User talk:Esterson

Hello Esterson, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sure that your edits to Mileva Marić were well-intentioned. Unfortunately, I do not think that your blog counts as a reliable source, so I have removed much of what you added. Please see the Reliable Sources guideline here[1]. Skoojal (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you two editors met in another forum? If so, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is relevant: [2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:Skoojal may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax for gods sake. Esterson (presumably accidentally) removed some comments from my talk page; I've no reason to think that was deliberate vandalism. His comments weren't particularly offensive or unwelcome; if they had been, I'd have dealt with it. Skoojal (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De728631: I do not know what you are referring to. I am a novice at handling these behind-the-scenes pages on Wikipedia, and if I accidentally removed someone else's comments I apologise - though how I did this I have no idea.Esterson (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: Elsewhere you wrote: "I don't normally cross-post, but the fact that you're editing topics with someone you call an enemy from off-wiki appeared to me to be an unusal circumstance, one which the other editor should be aware. Added to the Crews matter there's an appearance of using WP to settle scores." •:• Will Beback •:• 10:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skoojal

I am bemused by this comment. It's a long time since I edited the Freud page so I don't know what you mean by "the Crews matter" (and at that time I had not discovered the talk pages). I am not the least interested in "settling scores", only with providing reliable information as far as it can be ascertained. In both the cases of Freud and Mileva Maric received historical accounts and frequently recycled claims do not necessarily reflect the true facts based on close scrutiny of the historical documents (often far from it).Esterson (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Crews matter' is discussed here [3] and also here [4]. Skoojal (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beeback: You wrote: "Have you two editors met in another forum? If so, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground."

Having followed up the links that you posted on 5 September, I am now in a position to understand that remark (and I can fully understand why you would be concerned). As you are presumably aware I didn't contribute to the Crews issue on Wikipedia (not that I can recall, anyway), but Skoojal chose to cite my name in connection with it: "When I debated this with Allen Esterson..."

Having now read Skoojal's comments on the Crews Talk webpage, I must express my concern about the tone of his comments. The fact that he refers to a debate with me identifies him as Richard R. Warnotck, with whom I had exchanges on this issue on the Butterflies and Wheels "letters" page. My concern is particularly with this sentence: "I thought this was willful obscurantism on Esterson's part, motivated by the desperate desire to hide a truth that it would be disastrous for Crews's (and Esterson's) credibility to admit." I agree that Wikipedia is not a battleground, but I really must express my dismay that Skoojal should make a derogatory statement about my motivations, especially as it is on the basis of his own misreading of Crews. Please bear with me while I give the quote in full that Skoojal claims demonstrates Crews' "homophobia" (and my bad faith):

"Critics have pointed out that the third edition of the DSM (1980), like its predecessors, reflects political as well as medical and scientific opinion. When smoking replaces homosexuality as a mental aberration, more of the credit must go to caucuses than to new findings. For that very reason, however, we can safely regard the DSM's demotion of 'neurosis' as a sign of waning psychoanalytic influence." (Analysis Terminable and Interminable, 1986, p. 36, n1.)

Crews' comments are a criticism of a characteristic of the DSM, that on occasion it follows societal fashion, e.g., previously smoking was not an aberration and homosexuality was, but with changes in attitudes, now smoking is an aberration and homosexuality is not. This says absolutely nothing about Crews' view of homosexuality (and certainly not, as Skoojal claims, that Crews "was objecting to the replacement of homosexuality by smoking as a mental illness"). (Elsewhere Crews makes plain his view when he writes that among serious adverse influences of psychoanalytic orthodoxy: "Thanks to the once imposing prestige of psychoanalysis... gays have been told that their sexual preference is a mental disorder [and] women have accepted a view of themselves as inherently envious, passive and amoral." ["The Memory Wars, 1995, p. 71])

Incidentally, it speaks volumes that out of the many reams that Crews has written on Freud and psychoanalysis, Skoojal should single out this one sentence (which he misreads as denigrating homosexuality) as "among the most relevant" in Crews's books, "since they concern his reasons for attacking psychoanalysis..." (as if he hadn't written many hundreds of sentences doing that).

