Jump to content

Talk:Sigmund Freud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWinner (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 25 October 2016 (→‎Removal of irrelevant reference to feminism in article summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Removal of irrelevant reference to feminism in article summary

I'm proposing the removal of the final clause in the first sentence of the third and final paragraph of the article summary. This clause "and whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause" sacrifices the article's neutral tone, and is not relevant in the preamble.

The offending sentence reads:

As such, it continues to generate extensive and highly contested debate with regard to its therapeutic efficacy, its scientific status, and whether it advances or is detrimental to the feminist cause.[10]

To Flyer22 Reborn and Bonadea: In what way does this enhance the article? Why single out Freud's single most renowned theoretical work, psychoanalysis, to be referenced with regards to a single, particular ideology? It's an arbitrary choice. Psychoanalysis has opposition on all sides of the table. Singling out how feminists may or may not approve of the theory is irrelevant. You could just as easily choose Marxism, Utilitarianism, other contemporary psychological thought, or any other equally arbitrary ideology that Freud isn't entirely commensurable with, to equal effect.

I propose replacing this clause with the edit that I made, and instead, linking "scientific status" to the page regarding the Demarcation critereon in philosophy of science, which is a much more appropriate page link, given that the demarcation problem, in which the scientific suitability of psychoanalysis is one of the historically more controversial aspects of, is of direct significance to current standing of Freud's reputation within the scientific community. This edit is arguably more balanced, and links the reader to the greater debate surrounding Freud in a neural manner. The demarcation critereon article is excellently written, and should expose curious readers to a broader perspective.

The material featured in the latter part of the article regarding feminism, is available for those that want it, but it does not belong as a final clause within the final paragraph. It is a noteworthy side feature, which is thoroughly (and expertly) documented and referenced in the article contents. Appropriately keeping this material in a dedicated section does not sacrifice neutrality, as it relegates coverage to an area of understood, explicit focus. But placing this reference in the summary prefaces the entire article as if psychoanalysis' inherent conflict with feminism were the main noteworthy aspect of the theory, which is simply untrue. It's noteworthy enough to dedicate an article section towards, yes. But it need not sacrifice neutrality of the entire article in the way that it currently does.

Passmic (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does belongs in the lead. It is summarizing an aspect of the Legacy section. Per WP:Lead, feminism should obviously be noted in the lead of the Sigmund Freud article. If you continue to WP:Edit war, I will report you. Editors are busy. We do not have to stop everything we are doing to debate you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, Wikipedia editors don't have to actually pose arguments, because they are busy.... Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? [| feminists] actively edit Wikipedia to fit their ideological narrative. There is a reference to Stalin's opposition to Freud earlier in the article. We don't see this referenced. You're biased, and this is compromises the neutral tone of the article. Go ahead and report me. Wikipedia is such a vile ideological cesspool with people like you, that there's no use in even trying anymore. Passmic (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like talking to socks, which is what you are. Furthermore, you don't understand the WP:Neutral policy. And pipelinking "scientific status" with Demarcation problem is wholly inappropriate. I will deal with you later. Whether Bonadea continues to challenge your edits or someone else does, it will not be remaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is linking to demarcation problem any more or less neutral that stating that issues persist regarding pscyhoanalysis' "scientific status". The two are SEMANTICALLY IDENTICAL. This is what the demarcation problem is. And that article, unlike this article, is neutrally written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passmic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether Bonadea continues to challenge your edits or someone else does, it will not be remaining."

