Talk:Sigmund Freud

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

For some reason, I keep seeing articles about famous Jewish personas without it being mentioned in the very first line. Why? מושא עקיף (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Because policy is to mention only nationality not ethnicity? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Jewish is also a nationality. @Martinevans123

That guy suffered a lot from anti-Semitism. מושא עקיף (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Jewishness is nothing if not multivalent—that he suffered for being Jewish is not in dispute. In any case, we would only present him as having a dual nationality as such if that conception is well attested. It is not. Remsense 🌈 论 23:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Israeli is a nationality. I do not believe that Jewish is a nationality, any more than Islam or Christianity. Israeli is a nationality. I don't think the UN recognises a nation called Jewland. I think this is all wholly consistent with Wikipedia policies Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, editors of the Freud page. Thank you for your hard work curating a difficult page. I was involved with editing the Freud page many years ago and have returned from time to time to see where it's at, as I have expertise in psychoanalysis and I know this page is subject to much continuous editing and debating. I respect Wikipedia's commitment to curating knowledge independent of "authority" and inasmuch as I have expertise and authority in the subject, I have decided my role at the page is best limited to monitoring and providing feedback in the Talk section.

I wanted to point out a couple of problems that must be addressed to improve the page.

The first problem is one others have intermittently raised here on the Talk page: the Wikipedia Freud page does not fully succeed at establishing for the general reader who knows nothing about psychoanalysis or Freud why Freud is considered important or why he is well-known, why he matters. Some editors clearly believe he should not be regarded as important and should be forgotten, and they are entitled to that opinion. But it is an opinion, not a fact, and does not account for the facts that make Freud significant.

I know for a demonstrable fact that anti-Freudian bias has affected this page and the Psychoanalysis page because in 2012 or thereabouts I clashed with one such editor who pretended to have no hidden agenda but later turned out to be running a sockpuppet campaign under names including user:Freeknowledgecreator, user:PolisherofCobwebs, user:Skoojal, etc. According to the Who Wrote That Wikimedia tool, this page still contains many of this user's tainted contributions. I escalated my dispute with that user in 2012. He / she enlisted the aid of an experienced Wikipedia editor and admin, who I believe has since passed away. She adjudicated the matter and sided with me that the lede needed to be corrected to acknowledge Freud's continuing influence in psychiatry and psychology. The lede has since backslid a bit toward underrating his historical importance again.

The failure of the current lede to establish in general terms why Freud is famous or important sets it apart from pretty much every non-Wikipedia encyclopedia entry and review article I know of in the academic literature about Freud. If you Google Freud, for example, it spits out this overview noting that "he's often called the father of modern psychology":

"Sigmund Freud was an Austrian physician and neurologist who revolutionized the understanding of the human mind and behavior through his development of psychoanalysis. He's often called the father of modern psychology. Freud's theories include the unconscious mind, the Oedipus complex, and the id/ego/superego model of the psyche. He believed that childhood experiences shape adult lives, and that irrational forces guide both normal and abnormal behavior."

You could add that he discovered or invented concepts like defense mechanisms, such as denial and projection, which are in frequent use. That would also help to explain why he's had such a big influence.

For another comparison, Wikipedia's own page on the History of psychotherapy notes in the lede "Psychotherapy began with the practice of psychoanalysis, the "talking cure" developed by Sigmund Freud." Whether you think Freud's work has merit or not, his invention of "the talking cure" is an established fact, and the fact is meaningful to a general reader wanting to understand his importance. Such acknowledgement in lay terms of why he's significant would not, of course, preclude mention of controversy about his ideas. But the mention of controversy cannot be used as a covert / weasel-words way of downplaying his importance.

As I said, I will not be attempting to edit the page myself, and I have no intention of entering into a debate about facts that are widely available and verifiable, but I am happy to offer help and to work with any other editor who wishes to join in good faith to improve the page. I have been in touch with some members of WikiProject Medicine, which is devoted to ensuring the accuracy of medical information on Wikipedia, and I will be returning to this page in a month or two in a monitoring capacity.

One thing I recommend straightaway is to require that editors of this page and of the Psychoanalysis page be autoconfirmed as a minimal prevention against sockpuppetry. I would beware of the editor who claims that Freud is not important and that any other view of him amounts to hagiography. That smells like the old anti-Freud influence campaign to me.

I wish you all luck in addressing the difficult problems with the page. If they aren't resolved, the page will be flagged to alert readers to its troubled history and bias.