Will Beeback: Please excuse the length of the above, and note that I intend saying no more on this (and shall not respond to any reply by Skoojal). I just wanted you to be clear that it was not I who introduced the element of a "battleground", it was Skoojal with what I regard as offensive, and totally unjustified, aspersions on my motivations. I leave you to judge my motivations from my argument above. Esterson (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only observation on this is to point out that, each and every time Esterson mentions this, he is giving me and my views on Crews more publicity. Skoojal (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crews had once included a transcript of a cable T.V. interview on his personal page of the Berkeley website. I can't find it anymore, but I can remember it. The interviewer asked Crews this: "Will you be willing to relent at least that Freud was far ahead of his time in regard to homosexuality?" Crews answered, "No. Freud always believed homosexuality is a perversion." That in itself ruins Crews's credibility. He is not a man to be taken seriouslySnud (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this point. In his last major work, An Outline of Psychoanalysis, Freud wrote in relation to the process of development during the postulated three phases of infancy: "Inhibitions in its development manifest themselves as the many sorts of disturbance in sexual life. When this is so, we find fixations of the libido to conditions in earlier phases, whose urge, which is independent of the normal sexual aim, is described as perversion. One such developmental inhibition, for instance, is homosexuality when it is manifest." (Freud 1940 (1938), Standard Edition vol. 23, p. 155.) Esterson (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles published in peer review journals are among the best sources available. The fact that an article is also posted on its author's website is irrelevant, but the citation should be to the journal and not to the website (though you can add a link to the website for the convenience of readers). Also, if you're going to be editing here much you might want to learn a bit more about wiki markup (which is different from HTML). See Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Also, the citation and footnoting techniques are unusual here. See WP:CITE. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the addition of links, there are three pottential problems to watch out for. First, if the pre-publication versions are significantly different from the published version then a link to the final draft may be misleading. Second, links to pages that contain copyright violations are forbidden. Very lengthy excerpts from books may represent copyright violatations, but shorter excerpts would be OK. However if the book is available in libraries, etc, then linking to a page of excerpts is not necessary. Also, if a short excerpt will help readers gain context then it might be added directly to the citation or footnote. Third, linking to ones own webpage is always a bit delicate. Adding too many links may give the impression that one is using the links to promote the website. It's best to minimize the additions of links in such cases. If there is a central index to related materials that might be used in place of many individual links to pages, for example. The most revelant policies and guidelines are probably WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson: I think your additions to the article on Jeffrey Masson need to be, at the very least, reworded. I am resisting the temptation to simply remove them, but I think that they have been added to the 'Life and Work' section in a way that does not read smoothly. To include the sentence that starts, 'However a number of Freud scholars and other academics have argued that...' immediately after the part about Masson's response to Webster seems to suggest that it is because of any failings that particular edition of The Assault on Truth may suffer from that Masson may have failed to understand the true nature of the seduction theory, and I presume that this is not your point. Skoojal (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a little more clear about where the problem lies: Including the sentence starting 'However a number of Freud scholars and other academics have...' immediately following Masson's response to Webster makes it sound as though it is the failure of Masson's reponse to Webster that is responsible for his not understanding the true nature of the seduction theory. That is an unfortunate thing to imply. I will remove this unless it can be worded in a way that isn't misleading. Skoojal (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal: You write: "I'll be a little more clear about where the problem lies: Including the sentence starting 'However a number of Freud scholars and other academics have...' immediately following Masson's response to Webster makes it sound as though it is the failure of Masson's reponse to Webster that is responsible for his not understanding the true nature of the seduction theory. That is an unfortunate thing to imply."

1. My posting follows a paragraph that contains the general statement about Masson's 1998 Postscript that: "It contained a new postscript replying to critics of Masson's work..." My posting therefore applies to the Postscript as a whole, not merely to Masson's response to Webster. By writing that my paragraph follows "immediately after the part about Masson's response to Webster", you have chosen to highlight the sentence about Webster, leaving aside the previous sentence in the same paragraph containing the words "replying to critics of Masson's work", as if that were not also part of the paragraph in question.

2. You write that my posting "seems to suggest that it is because of any failings that particular edition of The Assault on Truth may suffer from that Masson may have failed to understand the true nature of the seduction theory, and I presume that this is not your point."

The 1998 edition of The Assault on Truth is identical to the original edition, with a short Postscript added to the previous edition. Masson's short 1998 Postscript cannot be understood except in the context of the book itself, so the 1998 edition must be taken as a whole – the Postscript cannot be treated in isolation. It is evident from both the book itself, and also (more specifically), from the 1998 Postscript, that Masson doesn't understand the true nature of the seduction theory (as is argued by nine authors of journal articles that I cited), so my posting applies both to the Postscript, and to Masson's supposed rebuttal of Webster.

You write that my posting "makes it sound as though it is the failure of Masson's reponse to Webster that is responsible for his not understanding the true nature of the seduction theory. That is an unfortunate thing to imply."