- Seriously? You can't understand how this might just be a massive lapse in objectivity on your end? "It doesn't matter what you have to say. I will crush your edits." Really open-minded approach there Flyer22. Really what the community needs, or I guess, more of what it already has. You see, this is exactly what happens when you shut yourself off from opposing view points. You fundamentally lose the ability to engage in meaningful rhetoric. How can you not see how absurdly intolerant this is? Passmic (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I would just like to point out, that under the response that you have given, you've provided absolutely no means through which the neutrality of this article could even be questioned, or, more importantly, restored and improved upon where edits like these are needed. Again, there is nothing special about feminism with regards to Freud. No more so than the overwhelming body of Western thought since the mid-20th century (Marxism is a perfectly equivalent substitution.) The lead policy does not dictate that any and all controversies be addressed. Only the main ones. It's already a disservice dedicating the amount of content that currently is towards the subtopic in the first place. It's just disingenuous (or deluded) to say that, from a historically-relevant perspective, Feminism was somehow Psychoanalysis' grand antithesis. And there are plenty of article sections that are not referenced in the lead. Why feminism is singled out, is beyond me. Simply put, allowing the feminism clause to remain unfairly weights this section, and thus unnecessarily biases the entire article.


Lastly, I am curious as to how I would qualify as a sock. I'm doing this of my own accord. This is my account. I mentioned having a previous account, when I was in middle school. The concept of Wikipedia was fairly novel, and it was something that I was naturally drawn to. Obviously, having the linguistic faculties and world experience of a 13-14 year old, I didn't have much to contribute, the account went dormant, and so I have no idea what the login credentials of that old account were. I set up an account because I was doing research for an article, and after stumbling across a blatantly unnecessary lapse in style, I felt a need to volunteer my time to place a much-needed edit, because I'm uncomfortable with a demonstrably ideologically driven minority of American academia getting college credit for systematically ruining what was once a great knowledge source of my youth (you didn't use to have to apply a filter to sensitive issues back in the day when you read Wikipedia articles. You could generally trust that the community would rigorously fight for neutrality, regardless of what the content was, and even if bias existed, it would get taken down). There's only so much of the identity politics-driven descent into rhetorical ruin that's happening within the anglosphere that you can really take before you feel that it's no longer acceptable. Anyway, I feel I've said my peace. Wikipedia is not something I wish to dedicate any more of my time towards. I sincerely appreciate your time, and am sorry that we had the disagreements that we did. Enjoy the spoils of your creation.Passmic (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Passmic, putting the sock stuff aside (I don't need another sock case right now), and reminding myself to cut the rudeness out (real-life issues can sometimes lead me to be snippy), why do you think the feminism stuff shouldn't be in the lead? There is an entire section about feminism in the article. Do you think the feminism aspect should be anywhere in the lead? Any compromise you can agree to? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is clearly unproductive. I agree that trying to remove the mention of feminism from the lead does not improve the article, and that the material Passmic is trying to remove does meet the test of due weight. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize for losing my composure as well. You never stated explicit ideological preference, and I wasn't warranted in criticizing you directly on those grounds. But the immediate, unreasoned censorship that I was met with didn't help either. I honestly didn't think I was doing anything wrong, as that's not how the the edit-culture was back when I first started using Wikipedia several years ago. And with regards to my slip in composure, if you've been keeping up with US news, the American campus has truly become one of the most unhealthy of rhetorical environments right now, and it's an immensely frustrating situation to be in as a student. Honestly, the edit I proposed is a compromise. A cursory glance of the feminism section shows that this section is heavily directed. It claims "The decline in Freud's reputation has been attributed partly to the revival of feminism." By a small minority of feminist-scholars perhaps,, but as a general consensus, this is just not true. Freud's reputation sank because he was popularly-known to have endorsed cocaine at a time before its effects were understood, and because of the general ad-hoc nature of his theoretical framework, which led many to question its fundamental scientific value. Many feminists in academia are full, 100% pro-Freud. Particularly those in the arts. I just had to do a paper over the "psychoanalytics" of the famous Marlene Dietrich pose from Der Blaue Engel, which argued that the pose was so popular because Marlene Dietrich crossing her legs creates a momentary castration anxiety that our brains seek to resolve (because we can't see if she has a penis or not, and apparently, we just need to know...). Freud is immensely popular with the postmodernism crowd, which abounds in academia throughout the arts and humanities, or rather at least within a majority of who label themselves as feminists (this is the talk page, so I assume antecdotal evicdence is fair game here.) So to say (or at least strongly imply by virtue of its prominence in the article) that the downfall in popular opinion of Freud is largely due to feminism is just patently untrue. And so, as I've said several times now, to put such an emphasis in the lead is particularly unacceptable. I think it's unacceptable in the section format. But, again, it's best to keep the information available to those that want it. It's isolated to a section that most people from personal experience will understand to likely contain bias. But people seeing it in the lead will not generally have that luxury. Again, the official lead policy does not sufficiently require that this be in the lead. And I believe that the article's need for neutrality would trump an unwieldy interpretation of the lead policy any day of the week.
