Talk:Sigmund Freud

Copyright violation in Life and Death Instincts section

I've removed the cut and paste from https://gettingpastyourpast.wordpress.com/mourning-theory in the Life and Death Drives section. As explained here I don't see a rewrite as necessary as the content was off-topic in the first place. Would be useful elsewhere in the article. Almanacer (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC

Criticism

Freud has been very robustly criticised and his work has been rejected in part or in whole by modern psychology. You get no sense of that from reading this page which is extremely long and fairly hagiographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebefl (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What you're describing is primarily on the Psychoanalysis page, but I agree that there isn't enough here since his legacy is so controversial. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Article length

Granted the article is pushing the limit of normal size guidelines as per WP:LENGTH but given the vast literature and cited research on Freud it seems to me exceptional length is justified. Many of the topics in the article already have their own article pages so in this respect a sub-division of content on Freud and his work already exists. There are ample subheadings in the article to aid navigation as advised in the guidelines. Almanacer (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I co-sign on Almanacer's remark about the article-length--it seems entirely justified ThomasMikael (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment that there's a lot to talk about Fraud, I don't think that the article's length is justified. With an average reading speed of 230 wpm (source), it would take a full 66 minutes to read the whole article (15179 ÷ 230); by contrast Earth only takes 37 minutes to read (8535 ÷ 230). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but hardly anyone ever does read articles right through. The "in popular culture" section could easily be split off, but unfortunately predatory editors prowl wp putting these up for deletion, & we might lose it (despite being both selective and well-referenced). The "legacy" section is awfully long, and might be of interest to some by itself. Or just leave it, though God help anyone trying to read it on a mobile. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Problem with length

I came to this page to try and find out why Freud was so important. I found several statements saying that he was vitally important (eg: Freud's legacy, though a highly contested area of controversy, has been assessed as "one of the strongest influences on twentieth-century thought, its impact comparable only to that of Darwinism and Marxism,"[192] with its range of influence permeating "all the fields of culture ... so far as to change our way of life and concept of man."[193]) but nothing saying WHY!

I have no desire to read an extremely long page to find out (presuming that I would be able to see the wood for the trees - it seems to be a description of his ideas with little assessment of their significance for changing world thinking - although this might be buried within). What a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.29.123 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The very first sentence refers to him as the founder of psychoanalysis. That's why he's important. If you don't have the patience to read the rest of the page, that's on you, not us. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't quite explain my point.

Over the years I've read countless times about how 3 men "created" the modern world we live in: Marx, Darwin & Freud. To me, the influence of the first two is obvious. But not that of Freud. Psychoanalysis does not seem to me something which has massively changed the world I live in. I fail to see how either psychoanalysis or the "discovery" of the unconscious have had even 1/10th of an impact as great as that of Marxism/Communism and that of Darwin's work "undermining" religion. So there must be something else to it which I don't understand. And I've come across this statement too many times to just dismiss it out of hand. My skimming through of the article failed to elicit anything useful.

Again, the article claims that "Freud's legacy" was "one of the strongest influences on twentieth-century thought, its impact comparable only to that of Darwinism and Marxism,"[192] with its range of influence permeating "all the fields of culture ... so far as to change our way of life and concept of man."

So maybe the fact that in America everybody goes to shrinks is a major change in their way of life (is it even true? - it's not in the UK!). "Concept of man", fair enough. But how has this changed the world we live in?

79.51.7.142 (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really the place for this discussion but I will add briefly that Freud's “redefinition of sexuality” - uncoupling the explanation of sex from its purely reproductive function - has surely and manifestly proved to be transformative for the way we now live Almanacer (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

‘Austrian Neurologist’

While this description is not inaccurate, it is not the main characteristic Sigmund Freud is known for. The primary description should be ‘Austrian-Jewish Founder of Psychoanalysis’.

Thank you. 217.155.43.182 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to add more description on Freud's origin, you can write "Chezc-born Austrian founder of Psychoanalysis", but usually, write in the Article Introduction the Jewish Origin of persons is not included, it is in Early Life. Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

second the 'founder of psychoanalysis' part for the short description Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The description of Freud as a "neurologist" is seriously misleading. Neurology is a branch of medicine focused on the brain and nervous system. It has little to do with psychoanalysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:91D0:F950:2995:D11D:14C3:94D8 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it misleading? He was indeed a neurologist (medical doctor specializing in neurology), and also the founder of psychoanalysis. And that's what the lead says. EEng 18:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

@Almanacer: Regarding this revert: what "content removal" specifically do you feel "needs further explanation on Talk Page and consensus"? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

In general I think we need to separate out MOS issues (desirable changes) from information deletion issues (questionable changes). Need to go over the latter in detail. Almanacer (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Almanacer, can you elaborate on which changes specifically you feel are questionable and need to be gone over in more detail? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

will do Almanacer (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I think the best way forward is that I add back in what I think is significant content thus preserving the welcome improvements you have made as per WP:MOS. Almanacer (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)