That is your idiosyncratic reading of my posting, only made possible by your isolating the comment about Webster from the paragraph as a whole. (And it would be an idiosyncratic misreading even if we consider the "Webster" sentence in isolation.)

I suggest you raise this issue on the Jeffrey Masson discussion page so it can be opened up to other editors. However, I'd like you to be clear about the issues involved, so I shall extend the discussion here by quoting from your paragraph to give just one illustration of what I wrote above. Your paragraph includes "Masson criticised Webster for... unjustifiably concluding that Freud's early patients had not been sexually abused."

Webster nowhere makes the assertion that Freud's "early patients" had not been sexually abused. He writes in relation to the specific period when Masson maintained the seduction theory (limited to late 1895-1897), and about a limited group of patients: "There is no evidence that any of the patients who came to Freud without memories of sexual abuse had ever suffered from such abuse." (Webster 1996, p. 517, my emphasis).

By citing that particular item in Masson's response you have inadvertently highlighted one of Masson's 1998 responses that shows that he misrepresents what Webster actually wrote, and also that, on the evidence of both his book and the 1998 Postscript, he fails to grasp the essence of the seduction theory. (Incidentally, throughout the section of the Postscript devoted to his critics Masson likewise mis-states (or evades) their actual criticisms.) Esterson (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point of your response, ("My posting therefore applies to the Postscript as a whole, not merely to Masson's response to Webster"), all I can say is that this is not automatically clear from the article on Masson. It could be interpreted (and many readers may interpret it) as applying only or primarily to Webster (please allow for the fact that not all readers of Wikipedia are likely to interpret things in the same way you would; anything that can be misunderstood will be by someone). That would be a good enough reason to remove your addition, although I would prefer to wait and let you rewrite it rather than remove it immediately. Skoojal (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the part about the failure of Masson's reponse to Webster, I'm not saying that I read the passage that way, only that someone could read it that way. This is the same problem as described above. Things have to made perfectly clear; they cannot be worded in a way that is easily subject to misinterpretation. Thus, I'll have little choice but to remove this from the article from Masson unless it can be reworded. You seem to accept that that section needs some rewording anyway, judging from your comments about how it describes Masson's criticism of Webster (despite the fact that I added this, it shouldn't be called "your paragraph"; people do not own their contributions to Wikipedia). Skoojal (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal: I shall reply first to your second paragraph, as it relates to what I already posted above. In the paragraph in question on the Jeffrey Masson page, you posted as follows:

"Masson criticised Webster for blaming him for the interest in recovered memory and for unjustifiably concluding that Freud's early patients had not been sexually abused." [Citation, 1998 edition of Masson's The Assault on Truth]

On this you now say: "I'm not saying that I read the passage that way, only that someone could read it that way." But the sentence says "Masson criticised Webster for…" – nothing there about "could be read" that way. In any case, to provide an unreferenced reading on the grounds that a passage "could" be read that way is so open-ended that it leaves it open for an editor to make a statement of virtually any idiosyncratic reading on the grounds that it could be read that way. Again, if you're saying that you didn't read it that way, how strange to write it in that manner: why didn't you write the sentence in question in terms that you did read? And how interesting that you should seemingly distance yourself from the import of the sentence now that I have pointed out that the Masson assertion about Webster that you specifically mentioned is erroneous.

You write: "Things have to made perfectly clear; they cannot be worded in a way that is easily subject to misinterpretation... That would be a good enough reason to remove your addition, although I would prefer to wait and let you rewrite it rather than remove it immediately." What this means in practice is that any time you choose to interpret something in a way that enables you find something to criticise, it gives you grounds for deleting the posted passage. That gives you virtual carte blanche to remove almost anything you take issue with.

You write: "You seem to accept that that section needs some rewording anyway…"

The last sentence of the paragraph you posted as it stands is correct: Masson did criticise Webster for supposedly "unjustifiably concluding that Freud's early patients had not been sexually abused." The fault lies not with this sentence itself, but with the fact that, contrary to what Masson claims, Webster nowhere concluded this in his book Why Freud Was Wrong.Esterson (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat my point, which I made above: your addition makes it sound as though it is only or primarily the failure of Masson's reponse to Webster that is responsible for his not understanding the true nature of the seduction theory. The point still stands. It did not concern the interpretation of the sentence from the article you quote in isolation, but rather its relation to the following sentence, added by you. Skoojal (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the second paragraph you wrote above (23.01, 19 September): "Regarding the first point of your response, ('My posting therefore applies to the Postscript as a whole, not merely to Masson's response to Webster'), all I can say is that this is not automatically clear from the article on Masson. It could be interpreted (and many readers may interpret it) as applying only or primarily to Webster (please allow for the fact that not all readers of Wikipedia are likely to interpret things in the same way you would; anything that can be misunderstood will be by someone)."