Sincerely, Austin Ratner Hypoplectrus (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

There have been substantial changes to the article and the lead since the editors you reference were active. The lead now (unlike previous versions) clearly states Freud’s work is influential across a wide range of clinical and theoretical areas (with appropriate references to guide further enquiry). I think this an adequate demonstration of his importance and fame as alluded to also in the Auden quote. Thank you for your contributions and alertness to issues of bias and misrepresentation. Almanacer (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, @Almanacer. Your reply, however, doesn't address the points I raised. Any casual observer who googles Freud and compares this page to other encyclopedia entries, as I did in my initial post, can see for themselves that the Wikipedia page on Freud diverges significantly from the others in its failure to establish why Freud is an important contributor to the field of psychology. If there is no editor here who is willing to address my concerns, I have no alternative but to flag the page as biased. I will continue to monitor the page and remain available for consultation should any editor wish to begin a good faith discussion of the points I raised in my initial post. @Casliber, can you assist in this discussion? I believe that accurate recognition of Freud's contributions to psychology, including the notions of defenses and denial, and the influence of childhood experience on adult relationships, are critical to the intellectual ecosystem at a time when irrational emotion corrupts so much scientific discussion. @Hypoplectrus (Austin Ratner) Hypoplectrus (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If there is no editor here who is willing to address my concerns, I have no alternative but to flag the page as biased – Yes, you do have an alternative. In stead of just "monitor[ing] the page" and "remain[ing] available for consultation", you can get to work marshalling sources, proposing new content, and gaining consensus for adding the material you think should be included. In fact, if you proceed with due care and discretion, you can make bold changes and see how they're received.

To be clear: If your feeling is that the article, including the lead, should make very clear (a) that Freud's impact on thinking about human psychology and behavior was, and continues to be, incalculable or very close to it; and (b) that despite (a), in the last 50 years his star has fallen with a precipitousness for which it's hard to find parallel in modern intellectual history -- then I agree with you. EEng 16:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, @EEng. You are right, of course. To explain my reticence about attempting to edit directly, I have tried that before and met with strong resistance to change. As I mentioned above, in 2012 one editor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polisher_of_Cobwebs, ran a sockpuppet campaign to defend his total ownership of the page and reverted all changes, rejected all suggestions. (I published a paper about these events here: https://apsa.org/wp-content/uploads/apsaa-publications/vol56no3-TOC/html/vol56no3_05.xhtml) @Almanacer says that that editor is no longer editing the page, but I have no way of knowing whether he / she continues to "own" the page under an alias. Furthermore, despite an abundance of evidence and sources, some people cannot be persuaded that any of Freud's theories could have any relevance or validity, just as Creationists cannot be persuaded of the validity of evolution. I am wary of that bias. Perhaps, given that context, you will forgive my hesitancy to leap right in. That said, if you in fact agree with some of my suggestions to improve the neutrality and accuracy of the page, I would be happy to collaborate with you.

To begin with, the lede should attribute the invention of talk therapy, explicitly identified as the basic modality of all modern psychotherapy, to Freud. I could provide dozens of reputable sources to support that, but here are just two, a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on psychotherapy and a quote from a recent review article in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry.

From Britannica: "Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud together made the epochal observations on the relationship to later mental illness of emotionally charged, damaging experiences in childhood. From these discoveries grew the theory and practice of the first modern 'talking cure,' psychoanalysis, which, with its many modifications, influenced the subsequent development of psychotherapy."

From Frontiers in Psychiatry: "Freud provided an organized theory of mental illness and a systematic approach including strategies and techniques for the practice of psychotherapy. He proposed that early experiences, unconscious processes, and inner conflicts contribute to mental health disorders. In essence, he provided a rationale for why a 'talking cure' therapy could be effective, when it was needed, and how to systematically apply that therapy. He introduced the first major systematic form of psychotherapy and, in so doing, revolutionized the field." Bold added by me.

@Hypoplectrus Hypoplectrus (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm teaching this term, and three years into a book project originally meant to take one year, so my time is really limited; if you look at my contribs you'll that for quite some time I've mostly been doing quick, localized stuff not requiring much thought. But I'll commit to trying to keep an eye here and participate when it seems I can help. On the bright side, the three editors you mentioned as being difficult to work with have all been blocked as sockpuppets.

Let me suggest you start by carefully reviewing the entire article to get a full view of what it currently says about Freud's influence -- there's already a lot there along those lines, but that's not to say things aren't missing. Then I suggest you propose additions here on the talk page, with quotes from sources to back those additions up (whether or not you propose to actually quote those sources in the article, instead of just paraphrasing them). One of the problems you're going to have is that there's so, so much written about Freud, not all of it of good quality, and for the sort of broad evaluation I think you want to add you're going to need only the best. And for broad evaluations of Freud's influence, "the best" means a respected scholar who surveys the opinions of other scholars, and makes a summary evaluation of those opinions, which we can quote.

