede per wiki guidelines. As I continue my edits. I will restore any deleted material to the extent it is encyclopedic and reflects NPOV.

Revision as of 20:50, 21 May 2016

Template:Vital article


Why have all of Freud's influences been removed from his Wiki page?

I always thought it was interesting to note his influences like Dostoyevsky, Plato, Schopenhauer, etc. Why have they been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.118.128 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See "RFC: Should the Freud infobox have "influences/influenced" parameters at all?" in Archive 11. Martinevans123 (talk)
It's worth revisiting this issue. Without rehearsing the entire debate again it should be noted that whilst there were differences between editors as to the content of the paramaters influences/influenced the proposal to remove them from the article infobox came from an admin person who referenced a decision made on the the InfoBox Project Page to remove these parameters from the INFOBOX PERSON template and then intiated an RfC where unsurprisingly there was support to remove the content from other admins and editors with no history of involvement on the Freud article but who had been active on the InfoBox Project Page.
If the assumption was that changing the general Infobox Person template thus would lead to articles with other person templates following suit then this has evidently not been the case - there have been few if any attempts to remove the influences/influenced parameters from articles on figures in the history of ideas similar in stature to Freud. Consequently the Freud article, which has the Template:infobox scientist is now inconsistent with other comparable articles (Marx, Derrida, Foucault, Weber, etc) and, anomalously so, with other articles on major psychoanalysts/psychologists (Jung, Ferenczi, Klein, etc).
In restoring the content I have addressed the concerns expressed about the potential length of the influenced listings by using links to the appropriate categories (cf the Marx article). I have rechecked the influences listings and reduced them to those mentioned in the Gay biography.Almanacer (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Siegmund Freud called neurologist?!

Whare you supporting destruction of Wikipedia. Freud was not neurologist. There was no neurology in 1930s. Cutesolar (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, the third edition of The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, page 286. Freud is described as a "Viennese neurologist". Wikipedia describes Freud as a neurologist because that is what reliable sources support. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapy section

The psychotherapy section states that, "Though there have been predictions of a progressive decline in support for psychodynamic therapies, there is a body of research findings which support their efficacy in treating a wide range of psychological disorders." I do not believe that sentence is acceptable as written. It implies that the existence of research findings supportive of psychodynamic therapies means that there will not be a progressive decline in support for them, which falls afoul of WP:SYNTH. Whether there will be a decline in support for psychodynamic therapies does not necessarily depend on whether there is actually evidence to support them; therapies can of course continue to be influential and popular even if not supported by evidence, or fall out of favor even if there is evidence they are effective. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing the first sentence entirely and relocating the second sentence to the first para. Citing a prediction made in 16 years ago is outdated content for an online encyclopaedia. Indeed it is doubtful that any predictions in this area is worthwhile content. Almanacer (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FKC, I think you might find a sentence like that in any number of UK broadsheets, but yes it is a bit journalistic. And your logical linguistic decomposition shows that it's a fallacy, or at best a non sequitur. So it should be replaced. Almanacer's proposal looks quite sensible. But I'd like to see some more up-to-date analysis of any movement, up or down, in the support for psychodynamic therapies. There ought to be something useful at psychotherapy, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to removing "Though there have been predictions of a progressive decline in support for psychodynamic therapies". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

160th anniversary Google Doodle

Surprising to see that Google Doodle template at the top of the article. But I'm not getting any "doodling" here in UK? Are you? All I get was a very subtle link to "Explore the life and work of Sigmund Freud", although I must say that the Freud Museum London slideshow it leads to is quite elegant and informative. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more than simply "surprising" - it's absolutely un-encyclopedic content, and should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really unsure how it warrants mention in that form. Do you think the link to the Museum slide-show deserves inclusion at External links? I don't think it adds much to the content of the article, but some people might find it interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: I've been trying to get discussion going about the (lack of) consensus surrounding the use of Template:Google Doodle, and just nominated it for deletion at WP:TfD. Anyone interested in chiming in should head over there to give your opinion. 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it certainly tested my patience here. I thought Google used to typically link to our articles? What happened here? Do you see any doodle? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the lede, kindly do not undo

Martinevans123, the deletion was intentional. I am restoring a mention of notable controversies in the lede per wiki guidelines. As I continue my edits. I will restore any deleted material to the extent it is encyclopedic and reflects NPOV.