Martinevans123 (talk | contribs) →Judaism and sexuality: I see |
|||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
:: Interesting as it would be to discuss other authors on the topic (as you cite above) or the merits of Freud's arguments about Moses, as we are reminded at the top of the page "this is not a forum for general discussion." The relevant issue here is the three cited sources (one ?? - try starting from the top: Robert, Frosh, Falk) all in agreement on Freud, Judaism and sexuality and therefore supporting the validity of the link. I note you are not disputing this. [[User:Almanacer|Almanacer]] ([[User talk:Almanacer|talk]]) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC) |
:: Interesting as it would be to discuss other authors on the topic (as you cite above) or the merits of Freud's arguments about Moses, as we are reminded at the top of the page "this is not a forum for general discussion." The relevant issue here is the three cited sources (one ?? - try starting from the top: Robert, Frosh, Falk) all in agreement on Freud, Judaism and sexuality and therefore supporting the validity of the link. I note you are not disputing this. [[User:Almanacer|Almanacer]] ([[User talk:Almanacer|talk]]) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::I had thought it wholly pertinent to the discussion in hand, about what Freud actually meant in the footnote - the one partly quoted by the soundbite in the article. Would you like me to remove it all? or perhaps strike it all through? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 19:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:23, 9 October 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names
Editor Goethean has indicated that forty-four (44) names of "Influences" and "Influenced" by Freud are all essential to the Infobox of the Freud page at Wikipedia. Other editors have indicated that this is excessive and not useful for the purposes of the Infobox. Editor ImprovingWiki has taken the position that five to seven names is sufficient. Those who wish to Support the short number of names written in the Infobox should indicate their position as a "Support" comment, and those who wish to maintain a list of 44 names should indicate "Oppose" concerning a shorter version.
- Support for short version of the Infobox names as originating this rfc. The current very long and excessively detailed list serves no useful purpose and is not informative. The list should be kept to immediate influences and not stray into uninformative historic material. FelixRosch (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: At the moment I count Influences = 21, Influenced = 47. That makes 68? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Question: Why aren't collapsible lists used here, so that only those interested need to see them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose See below for my comments noting that the number of listing are not exceptional in comparison to other WP articles. I have no objection to a collapsible list but at the moment the formatting doesn't make it necessary. Almanacer (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support for the short version, as per FelixRosch. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
For most of the history of the Freud article there was a reasonably uselful list in the infobox of influence/influenced. These lists were reduced to an arbitrary minimal content by User:FelixRosch|FelixRosch. This was done without any coherent rationale being provided or discussion on the Talk Page. I have now restored in a slightly amended form the previous listings. Almanacer (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I've reposted the above as the same objection applies to the same arbitrary and undiscussed reduction of content in the infobox. The previous listing are in my view appropriate, helpful, usable and informative contrary to the claims of the editors who have removed them without presenting any arguments for the arbitrary minimal listing that remain. They have an appropriate range of references for influenced: early followers, 2nd and 3rd generation psychoanalysts from Europe and America, ditto scholars in the humanities and feminists. For influences list - see the index of any major Freud biography. The listings are comparable in length to that of other major figures in the humanities eg Marx, Derrida, Heidegger, Adorno. They have been an established part of the Freud article for many years and are a useful set of links for those seeking to explore Freud's background and legacy further. Almanacer (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support for ImrovingWiki. Too many names in the Infobox is not needed. FelixRosch (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch: You are edit warring. You need to stop. — goethean 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- No one seems to have asked whether having such a long list of names in the infobox really is helpful. I don't believe it is. The longer the list is, the less useful and the more confusing it must surely become. Many of the names on the list are only minor figures. The list Almanacer supports could be made even longer, but to no good purpose; a shorter list is better than one so long that the eye skims over it. Also, note that although Goethean warned FelixRosch about edit warring, Almanacer is actually more guilty of this, since he has reverted multiple editors who disagree with him. Almanacer should not have made this edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- No edit warring is intended here. @Goethean appears to have accepted the form of the Infobox as it was by adding two names of his own to the list which was accepted in good faith. Possible clarify. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- No one seems to have asked whether having such a long list of names in the infobox really is helpful. I don't believe it is. The longer the list is, the less useful and the more confusing it must surely become. Many of the names on the list are only minor figures. The list Almanacer supports could be made even longer, but to no good purpose; a shorter list is better than one so long that the eye skims over it. Also, note that although Goethean warned FelixRosch about edit warring, Almanacer is actually more guilty of this, since he has reverted multiple editors who disagree with him. Almanacer should not have made this edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch: You are edit warring. You need to stop. — goethean 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Goethean for his clarification. In the absence of any response to the above post I made in defence of the set of listings of influences/influenced, which has been part of the article for many years and was removed by FR here, the argument by repetition of "too long" or "too many" takes us no further forward and are purely subjective opinions which continue to be made whilst ignoring my referencing of other comparable WP articles.