OK, I've written enough. Good luck. Freud was a fascinating and important figure who certainly wrote a lot of nonsense along with profound truths, and he deserves an article that does him full justice. EEng 21:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate this. Thank you. Good luck with the book project. Austin Ratner / Hypoplectrus Hypoplectrus (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I plan to annotate the work I am doing to improve the neutrality of this page in the form of replies to this thread. I hope that concentrating my talk contributions in this way will provide maximal transparency and ease of access for other editors to see what I am doing, why, and based on what sources, and that it will help others understand my changes in the context of the troubled editing history I have described. Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting that EEng has removed the Neutrality flag at the top of the page. I agree to that for now, as Almanacer and EEng have given me some hope that the problems with neutrality on the page may be resolvable through a normal editing process and without resorting to the flag. If, however, I encounter more bias among editors or more resistance to well-reasoned, well-sourced, transparently explained edits, I will be restoring the Neutrality flag and will continue to monitor the page and keep the flag there to alert readers to the bias. Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't make the tag the focus -- doing so will just lead to a fight over nothing. Just work with others to move toward the balance you think is needed. EEng 17:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting that according to WikiMedia Tool Who Wrote That?, the entire section under the heading Philosophy was authored by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polisher_of_Cobwebs, who has been banned from editing Wikipedia because of sockpuppetry. This section is currently thoroughly un-neutral in that it is idiosyncratically devoted to labeling Freud's work as Marxist. It will require heavy editing to make the section at all appropriate to a general encyclopedia entry on Freud. Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the section does not "label Freud's work as Marxist". It sets out (at more length than necessary, perhaps) that Freud's ideas were for a long time (and to a somewhat lesser extent, still are) considered in the same class as those of Darwin, Marx, and Einstein as shapers of the modern world and its intellectual landscape. That's a completely different assertion. There was an image caption that said that Marcuse saw parallels between Freud's ideas and Marxism, but that's not "Freud's work was Marxist". I've removed the image (which really didn't add anything) and the caption because of the lack of a clear source, not because the article shouldn't say such a thing, if it can be properly sourced -- see my edit summary . EEng 17:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your help. Just noting that the only change I've made thus far to the Philosophy section was to remove a link to the uncommon and irrelevant term "Freudo-Marxism" at the top of the section, which to me (but perhaps not to user:EEng) gave a misleading appearance of characterizing Freud as a Marxist. Hypoplectrus Hypoplectrus (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Good move. I had meant to come back to that but forgot. Like the statement re Marcuse, that very strange concept of Freudo-Marxism may very well merit mention somewhere in the article, but it certainly does not merit being the See also at the head of the section on Freud's influence on philosophy. EEng 02:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting further that according to WikiMedia Tool Who Wrote That?, nearly the entire section under the heading Psychotherapy was authored by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polisher_of_Cobwebs, who has been banned from editing Wikipedia because of sockpuppetry. This section will also require heavy editing to remove bias. Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Balance in the Legacy section will come from expansion. It probably needs to be reduced to a summary, and a sub-article spun off. EEng 18:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I mostly left the Psychotherapy section intact but removed the old topic sentence and its very old citation and replaced it with another topic sentence stating more directly and clearly that Freud contributed the basic innovation of talk therapy that underpins modern psychotherapies of all different kinds. Cited 2024 review article from Frontiers in Psychiatry. user:Hypoplectrus Hypoplectrus (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Be careful about absolutes. Freud certainly moved talk therapy to its central position. But he didn't invent it e.g. Anna O. (Bertha Pappenheim, for those not as offhandedly sophisticated about such matters as are I and my fellow discussants here). EEng 23:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The Further Reading section is also full of contributions from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polisher_of_Cobwebs, and is weighted toward critics of Freud instead of neutral educational sources. Revision necessary. Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The Further Reading section is WAY too big, but it's also unimportant. When the rest of the article is completely perfect, we can get to work on that. That should happen sometome about the year 2050 or 2060. EEng 18:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed - way too big and needs to be pruned. Will look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! An example of the sort of hidden agendas and activism that has afflicted the Freud page can be found in the listing of Allen Esterson's obscure book Seductive Mirage in the Further Reading section. According to Wikimedia tool Who Wrote That? the book was added by Allen Esterson himself, who in 2012 was in my experience an active "owner" of the Freud page. I corresponded with him in 2012, attempting to collaborate with him, and he left a message on my Talk page that demonstrates quite clearly his un-neutral and extremely negative view of Freud and his agenda to link arms with Polisher of Cobwebs in defense of the "discredit Freud" agenda. I am going to begin the pruning by removing this title. Hypoplectrus (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Pondering this more - my inclination on most wikipedia pages is that if a source is not important or central enough to be needed to cite essential information in the article, I generally cut it from a Further Reading section unless there is some unique perspective it somehow covers and can facilitate a link to. I am leading towards a blanket removal with readdition of anything that can cover or add unique material to the article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Hypoplectrus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Annoyingly, the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Further_reading is somewhat open to interpretation about how inclusive/exclusive the list can be. And Wikipedia:Further reading is an essay not a guideline. Sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As previously stated I think the lead gives and adequate and objective account of Freud’s status and the changes you introduced are unhelpful in removing relevant content and links. Please ensure a consensus is built before changes to the lead are made. I agree trimming the bibliography is a helpful improvement. Almanacer (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion: When I get interested in an article enough to make substantial changes, or reorganize it, I leave the lead to the very, very end -- which makes sense when you think about it. So let me suggest we just leave the lead alone while the article is expanded and rebalanced. Come back to the lead in 6 months or a year; for now just forget it. EEng 21:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree with leaving the lead alone for the time being. The Further Reading Section is huge and should be pruned. Regarding this - this is more central to psychoanalysis page I'd hazard a guess more than here. Why should this be listed here specifically? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree re the Lead. The Brown book is mentioned as important in the Philosophy section along with Marcuse's Eros and Civilisation - both merit inclusion because they locate Freud in the Western philosophical tradition.Almanacer (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

