Talk:The Freudian Coverup

Criticism

I have added an alternative criticism, with full references. Esterson (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough just to have references. Things have to be neutrally worded. It won't do to slant an article about a controversial issue strongly to one side or the other. Readd the material if you feel like being neutral. Skoojal (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I ask the Wikipedia editor to adjudicate on Skoojal's removal of my additions to this webpage. Skoojal writes that it is not enough to have references, things have to neutrally worded. Note that the material that he evidently approves of contains very few references, and not a single reference to a primary source. It is also contains numerous statements that a perusal of the original sources demonstrates to be erroneous. Note also that I made no attempt to remove or alter any of this material, but added paragraphs based on a fifteen-year study of this topic, culminating in the publication of three peer-reviewed articles on the subject in history of psychology journals. The paragraphs I added were meticulously referenced, frequently from primary sources. I append below nine articles or books that support the view I have presented in opposition to the original paragraphs, all of which (unlike the Rush article on which the current paragraphs are based) have used primary documents from the period in question.

Editor: Please note that, unbeknown to me until recently pointed out by Will Beback, Skoojal gratuitously made offensive remarks about my motivation on a certain issue in a Discussion page, although I had not even made any contribution to the Wikipedia page in question. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson

I have no desire whatever to make Wikipedia a battleground (my only concern is that pages I have specialist knowledge of should adhere to the ascertainable facts, based on original documentation), but I regard Skoojal's removal of my additions to this webpage as an act of Wiki vandalism. I shall replace my additions and request that Skoojal refrains from removing them until the editor has adjudicated on the matter.

References:

Borch-Jacobsen (1996), Neurotica: Freud and the Seduction Theory, October, 76, Spring 1996, October Magazine, MIT (pp. 15-43): pp. 22-23

Cioffi, F. (1998 [1973]. Was Freud a liar? Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 199-204.

Eissler, K. R. (2001) Freud and the Seduction Theory: A Brief Love Affair. New York: International Universities Press.

Esterson, A. (1998). Jeffrey Masson and Freud’s seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths. History of the Human Sciences, 11 (1), pp. 1-21. http://human-nature.com/esterson/

Esterson, A. (2001). The mythologizing of psychoanalytic history: deception and self deception in Freud’s accounts of the seduction theory episode. History of Psychiatry, Vol. 12, Part 3, September 2001, pp. 329-352.

Esterson, A. (2002). The myth of Freud’s ostracism by the medical community in 1896-1905: Jeffrey Masson’s assault on truth. History of Psychology, 5 (2), pp. 115-134.

McCullough, M. L. (2001). Freud's seduction theory and its rehabilitation: A saga of one mistake after another. Review of General Psychology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3-22.

Israëls, H. and Schatzman, M. (1993) The Seduction Theory. History of Psychiatry, iv: 23-59.

Schimek, J. G. (1987). Fact and Fantasy in the Seduction Theory: a Historical Review. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, xxxv: 937-65. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterson (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now placed all my added material under the heading Criticisms. Esterson (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, and I withdraw my allegation of vandalism against Skoojal. But this is just a matter of terminology, in that his behaviour is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. He simply removes contributions I have added, irrespective of the fact they are far more profusely referenced, often with primary sources, than most postings. He even removed my closely referenced posting on the Freudian Coverup page under the heading "Criticism", as if it is his place to decide what is valid criticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Freudian_Coverup

Note that I have on no occasion removed or altered any posting by Skoojal on Wikipedia.

Skoojal's behaviour is in keeping with the way he has used Wikipedia to pursue a vendetta against Frederick Crews, something of which I have only just become aware. I quote from comments about his behaviour on the Crews Talk webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frederick_Crews

The entry about Crews that I excised is abusive, defamatory and inconsistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy… The entry is removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC).

To go from Crews saying this to Crews being an homophobe seems, a rather odd extrapolation at best, and probably a reversal of the real situation. DGG (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with the enlightening comments by DGG above. What is grotesque about the situation is that Skoojal has failed to understand what Crews was saying about psychoanalytic theorists. Crews did not assert that homosexuality was a mental disorder. What he did was criticise the psychiatric establishment for having held that view. The exact opposite of what Skoojal is suggesting. Skoojal has spent his last few hundred edits tilting at windmills. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

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). Esterson (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To Esterson: just stick to the subject, please. Perhaps I ought to be gratified that you're so interested in my behaviour on the Crews article that you feel the need to discuss it on an article about a completely different subject, but I'm not. It is off topic for this page, and also a personal attack, which is warned against by policy [1]. I'm not necessarily opposed to the mentioning of your side in the controversy here, but it has to be done in a way that conforms to Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the need for neutral wording; I expect other editors will weigh in on the subject. Skoojal (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is evident that skoojal defines "neutral" as something he agrees with, and "not neutral" as anything he doesn't like. Note that he has made no objection to the original material, though it contains not a single primary source reference, whereas he objects to my alternative account, which is replete with primary source references, and references to articles that have returned to the original source material. Esterson (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The original material obviously was not well sourced. And it's true that what you added was better sourced. This hardly alters the fact that one cannot present only one side in a controversy as though it were absolute truth, as you have done. Skoojal (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole of my recent addition is contained in the "Criticism" section, and I have considerably reduced both paragraphs, with fuller referencing. Esterson (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Belated response to Skoojal's last comment above: Now that I'm learning the ropes about Wikipedia, I appreciate the rationale behind that comment. I have now rewritten all my recent postings to conform to Wikipedia standards. Esterson (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

I don't think there's a good reason for this article to exist. It's simply about Florence Rush's views. Any relevant material in it should be added to an article about Rush. Skoojal (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you need the space for something else? (ResearchALLwars (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Article Review

This article is quite trustworthy, a little biased, somewhat complete, quite well-written,and somewhat accurate. In the background para 2: "this illustrates..." I believe this is a harsh statement that should be erased. I think the reader gets this impression by herself, so there is no need to say it. I think it is not helpful. Sentence before last should be clarified - 'clinical evidence for his claims' - and the specific claims should be restated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.32.192 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

POV section

I've added a POV section tag to the Background section here, because it doesn't make clear where it is reporting widely held, uncontroversial, positions, and where it is reporting more specifically Rush's views as she puts them forward in "The Freudian Coverup". The section also seems rather misnamed, as it is as much or more a summary of the article, rather than background to it. Perhaps it could be improved by beginning with uncontroversial facts about Freud's seduction theory, then including more controversial assertions that should be sourced to specifical people other than Rush, and finally describing what Rush's specific contribution was. A section called "Background" could also include more information about what the reception of Freud was at the time Rush wrote the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)