If ImpWiki thinks "No one seems to have asked whether having such a long list of names in the infobox really is helpful" then he hasn't read what I wrote carefully enough. If people choose to skim the list they are free to do so; but they also have the option, which he and FelixR are trying to remove, of paying it more detailed attention and following the relevant links. Almanacer (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- My name is ImprovingWiki, not "ImpWiki". Maybe you did consider whether having a long list of names in the infobox is helpful, but your comments didn't suggest that you considered it very carefully. The longer the list is, the less likely it is that anyone will read it at all. There has to be a limit somewhere to the number of names included, and I think the limit should be a strict one. For the list of people influenced by Freud, 47 names is just too many. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The longer the list is, the more likely it is that a reader will see a name they recognise"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Even if that were true, why should it matter? Being useful and informative is not the same thing as containing something that readers already recognize. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Most people find that "more information ... is more informative"? The issue here seems to be partly one of layout size constraints? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're again ignoring the fact that "more information" can only become confusing past a certain point. I don't think adjusting layout can solve that problem by itself. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Less of a fact, more of a hypothesis. And one which depends on the readership, I'd suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're again ignoring the fact that "more information" can only become confusing past a certain point. I don't think adjusting layout can solve that problem by itself. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Most people find that "more information ... is more informative"? The issue here seems to be partly one of layout size constraints? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Even if that were true, why should it matter? Being useful and informative is not the same thing as containing something that readers already recognize. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The longer the list is, the more likely it is that a reader will see a name they recognise"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Too many names in the infobox: At first I hardly noticed it, but after thinking about it, I think it is problematic to have so many names. It would be more useful for the readers to have a section under the Legacy heading such as "Influence" and then list each of the people currently in the info box with a little bit of information about each of them. I might be willing to work on that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support some reduction in number of names, simply because at various resolutions and window sizes including the native one's on both my machines as well as a partners tablet it leaves a hell of a lot of white space prior to the article. Collapsible lists may resolve this but the question we need to ask is what does a reader gain by that list being their rather than a more detailed section within the article? SPACKlick (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support a short list. Remember, this is the infobox and, as such, the information in it should be "a quick and convenient summary" of the article's contents. Go ahead and knock yourselves out :-) in the main body of the text! Include an exhaustive list, if you feel you must! But the blessed little infobox should not be weighed down by some misguided tendency for completism. -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Completism is not the issue rather it getting a representative sample across the range of historical and contemporary figures (see my post above of 8 September). There is no conceivable reason why the listings should be fewer than those of Jung (32) or Derrida (43) or Lacan (23). These and other similar articles provide the objective criteria that should be applied in these deliberations - as opposed to the endless parroting of "too many", "too long" and the arbitrary declaration that seven is the appropriate number of listings by self-appointed arbiters of "strict limits" such as ImprovingWiki. Almanacer (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I never said anywhere that 7 is the appropriate number. Rather, all I said was that there has to be a limit somewhere. Almanacer, in contrast, seems perfectly comfortable with a bloated list that could be expanded indefinitely. Regarding other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The real issue has to do with continuous maintenance of the infobox. It is not Almanacer or myself who added 47 names to the infobox. It is various editors who may be interested in Freud's relationship with Brentano, or with Dostoevsky, or Fliess, and would like to highlight that relationship in the infobox. One potential criteria for inclusion in the infobox is that the figure is mentioned and reliably sourced in the article as an influence on or as having been influenced by Freud. Enforcing this criteria will take quite a bit of effort/commitment from editors who watch this page (I've