There is a paragraph on the Jeffrey Masson page. The paragraph I posted clearly alludes to that paragraph as a whole. This is evident from the fact that Webster is not mentioned in the paragraph I posted. What is happening here is that you are choosing to interpret something in such a way that you purportedly find "good enough reason to remove [my] addition." As I already noted, you are thereby giving yourself carte blanche to remove anything you take issue with, simply by choosing to interpret in such a way as to give yourself justification for removing another editor's posting. Esterson (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have re-examined the whole of Masson's 1998 Postscript, and realised that the paragraph you posted contains an inaccuracy I had not previously recognised, I may reword the current paragraph that I posted to spell out more comprehensively an alternative position to Masson 1998 (as taken by the ten Freud scholars and academics I referenced on one issue or another in my posted paragraph). Esterson (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson: this is to let you know that I have started an article about you. I am informing you as a courtesy. Skoojal (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson please see this page for advice on dealing with this issue. I understand from your post to Skoojal's page you wish to have the article about you removed from Wikipedia. Also from my reading of said article, there seems to be too little sourcing for it to stay either. I recommend you seek advice here as I am not expert in this area of BLP (wikipedia's strict policies on Biographies of Living Persons) - dealing with subjects of BLP articles who wish to have the articles removed - but another sysop at the BLP noticeboard will be able to advise you--Cailil ^talk 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson is, in my opinion, over-reacting to this. Really, he should be flattered that I've started the article. Why should he be unhappy to see a description of his work on Wikipedia? If Cailil thinks that there are not enough sources in the article, then I can add more, in order to show how widely influential Esterson's work has been (for instance, I could add things to show how it has been used by Frederick Crews, Richard Webster, or Malcolm Macmillan - all influential figures in the field of Freud scholarship). Skoojal (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal writes of my published work that he can show "show how it has been used by Frederick Crews, Richard Webster, or Malcolm Macmillan", thereby demonstrating both his limited knowledge and the inappropriateness of there being an Allen Esterson Wikipedia.

Macmillan's magnum opus Freud Evaluated was published in 1991, before I had published anything, and thus does not cite my name. My name is cited in a short section of a lengthy Afterword (40 pages) to the 1997 edition. In that short section alone Macmillan mentions, among several other authors, David Livingstone Smith, Morton Schatzman, Han Israëls, Max Scharnberg, Frank Cioffi, Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, Clark Glymour and Edward Shorter. All of these are psychologists or philosophers, mostly with prestigious academic positions, who have each published far more books and journal articles than I, but do not have a Wikipedia page.

Richard Webster's book contains a brief mention of my work among scores of other authors. Webster's book would not have been different in any significant respect had my book not been published two years earlier.

When Skoojal has proposed Wikipedia pages on, e.g., Frank Cioffi and Clark Glymour (both of whose contributions to Freud studies are but one part of a much wider publication history), and others among the many scores of academics in this field alone with far greater credentials worthy of a Wikipedia page, I'll take seriously his starting an Allen Esterson page.

I shall now take steps to have the page removed. Esterson (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson: thank you, but I am not such an ignoramus that I don't know that the first edition of Freud Evaluated was published in 1991, before your book. I specifically stated in the article on you that your book was cited in the second edition of Freud Evaluated. This, along with the other references I added, is enough to show that Seductive Mirage has been cited quite widely and had an impact on the field of Freud scholarship. Again, why should you deny this? I would have thought you would be pleased to see an article about yourself, and a mention of the influence of your book.