If I understand Almanacer correctly, their assertion is that I did not build a consensus before editing the lede, that my changes were unhelpful, removed relevant material, and were not adequately explained. It's hard for me to know how to respond to those allegations (@EEng will surely tell me not to, to just get on with the editing). I clearly did try to build consensus for my changes by thoroughly explaining them (with citations!) in the talk pages before making any changes. Meanwhile, Almanacer simply reverted all my edits to the lede without even attempting to discuss them with me at all, either before or after doing so. This feels exactly like the sort of gaslighting I encountered when I clashed with polisher_of_cobwebs in 2012, where trust in the normal processes of Wikipedia editing broke down, with good reason.

@EEng and @Casliber suggest we wait six months or a year to edit the lede. I don't see how kicking the can down the road is going to make it any less difficult to improve the lede. I don't have six months to a year worth of edits to make to the body of the article. I already made the main edit to the body of the article I thought was necessary, which was in the Legacy section to point out that the basic format of all psychotherapy has been shaped by Freud. It's now in the article, with citation, so why shouldn't it say as much in the lede? And why should we wait a year to make that change? Why was it reverted out of the lede in the first place??

I remain deeply concerned about "ownership" and bias on this page. It is a page that arouses much feeling and controversy, and I do not believe that the normal Wikipedia editing process works for those sorts of pages.

Since @EEng has objected to my use of a Neutrality tag, I won't bother to replace it, but not because it doesn't belong there. This last go-around with the Freud page shows that it certainly does. Austin Ratner / Hypoplectrus ~2026-13060-92 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean 6-12 months before editing the lede, I just meant looking at body first (which might take considerably less time) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they removed important content and were not consistent in some respects (eg theory of “personality”, origin of Freud’s fame) with the article body as per WP:LEAD. If you check the archive you will find I have had many altercations with Esterton and assorted sock-puppets over the years defending improvements in the article from Freud detractors. The article now has quotations from authors (all be it controversial) on how Freud’s work was to “change our way of life and concept of man” and comparing it to Marxism and Darwinism in its influence. Not the kind of content you would find in an article that lacks overall neutrality or exhibits bias re. Freud. Almanacer (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to add, as I understand the WP guidelines the lead should describe areas of influence and controversies without having a WP voice endorsing or appearing to endorse rival claims. Almanacer (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I do recognize that you have been a fair-minded editor and I appreciate that. I still think the lede can be improved and I would like to resume conversation when I (and you) have time. I hope that we can come to some agreement in the Talk pages and make some mutually agreeable edits. Hypoplectrus (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to oblige. I think we have similar objectives. Almanacer (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There likely aren't many here who haven't heard this, but it never gets old: (superior by far to Pete Seeger's or any other version). EEng 23:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That is amazing. I thought I knew every reference to Freud there is, but I'd never heard this! Thanks for introducing me to it. Austin Hypoplectrus (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Harvard students, naturally. EEng 05:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Freudalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4#Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4 § Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo]] until a consensus is reached. I₂Overcome ^talk 02:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)