been through this at the Nietzsche article already (currently at 37 influences and 110 influencees).) But to create an additional criteria, such as being a "primary influence" on Freud is hopelessly subjective and unsourcable and may result in prolonged debate or edit war with people interested in this or that of Freud's influences or influencees. — goethean 15:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I never said anywhere that 7 is the appropriate number. Rather, all I said was that there has to be a limit somewhere. Almanacer, in contrast, seems perfectly comfortable with a bloated list that could be expanded indefinitely. Regarding other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The process goethean has described above has gone on at least since 2011 since when there have always been over 30 listings. Apart from the arguments I have already made, it’s disrespectful of the editors who have contributed to these listings to have them removed wholesale as they were here by FelixRosch without any reference to this Page and the requirement to be sure there is consensus. If ImprovingWiki is saying that the opinion attributed to him by FelixRosch in initiating this RfC “that five to seven names is sufficient” is a misrepresentation then he would have done us all favour by pointing it out somewhat earlier. Perhaps, in the absence of any consensus, he will now stop editing the article with that end in mind. It’s a pity he hasn’t evidently learnt anything from the exchange with Flyer22 (in the Feminism thread above) about conducting a dialogue without aiming cheap slurs, sidewipes and abusive ad hominems at other editors. Almanacer (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Almanacer might have noticed that I stopped doing reverts at this article some time ago. So his comment that "perhaps" I will stop making reverts without consensus is uncalled for. It is a pity that Almanacer would gratuitously drag in a totally unrelated discussion with another editor. For the record, however, I found and still find Flyer22's position about the feminism material in this article to be unreasonable. I apologized for the aggresssive tone of my comments and ended discussion with her because I found posts on her talk page in which she acknowledged having mental health problems, up to and including suicidal thoughts. {REDACTED} ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- ImprovingWiki, I fear you've strayed way off topic with your comments about another editor's Talk Page and a completely different topic. I think you ought to consider trimming the above, some of which might even warrant a rev-del. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- My comments were no more or less off topic than Almanacer's, or indeed yours. In the interests of good taste, I didn't mention any of this information before, but I do mention it now to explain my conduct. I have revealed absolutely nothing that Flyer22 has not already revealed openly on her talk page. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies if I have strayed off topic. But I really don't think "Flyer22's position about the feminism material in this article" is relevant here. Thanks for partially redacting. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look at Bertrand Russell? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Suggestion Using the hide option in the infobox could be a way around the issue: We could have as many names or terms as offered in the main text with the default set to hidden and the user having the option to turn on "show".-The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Suggestion The influences/influenced parameters have been completely removed from Template:infobox person (and Template:infobox writer). See the discussion Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 19. The short version is this sort of thing is highly qualitative, best left to prose discussion, arbitrarily nuanced as need be, in the main body of the article. The rest of the infobox is almost entirely black-and-white facts, with a few odd exceptions, like Doris Day's date of birth. Choor monster (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Doris never had a coherent theory on the psychological importance of dreams, nor a very convincing theory of psychosexual development. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Choor monster's suggestion to have the influences/influenced parameters be completely removed, it is an impossible task to identify and continuously name individuals influenced by Freud. Theoretically the list could go on indefinitely and to attempt to limit would be subject to subjective interpretations becoming an invalid list. Fraulein451 (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Summoned here by bot. Remove list of influencers/influenced. Far too long. Can be dealt with in the body of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- The issue of the utility of the historical listing of influences/influenced per se should be addressed elsewhere - see WP:INFOBOX. The argument being made here is that to have them in the Freud article, where they have been over a period of years, is consistent with other articles on other influential intellectual figures. The size of the listings is, as other editors have shown, is not exceptional by these standards. The listings are the product of a proceess of collaborative (ie non-subjective) editing over a period of years and the result is a representative range of "influencees"; the "influences" are derived from the major Freud biographies as reference to their indexes will confirm (and there is no reason this list should expand significantly). I have suggested links be made to appropriate Category pages ( List of Psychoanalysts, List of psychoanalytical theorists) in the Infobox to obviate the need for any further significant expansion of the "influencees" listings and am awaiting a response from editors who are opposed to this option. (see below). Almanacer (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