While I believe the material is biased and that it should be heavily revised, I don't believe there exists any conflict with taking the feminism reference out of the lead, but leaving the article. Information is always a good thing. And most people already know what they're getting when they read it.
Wikipedia pages like: [1] explain where I'm coming from rather nicely. This is actively happening. Left-leaning identity-politics groups are the only ones with enough of an organizational basis to readily and persistently "Storm Wikipedia" as they call it when they receive college credit for this. I would assume that the feminist touches on this article are a result of this work. I'm fine with having the feminism section as it is. More information is always a great thing, and most people that seek out that information are already pretty far down the ideological rabbit hole. But it just doesn't belong in any way, shape, or form, in the lead. Heck, the lead is all most people ever read. Freud deserves better than this. (I don't entirely dislike Freud, just to be clear. He was a profoundly important figure and has forever shaped psychology, arguably for the better. But the feminist phrasing just seems straight out of left field.) Passmic (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the admin, due weight would be leaving the feminist section in the article as it is, not leaving the clause I'm proposing removing in the lead. I think it's abundantly clear how this a win-win compromise. To my detractors, I just have to ask, Why should it remain? As far as referencing the feminist article, I believe this is unfair, as the lead doesn't do service to any of the other ideologies that Freud is an odds with. Due weight means you either equally give all some footing, or equally give all no footing, weighted by prominence. So, in my view, it comes down to either removing the feminist clause, or adding in the others. Which do you guys view as more preferable? Because if you really want to rebalance this thing in terms of Freud's criticisms, feminism is overrepresented here. Passmic (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Passmic, ideally (per the WP:Lead guideline), the lead should briefly summarize the most significant parts of an article; this means the sections (at least the most significant ones if the article is too long). Furthermore, as the guideline notes, many people only read the lead. The Freud and feminism thing is pretty big. When I read sources on Freud, the feminism stuff is commonly brought up in the sources. You stated, "So to say (or at least strongly imply by virtue of its prominence in the article) that the downfall in popular opinion of Freud is largely due to feminism is just patently untrue." Do you have any WP:Reliable sources to support you on that? FreeKnowledgeCreator is not an admin, but as for due weight, the WP:Due weight policy does not mean "you either equally give all some footing, or equally give all no footing." It means we give more weight to the majority viewpoints and the minority viewpoints get less weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a goofy sidenote, when you stated "Freud deserves better than this", it reminded me of "Lexa deserved better" (it's a saying about a fictional character, but the phrasing "[so and so] deserved better" has since been used for a lot of different things, like a meme). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the meme reference. I believe that it was clear that I addressed the majority-minority weighting. I explicitly stated this in the final clause in which I cited Due Weight. The undue weighting is exactly what I'm criticizing. That feminist critique is being over-represented here. While the feminist perspective is abundant, and non-negligible, the majority of Freud's ideological conflicts are centered elsewhere. Feminism comes up repeatedly, but again, it's a minority of the criticism again Freud. Just because something comes up often, doesn't mean it holds a majority weighting. Other criticisms come up even more often. It depends on how much other criticisms are brought up as well. And people are constantly criticizing Freud. There being an ample body of feminist criticism does not, a priori, imply a majority. Other criticisms come up far more frequently. People have been criticizing Freud's work long before third-wave feminism ever hit the scene. And Freud does deserve better. Any prolific figure in science does. What in all fairness hasn't become meme-like in nature? If we find a concept we like, we proliferate it. It's all been done under the sun.
As far a citing proof, formal proof for weighting will require undue statistical analysis, and would require access to article metadata and comprehensive database access that any of us would be hard pressed to find or process even if available to us. Is it not enough to appeal to your common rationality, that from your anecdotal experience, that the overwhelming bulk of criticism agin Freud, from an ideological perspective, has been non-Feminist? If you're well versed in feminism, Freud probably comes up pretty often (for the reasons I stated earlier, Freud is very appealing to lay people) and it would be easy to make the mistake of thinking that feminism poses an unduly significant/weighted criticism of Freud. It does not. Even when approaching the subject from an ideological perspective, other radical-leaning ideologies have criticized him more heavily. And while I respect that you feel that feminism has this relationship with Freud, I can't help but feel that any cursory glance into the academic body of material regarding this subject would lead any reasonable person to find that feminism is over represented in this article with regards to applicability to Freud.
As I said earlier, I hate getting rid of information. The feminist article should stay. But the feminist clause in the lead must be removed to preserve due weight and the neutrality of the article. As you said, and as I have already said, people generally only read the article lead. This is why I'm making a fuss. Passmic (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think you're exerting a huge effort over a minor issue. The feminism issue is of key importance, and there is nothing one could nominate to replace the mention of feminism in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Passmic; the reference to feminism alone is inappropriate. It seems to be setting up a dipole of "Freud <===> Feminism" as a primary way to view Freud's ideology. That is a minority view. NuclearWinner (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation redux