The lack of any Wikipedia articles about Frank Cioffi and Clark Glymour is no reason why there shouldn't be one about you. See the article specifically on this argument [5]. It would probably be worth creating an aritcle about Cioffi, along with Borch-Jacobsen and Schatzman, but there's no reason why an article about you has to wait until such articles exist. Skoojal (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dropping by, because I have a longstanding interest in the question of our practices in articles about people who are active on Wikipedia--quite apart from whether a page on you should exists (I'll take a look at it by our usual standards for researchers & comment on its talk page), Skoojal is correct that the comparison you are making is not a good argument--if you know of notable researchers--by which we usually mean something more or less like the full/associate professor level with 2 or 3 well reviewed academic publisher books or the equivalent in good peer-reviewed widely-cited articles --see WP:PROF-- please do write the articles, including major positions, publications, editorships, and honors. There are probably 50 000 academic researchers who do not have articles here but should. DGG (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Thanks for dropping by. I accept your point, but the fact remains that I have never had an academic position, have very few publications to my name, and have virtually no public profile (nor eminence) such as would warrant a Wikipedia page. Esterson (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson, I have reverted your edits to Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, on the grounds that they are a probable violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. I think you should seriously consider whether it is appropriate for you to continue editing this article, as you appear to have a conflict of interest. Skoojal (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of the purported conflict of interest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson is one of a group of scholars who for years have been trying to debunk Masson's views about Freud and the seduction theory. They've taken quite an aggressive stance against Masson, and Esterson is carrying this over into the article. The COI guideline does say that, 'Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies', but in my view Esterson is not doing this in a way that conforms to content policies (eg, BLP). Skoojal (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for your characterization of this group of scholars? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a question. I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that. All I'll say for the moment is that this is my impression of them, having read some of what they've written. The titles of some of their articles alone would support this. "Jeffrey Masson's Assault on Truth" is part of one of them. That's what I'd call aggressive. Skoojal (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that WP:BLP applies to editors as well, in addition to WP:NPA. Unless you are ready to substantiate your accusations I suggest that you stop making them. And unless the works of Esterson, et al., are deemed to be unreliable sources please don't delete them either. If you ever find any evidence of a COI or a BLP violation you may present it at the relevent noticeboard, WP:BLPN or WP:COIN. Continued accusation without evidence may be viewed as harassment or personal attacks against the user, as well as BLP violations agains tthe group of scholars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, the edits that Esterson made to the article on Masson were a clear case of BLP violation. Esterson made a contribution that could easily be construed as an attack against or an attempt to discredit Masson. I will revert that again if Esterson does it again. Esterson worded his contributions as an essay, and this is not appropriate in any event. Regarding BLP policy, I am not at all sure that this applies to vaguely defined groups of people as opposed to actual individuals.Skoojal (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions should take place on the article talk page or on an appropriate noticeboard. You are again cautioned to follow Wikipedia policies, particularly those regarding interactions with other editors. A good practice is to confine yourself to commenting on edits rather than editors. If I see further accusations made against this or other editors that are not supported by evidence I will treat them as personal attacks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence is that Esterson violated BLP. There's no serious question about this. Skoojal (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the exact nature of this BLP violation, along with the diffs that show this user's actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson made a long addition to the article, inappropriately worded in an essay-like way, that tried to discredit Masson and his views. That's a BLP violation. Skoojal (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is problematic about that material. What do you mean by "essay-like"? As far as I can tell, it is a summary of Webster's view of the book. While I don't know how much space should be devoted to Webster, that is a separate question. Again, please be specific in pointing to the perceived BLP violation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a blatant, obvious attack against Masson. It sided with Webster against Masson. That's what's problematic about it. By essay like, I mean that it reads like an essay. Skoojal (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you twice to be specific. Please quote a sentence that you think is a violation of BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then:

An examination of the section in Webster's Why Freud Was Wrong in which he discusses Masson's The Assault on Truth indicates that his comments refer specifically to Freud's claims in his 1896 papers,^[1] namely, that for every one of eighteen current patients he had uncovered unconscious memories of infantile sexual abuse occurring mostly below the age of four.^[2] (Freud had not reported any cases of infantile sexual abuse, and very few cases of sexual abuse of any kind,^[3] prior to his reporting to Wilhelm Fliess his new theory in October 1895.^[4]) Webster does not argue that Freud forced memories of abuse on the patients in question: rather he writes that, with the aid of the coercive clinical procedure he was using at that time,^[5] Freud endeavoured to induce his patients to "reproduce" scenes of early childhood sexual abuse which "he himself had reconstructed from their symptoms or their associations".^[6]

In contrast to Masson's view, Webster writes that "there is a great deal of evidence, most of it in Freud's own frank and astonishing words, that he went out of his way to persuade, encourage and cajole" the patients in question,^[7] and noted that, for instance, Freud himself referred to "the strongest compulsion of the treatment", while the patients continued to assure Freud "emphatically" of their "unbelief" that they had experienced sexual abuse in infancy.^[8]

In relation to Masson's quoting in his 1998 Postscript that Freud stated he had been able to obtain an objective confirmation in two instances,^[9] this claim has been criticised on the grounds that no data are provided by Freud to justify what are described as contentions the reader must take on faith.^[10]