BRD discussion of further Infobox additions
Split from talk:Sigmund Freud#Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names
I’ve added the following to the Info Box : List of Psychoanalysts, List of psychoanalytical theorists (there is a Category:Freudian which adds nothing notable to these and probably should be merged with them). This should obviate the need for further significant expansion of the existing influences list though in my view should not preclude additions eg from the humanities and names not on the Lists provided. Almanacer (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is currently an open RfC regarding the Infobox and edits to the Infobox should await the completion of the RfC. FelixRosch (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is no WP guideline precluding the adding of valid content during a RfC. Moreover, the editors you cite in the initiation of the RfC both claim you have misrepresented their views, making it of questionable validity. Almanacer (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Undid revision 625783962. Your bold edit is reverted under BRD guidelines and policy. Please discuss it on Talk page following BRD guidelines and policy prior to further edits. FelixRosch (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is no WP guideline precluding the adding of valid content during a RfC. Moreover, the editors you cite in the initiation of the RfC both claim you have misrepresented their views, making it of questionable validity. Almanacer (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
àê
- Almanacer I sectioned your comment off from the RFC per Talk Page Guidelines bullet point Sectioning, as it's different to the topic of the RFC. Now would you care to justify the inclusion of those items to the infobox?SPACKlick (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- The revision history of this page shows Almanacer edit warring against multiple other editors. That's clearly unacceptable, and I call on Almanacer to stop such behavior. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I call upon Improving Wiki to stop fabricating complaints of edit warring to cover up the paucity and incoherence of his arguments as exposed by other editors on this page. Perhaps he could decide what he wants to propose. What we don't need is his arrogant posturing about imposing strict limits, a suggestion inimical to the whole WP project. SPACKick needs to look at what I wrote above again where he will find the rationale for including the Category Page links; edit warring over including links to other category pages is a new low for this talk page. Almanacer (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just to make sure I'm not misreading you, your reasoning for inclusion is that category:Freudian exists and doesn't add to these two lists? If that's your reasoning I'm not yet convinced. SPACKlick (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- What is your problem with linking a list entitled List of psychoanalytical theorists to the Freud page infobox? Or the other equally valid link Category of psychoanalysts. What links could be more relavant ? But if you want an additional reason to include tham, as I have pointed out, doing so will at least partially address the issue of further expansion of the existing listings as names can be found on or added to these lists. I don't accept your view that I am introducing a different topic or that it is a WP:BOLD edit issue. Almanacer (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Almanacer, anyone can see, simply from looking at the revision history of this page, that you were edit warring against multiple other editors, FelixRosch and SPACKlick. So I'm "fabricating" nothing, and it's frankly ridiculous to suggest I was; the evidence to the contrary is there in plain sight. "Arrogant" would better describe your comments and behavior than mine. Remember, please, that you can be blocked for the kind of behavior you have indulged in. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I obviously need to repeat my earlier suggestion that you go back to review your exchange of a few weeks ago with Flyer22 in the Feminism thread. It's a great pity that one of the few female contributors on this page should have to state she "did not welcome your insults and repeatedly indicated that you should stop making them. You did not, and still persist " and that "to insult and lecture" as you did amounts to harassment WP:HARASSMENT. Her advice to you "you should thoroughly read and study WP:Talk and WP:Civil" is, notwithstanding your later apology, advice you should take. Your latest abusive ad hominem/threats aimed at me demonstrates you still need it. And while you're at it check out WP:REMOVE and the need to gain consensus. Almanacer (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, Almanacer, you do not need to do any such thing. That was an unrelated discussion, and has no relevance to what we are discussing. It is unfortunate that you would take a simple factual observation - that you were edit warring - as abusive or threatening. Maybe you should take time out from Wikipedia. Is it causing you stress? ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concern but before I do finally fall apart under the pressure of your forensic examination of my alleged editorial misconduct it would be good to know (1) if you still maintain a listing of "five to seven is sufficient" in the infobox, as was claimed on your behalf in the initiation of the RfC but which you have apparently denied was your view; (2) what objection you have to the links in the infobox I have proposed. Almanacer (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014
influenced: Alan Watts
listen to any of Alan Watts philosophical talks about the topic of "MONEY", watts refers to Freud on many occasions. google it/ youtube it
41.151.69.149 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Judaism and sexuality
The category "Judaism and sexuality" is irrelevant to this article, as I explained when I removed it. Almanacer should not have restored it as he did here, and I do not accept his rationale. It is not enough to point to a couple of articles about Freud's Jewish identity, and declare that they somehow show that "Judaism and sexuality" is an appropriate category. Freud himself, as Almanacer probably knows, was emphatic that his Jewish identity was not based at all on belief in Judaism - as such, it's foolish to try to imply that Freud's Jewishness makes a "Judaism" category proper. The category should be removed, given the absence of anything in the text of the article that connects Freud's ideas on sexuality to Judaism. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Do you think it's possible that Freud's Jewish background influenced his work despite his own (later) beliefs? Or do you think that work by later interpreters is a valid basis for categories about a subject? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- My point is simply that it is inappropriate to add a category such as "Judaism and sexuality" to this article in the absence of anything in the text suggesting that Freud's ideas about sexuality had anything to do with Judaism. It's wrong to add the category simply because Freud was a Jew or because his Jewish identity (not the same thing as belief in the Jewish religion) was important to him. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- What do you make of those two sources which were cited as the justification for this addition? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing, since I have not read them. Actually they are irrelevant: it is only the content of the article itself that can justify a particular category. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- In tend to agree (although I suggest that you should still read them). It looked to me a bit like a simple summation going on here: FREUD: JUDAISM (heritage) + SEX (psychoanalytic theories), therefore = "Judaism and sexuality" must be an appropriate Category. I await to be convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's quite ludicrous. Including a category such as "Judaism and sexuality" implies that Freud's ideas about sexuality are somehow connected to Judaism; the "simple" summation unfortunately looks like a fake attempt to prove that in the absence of real evidence. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- In tend to agree (although I suggest that you should still read them). It looked to me a bit like a simple summation going on here: FREUD: JUDAISM (heritage) + SEX (psychoanalytic theories), therefore = "Judaism and sexuality" must be an appropriate Category. I await to be convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing, since I have not read them. Actually they are irrelevant: it is only the content of the article itself that can justify a particular category. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- What do you make of those two sources which were cited as the justification for this addition? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- My point is simply that it is inappropriate to add a category such as "Judaism and sexuality" to this article in the absence of anything in the text suggesting that Freud's ideas about sexuality had anything to do with Judaism. It's wrong to add the category simply because Freud was a Jew or because his Jewish identity (not the same thing as belief in the Jewish religion) was important to him. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The objection you raised in the first place - Freud was an athiest - is the irrelevancy, not the proposed link as you claim, since the article refers to his secular Jewish identity as having a "substantial effect on the content of psychoanalytic ideas." That content obviously includes sexuality as the cited sources demonstrate - see in particular the discussion of Moses and Monotheism in the Robert. Not BTW "a couple of articles" but a substantial book and an article - please pay more attention to the text of the article before intervening editorially and on this page with offensive remarks about "fake attempts" and make some effort, as advised above, to consult the cited sources before pronouncing on their relevance of lack of it.Almanacer (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, Almanacer, the fact that Freud was an atheist and made it completely clear that he did not accept the Jewish religion is not irrelevant. A "Judaism" category implies that Freud's ideas are related specifically to Judaism - not to secular Jewish identity. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Judaism is widely understood, including by Freud as the cited sources make clear, to refer the cultural and historic experience of the Jewish people, and thus to be inclusive of but not co-extensive with its religious practices. Almanacer (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- When you say "demonstrable relevance in the article - see Notes 30 & 31", are you referring to Robert, Marthe (1976) From Oedipus to Moses: Freud’s Jewish Identity, New York: Anchor pp. 3-6, and to Frosh, Stephen. (2004) "Freud, Psychoanalysis and Anti-Semitism," in The Psychoanalytic Review, 91, p. 309? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Judaism is a religion, just as Christianity and Islam are religions. The category is inappropriate and should be removed. Almanacer might have a stronger point if there were any material in the article itself indicating that Freud equated Judaism with "the cultural and historic experience of the Jewish people", but there is none. I note that the Wikipedia article defines Judaism as, "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jewish people", which is significantly different from "the cultural and historic experience of the Jewish people", a very vague and somewhat unfortunate definition. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- When you say "demonstrable relevance in the article - see Notes 30 & 31", are you referring to Robert, Marthe (1976) From Oedipus to Moses: Freud’s Jewish Identity, New York: Anchor pp. 3-6, and to Frosh, Stephen. (2004) "Freud, Psychoanalysis and Anti-Semitism," in The Psychoanalytic Review, 91, p. 309? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Judaism is widely understood, including by Freud as the cited sources make clear, to refer the cultural and historic experience of the Jewish people, and thus to be inclusive of but not co-extensive with its religious practices. Almanacer (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Whilst it is no big deal whether it stays or goes I fail to see the problem with the link since Freud wrote extensively on Judiasm and these writings were like everything else he wrote informed by his theory of sexuality. Yes they are the cited sources I was referring to - but see also the Religion section of the article for a specific reference to Freud's argument about circumcision which in itself, it seems to me, provides validity for the link. What exactly are your objections? Almanacer (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The justification for your addition seems to be four pages from a 1976 book by a non-notable author, and a single page from a specialist journal? While the category might possibly be relevant to those five pages, I think it's stretching it a bit to say it is therefore relevant to a characterisation of the life of Freud as a whole. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. Circumcision has no "sexuality" categories?
- Just for the record the Judaism/sexuality link wasn't my addition. When ImprovingWiki removed it on the spurious grounds that Freud's atheism rendered it irrelevant I restored it. I have pointed out two parts of the article which demonstrate its relevance, explicitly so in the sentence in the Religion section which connects Judaism (ritual circumcision) and sexuality (castration complex) in Freud's work viz: "Freud theorized that the universal fear of castration was provoked in the uncircumcised ...". I don't see the point of your reference to the WP article on circumcision. And why should a category link have to be "relevant to a characterisation of the life of Freud as a whole" rather than a specific feature of his work? Almanacer (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, your "re-addition". I was suggesting that circumcision, as far as Wikipedia sees it, is not a central part of "sexuality". I should amend "the life of Freud as a whole" to "a notable feature of Freud's work". The sentence quoted in the Religion section was a footnote (literally) in his 1909 Little Hans analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record the full footnote is as follows:"I cannot interrupt the discussion so far as to demonstrate the typical character of the unconscious train of thought which I think there is here reason for attributing to Little Hans. The castration complex is the deepest unconscious root of anti-semitism; for even in the nursery little boys hear that a Jew has something cut off his penis—a piece of his penis, they think—and this gives them a right to despise Jews. And there is no stronger unconscious root for the sense of superiority over women. Weininger (the young philosopher who, highly gifted but sexually deranged, committed suicide after producing his remarkable book, Geschlecht und Charakter [1903]), in a chapter that attracted much attention, treated Jews and women with equal hostility and overwhelmed them with the same insults. Being a neurotic, Weininger was completely under the sway of his infantile complexes; and from that standpoint, what is common to Jews and women is their relation to the castration complex.