I just wanted to point out that James Joyce's pun here seems to imply a pronunciation /fraɪd/ (like fried) or /fraɪt/ (like fright), which could be a traditional, obsolete one, although it's also possible he intended a pronunciation like /frɔɪdənd/. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be that he was also making a joke about German pronunciation and hoping that the initial use of "yung" would help the reader hear the pun? Joyce's puns are often very far from close, in fact often obscure. Here's a short discussion about Joyce and psychoanalysis in the context of Lacan: [2] from Dublin-born writer and scholar Patrick Healy (who in 1992 read the entire novel for an audio book). I've adjusted the wording over at Word play to make it clear the quote comes from the novel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A German pronunciation (I understand you mean a German-accented pronunciation of "young and easily frightened"?) wouldn't result in /jʊŋ/ and /frɔɪdənd/, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from Dublin. And I wasn't trying to make a clever stream-of-unconciousness linguistic joke, of course. If you have another source for that "traditional, obsolete" pronunciation, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, I don't. I was only speculating on the basis of this pun I encountered. Maybe Joyce's puns aren't very informative in this respect. However, I think that puns can be sources on pronunciations (and are used as such by linguists); for example, I've seen enough puns that rely on an apparent homonymy of Bach with back that I've concluded that a lot of people (who may or may not know how to pronounce German) must really pronounce Bach as /bæk/ (in an English context), rather than, say, /bɑːk/. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You say tomato..." [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Freud is pronounced as "FROYDT" in English (too lazy to look up the proper phonetic symbols. I speak near-fluent German. His name is colloquial adaptation of "Freude", which means joy. A terminal d in German gets a "t" sound. so Bad (bath) is "Baht." --(talk) 07:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, to what the experts are "the Blaschke/ Joyce" hypothesis now calling, you are your eminent support lending, no?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm couldn't parse that. All I know, is that I speak German, and that I repeatedly hear Freud's name pronounced incorrectly. And while it was being discussed, I might as well clear the air. What exactly did you mean? Passmic (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the faux Denglisch. As usual, I was being facetious. All I mean is - do you agree with the original poster? Thanks for clarifying the German pronunciation. As the article says, the English pronunciation is /ˈfrɔɪd/. But I'm still not sure about Rathgar. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sigmund_Freud&oldid=746188591"