Webster words indicate that, while he writes that there is no evidence of sexual abuse in the case of the patients reported in the 1896 papers, he does not say either as a generality, or unequivocally, that no abuse had occurred for Freud's early patients. What he says is that for the patients in question, who had come to Freud without memories of sexual abuse, there is strong evidence that the "actual material" of the analyses (which Freud never published^[11]) that had provided support for his claim to have uncovered infantile sexual abuse "scenes" for all these patients was obtained by means of coercive clinical procedures.^[12]

Each and every word of this is a violation of BLP. Notice that it doesn't simply say what Webster wrote (which in itself wouldn't be appropriate), but actually offers a commentary on what Webster wrote, expressing the opinion that Webster is right and Masson wrong. It's utterly inappropriate. Skoojal (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--Outdenting

• In relation to Masson's quoting in his 1998 Postscript that Freud stated he had been able to obtain an objective confirmation in two instances,[9] this claim has been criticised on the grounds that no data are provided by Freud to justify what are described as contentions the reader must take on faith.[10]

You say that every word is a BLP violation. Where is the BLP violation in this sentence? You seem to be saying that the inclusion of criticism of the subject's academic research is a BLP violation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BLP violation simply in that it takes sides in a controversy. It's an attempt to muddle the issue, in my opinion. The problem is not so much that it's wrong but that it's off the point. Some knowledge of the issue would help. As Esterson has asked me what I've read (and I gave a fully honest answer), I'll ask you what you've read. The two relevant works are Richard Webster's book Why Freud Was Wrong and the 1998 edition of Jeffrey Masson's The Assault on Truth. Have you read these? Skoojal (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking sides can happen when the encyclopedia says "x, y, and z" without attribution. That's not happening here. Reporting that a scholar has said "x, y, and z" is not taking sides - just the oppisite - in this case it appears to be providing balance. You've made assertions here and on WP:AN that this user has violated BLP and has a conflict of interest. So far you have not substantiated either accusation. Please stop making claims like this unless you can provide specific evidence of clear violations of policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking sides can happen under any number of circumstances. Reporting that a scholar said something or other can indeed be BLP violation if this is done in a way that suggests that a fact is relevant to an issue to which it is not relevant, certainly when it does this as if its relevance goes without saying, rather than being a matter of opinion. I've substantiated the accusation of BLP violation in my opinion. Frankly, I suspect that you simply don't know enough about this issue, and your refusal to answer my question as to whether you have read the relevant books strengthens this suspicion. I'm not trying to be rude by saying that. It's just that the issue is somewhat of a tangled nature, and it really would help to know something about it. Skoojal (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know plenty about violations of WP:BLP and I do not see one here. Establishing a violation does not require reading two books. I council you to stop being disruptive. You have admitted that you are bringing off-Wiki disputes here. If you continue to make unproven accusations then those may be regarded as personal attacks. Because of your issues with Esterson I strongly suggest that you do not continue engaging him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson offered his personal opinion or interpretation of Webster's work. It's shouldn't even be necessary to show that he was being unfair in his interpretation (as no interpretation is welcome), but as someone familiar with Webster's book, as well as Masson's, it is clear to me that he was. As you now effectively admit not having read these books, you've also established that you don't know enough to comment. Skoojal (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a person's work is not the same as commenting on a person. It is not a BLP violation for an article to report that there are disputes over a subject's scholarship. BLP does not require that we prohibit any criticism of the scientific work of Stanley Pons, for example. If Esterson has misrepresented Webster then that can be fixed. But it is not a BLP issue to include sourced, attributed criticism of a scholar's work. If these books are so important to establishing the BLP violation then please indicate which pages contain the relevant information. In the meantime, please stop making these unsupported allegations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy makes it quite clear that you can't add criticism in a way that appears to take sides. Esterson clearly took a side. Actually reading the relevant material would help if one wants to make a judgment about this. See, eg, the appendix Freud's False Memories in Webster's book, and the afterword added by Masson in 1998 to The Assault on Truth. Stop making allegations about me if you haven't read the relevant material. Skoojal (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are making unsubstantiated claims of COI and BLP. What in those books indicates that Esterson is violating BLP on Wikipedia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the books indicates that. What Esterson did with the books, which you have not read, indicates that. It is not going to be useful to even discuss this unless you have the patience for a detailed explanation. It might take me two or three hours to go over the sources again and offer a full commentary on what Esterson did and what is wrong with it. Will you read that if I write it? Skoojal (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost track of how many times I've asked you to substantiate your claims of COI and BLP violations. Yes, please post whatever information is needed to establish the accusations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to offer a full commentary on Esterson's edits to the Masson article and why they were inappropriate. It will take me some time to do that, given that the issue is complicated. As I have other things to do with my time than simply edit Wikipedia, I'd request that you wait a full twenty four hours for me to write this. Skoojal (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the time you need. Just please don't keep repeating the accusation until you've provided the evidence of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the time to write it; I'd suggest you take the time to read the two relevant books. Skoojal (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A response to Skoojal's postings above:

Skoojal writes: "Esterson is one of a group of scholars who for years have been trying to debunk Masson's views about Freud and the seduction theory. They've taken quite an aggressive stance against Masson, and Esterson is carrying this over into the article."

The paragraphs I wrote were to balance Skoojal's posting that gave Masson's arguments against Webster on the seduction theory episode. They comprised of statements of what Webster actually wrote (as against what Masson said he wrote).

What Skoojal refers to as "debunking" on my part are scholarly articles in prestigious history of psychology journals: History of Psychology, History of Psychiatry, History of the Human Sciences.

Just taking the articles I cited in my references in the paragraphs Skoojal has deleted, here are the publications from which they were taken:

History of Psychiatry; Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association; Psychoanalytic Review; History of the Human Sciences; Review of General Psychology; Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology; Journal of Modern History; Journal of the History of Ideas.

The books cited were published by: International Universities Press; Routledge.

Skoojal writes of the authors in question: "They've taken quite an aggressive stance against Masson..."

If anyone would care to examine the articles in question (the citations for which can be found in the deleted paragraphs in the "history" page of Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson) they will find they are soberly worded scholarly criticisms of Masson's account of the seduction theory episode on the basis of an examination of the original documentary evidence.

In response to the question "Do you have a source for your characterization of this group of scholars?", Skoojal writes: "All I'll say for the moment is that this is my impression of them, having read some of what they've written."

Perhaps Skoojal will tell us which of the articles and relevant book chapters he has read by the following authors I cited:

Israëls, H. and Schatzman, M.; McCullough, M.L.; Paul, R. A.; Salyard, A.; Schimek, J. G.; Toews, J.E.; Triplett, H.; Eissler, K.; Smith, D. L.

Skoojal writes: "The titles of some of their articles alone would support this. 'Jeffrey Masson's Assault on Truth' is part of one of them. That's what I'd call aggressive."

The subtitle in question is an allusion to Masson's book The Assault on Truth. Perhaps Skoojal would like to tell just one other title of articles I have cited that is "aggressive" (only three titles out of around eight even mention Masson, as they are about the Freud's seduction theory generally). Esterson (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson, your question about what I've read is something that I don't think needs an answer, but I will answer it anyway. I've read none of the sources you mention. I've read your book, however, and Webster, and Crews, and Macmillan, and various other things, and that's enough of a basis on which to form an opinion. Skoojal (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal, you write that it is a violation of BLP simply to take sides in an issue, and that this muddles the issue. I have three questions: (1) where does it say in the BLP policy that editors are forbidden to add material taking one side? (2) what in your opinion is "the issue" here? and (3) how, exactly, has Esterson's additon "muddled" the "issue?" You are not explaining yourself clearly and until you do it is impossibl to assess the value of your claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, as an admin, you should know very well that the Criticism and praise section of the BLP policy says, 'Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides.' Esterson was clearly taking a side. My opinion of the issue, briefly, is that Webster and Masson's views are both generally wrong, but that Masson is closer to the truth than Webster. One of the ways Esterson's addition muddled things was that it mentioned an irrelevant fact (eg, that Freud's claim to have independent evidence that some of his patients had been sexually abused has been questioned) as though it were relevant to the question of whether Masson was being fair to Webster, when it is not. Skoojal (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webster is a verifiable source. The criticism is as you say relevant to the subject's notability and can be rsourced to reliable secondary sources. So by your own admission, Esterson's edit conforms to our policies. But you know what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you think Esterson added something that is not part of Webster's critique, delete it. But do not fault him for adding Webster's critique. When you chose not to make an edit that would improve content, and instead attack an editor, you are failing to assume good faith and it makes it look like you care more about stirring up conflict with editors than improving articles. In this case, improving articles means adding notable views, especially critical ones. I do not see how you can oppose this. By the way, I never mentioned my being an administrator. I am an editor and all editors ought to know and uphold wikipedia policy, including you. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never "admitted" that Esterson's edits conform to policy. They don't. As for Esterson adding something not in Webster, his addition started with this, 'An examination of the section in Webster's Why Freud Was Wrong in which he discusses Masson's The Assault on Truth indicates that his comments refer specifically to Freud's claims in his 1896 papers.' That is certainly not in Webster, because it's commentary on Webster, commentary of a questionable and dubiously relevant nature. Obviously Webster could not include in his book what someone else would conclude from an examination of it. Skoojal (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal writes: "It's a BLP violation simply in that it takes sides in a controversy."