- There is some interesting commentary in Speaking the Unspeakable by Diane Jonte-Pace (2001), pp 103-104 &ff:"This passage has generated a large body of analytic literature in recent years. (See, for example, Le Rider 1993, Gilman 1993, Boyarin 1994, 1997, Geller 1997, 1999.) There are major differences in the interpretations of these scholars, but several have emphasized the fact that Weininger and Little Hans were Jews, although they are not so identified in Freud's text. The Jewish identity of the figures who stand as illustrations of castration anxiety, misogyny, and anti-Semitism in this footnote, in other words, is obscured. Hans and Weininger both suffered from self-disgust or deep ambivalence about their Jewishness, an ambivalence which, these scholars argue, Freud shared, and which he endeavored to hide. Boyarin states, “by occluding the fact of Hans's Jewishness and by obscuring the role of his own here, Freud is hiding something” (1994: 37). Again we find that Jewishness and circumcision are not only heimlich, but also unheimlich. Boyarin finds in these remarks not only a theory of misogyny and anti-Semitism, but also an analysis of Jewish self-contempt: “We have in Freud's note on Little Hans not only an anatomy of misogyny and antisemitism — both read as products of the unconscious—but also of Jewish self-contempt, also read as a sort of inevitability” (Boyarin 1997: 237)." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, your "re-addition". I was suggesting that circumcision, as far as Wikipedia sees it, is not a central part of "sexuality". I should amend "the life of Freud as a whole" to "a notable feature of Freud's work". The sentence quoted in the Religion section was a footnote (literally) in his 1909 Little Hans analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record the Judaism/sexuality link wasn't my addition. When ImprovingWiki removed it on the spurious grounds that Freud's atheism rendered it irrelevant I restored it. I have pointed out two parts of the article which demonstrate its relevance, explicitly so in the sentence in the Religion section which connects Judaism (ritual circumcision) and sexuality (castration complex) in Freud's work viz: "Freud theorized that the universal fear of castration was provoked in the uncircumcised ...". I don't see the point of your reference to the WP article on circumcision. And why should a category link have to be "relevant to a characterisation of the life of Freud as a whole" rather than a specific feature of his work? Almanacer (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
If you check the cited source Anti-semitism: A History and Psychoanalysis of Contemporary Hatred, Avner Falk Greenwood Press 2008 pp. 67-69 you will find in addition to reference to (p. 67) the footnote from the 1909 Little Hans case (which makes a specific point about anti-semitism) there is also a substantial quotation from Moses and Monotheism (SE21 p. 91) about "the Jewish practice of circumcision which aroused the fear of castration among non-Jews" (p. 69). Frosh as previously cited also references this section of the Moses book as illustrating how Freud links circumcision to "the power of castration, the mark of violence, the allure of sexuality" p. 14. If ImprovingWiki had checked out Frosh as the cited source instead of dismissing it as irrelevant he would have found that the article's reference to Freud's "allegiance to his secular Jewish identity" was supported by the following: "Freud’s investment of psychoanalysis with his Jewish consciousness had several sources, including a rather mystical sense of some hidden power drawing Freud towards identification with Jews and Judaism (despite his consistent and principled atheism)..." (p. 2). I don't see the "significant difference" alluded to in the definitions of Judaism cited by ImprovingWiki but individual editors opinions are not what matters in determining the validity of content - this depends on reliable and verifiable sources and I await the provision of better ones than those currently cited, all of which support the validity of the link. Almanacer (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- These are the opinions of one commentator? Ah yes, and Moses, the guy who wasn't even a Hebrew but an Egyptian nobleman, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting as it would be to discuss other authors on the topic (as you cite above) or the merits of Freud's arguments about Moses, as we are reminded at the top of the page "this is not a forum for general discussion." The relevant issue here is the three cited sources (one ?? - try starting from the top: Robert, Frosh, Falk) all in agreement on Freud, Judaism and sexuality and therefore supporting the validity of the link. I note you are not disputing this. Almanacer (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I had thought it wholly pertinent to the discussion in hand, about what Freud actually meant in the footnote - the one partly quoted by the soundbite in the article. Would you like me to remove it all? or perhaps strike it all through? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting as it would be to discuss other authors on the topic (as you cite above) or the merits of Freud's arguments about Moses, as we are reminded at the top of the page "this is not a forum for general discussion." The relevant issue here is the three cited sources (one ?? - try starting from the top: Robert, Frosh, Falk) all in agreement on Freud, Judaism and sexuality and therefore supporting the validity of the link. I note you are not disputing this. Almanacer (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)