Skoojal posted three paragraphs on the Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson page about Masson's Postscript to his 1998 edition of The Assault on Truth, two of which give Masson's criticisms of Richard Webster's view of the seduction theory episode in Why Freud is Wrong. Why, on Skoojal's reckoning, does this not amount to taking sides in favour of Masson against Webster?

Being perfectly familiar with this material (at the time I posted comments on this very Postscript on the Human-nature.com "Freud's Seduction Theory" website), I recognised immediately that most of what is (correctly) stated as how Masson described Webster's views were erroneous descriptions, as can be seen from the relevant passages in Why Freud Was Wrong. To provide balance to the paragraphs in question, I took each of Masson's points as described and provided Webster's actual views, with citations from Webster's book supported by citations of scholarly articles by other authors.

I tried to be careful to present the items as Webster's views. I am perfectly happy to reconsider some rewording of the paragraphs I posted (in fact I have made a couple of amendments already) if I was not completely successful in this, or to consider other comments about these paragraphs. However, Skoojal's immediate reverting of my paragraphs precluded this. Esterson (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson, to reply to your question about taking sides: mentioning Masson's views about Webster is not taking sides against Webster because the Masson article is not about Webster. If I had mentioned Masson's views about Webster on the Webster article, and implied that they were correct, that would have been taking sides against Webster, but I didn't do that. You offered an opinionated interpetation of both men's work that is not appropriate to a BLP. Opinion may be running against me on this, but it is up to those offering such opinions to show that they have read the works in question. Will Beback has effectively admitted not reading them. Slrubenstein and DGG have offered no comment. Skoojal (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal: You wrote: "You offered an opinionated interpetation of both men's work that is not appropriate to a BLP."

I have looked again at the paragraphs I posted, and can find nowhere where I offered an interpretation of either of the two authors. As I explained above, I took each item on which you provided Masson's criticism of what he said were Webster's views, and simply provided Webster's actual view as he stated it in Why Freud Was Wrong (references given, plus supporting references from scholarly sources). In one instance I mentioned a statement you correctly ascribed to Masson in which he cited an assertion of Freud's which purportedly contradicted Webster's position, and noted that the Freud claim in question had been criticised on grounds for which I provided two scholarly references.

I have no wish to engage in further discussion of the actual content of these paragraphs, as I know that exchanges would go on interminably, and I've said all I have to say about this.

I shall certainly re-examine the way I presented Webster's views to ensure they conform to Wikipedia regulations. Esterson (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moment one starts writing something that starts, 'An examination of the section in Webster's Why Freud Was Wrong...' one is offering interpretation. If you didn't want to offer interpretation, you could instead say simply that Webster states this or that - not what an examination of the section in his book shows that he states. As for the criticism of the statement from Masson citing Freud, that's not even relevant to the issue, and it wasn't appropriate to mention it as though it was. Skoojal (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I can't see how referring to the actual work of which the author's views are being presented indicates that what follows is an interpretation. But that is easily remedied. (As I've said, I intend looking carefully at my wording again.) Unfortunately you immediately deleted my posting so discussion of such details was not possible. Esterson (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old versions of articles are preserved in the revision history. It's an extremely easy task to look at them, to see what was deleted, and to discuss it. Nothing that you added has been lost, even though it doesn't appear in the article at the moment. I've added a comment on the talk page about why I regard your additions about Webster as interpretation. Skoojal (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to post a modified version of the paragraphs deleted by Skoojal. As I already stated, I have been amending them, partly to allow for Skoojal's criticisms of my wording, but without eliminating the substantive material contained in the original posting. My reasons are:

1. According to DGG on this Talk page, "I think the material can now be restored. There now are 3 people not involved with the article contributing here, all of whom agree on that."

2. The amended paragraphs need to be available to Skoojal for him to provide his new criticisms.

3. As we've seen, any further exchanges of the basis of the new criticisms Skoojal has said he is going to provide are likely to go on and on almost indefinitely.

I am notifying Skoojal that I have posted amended paragraphs on which he can provide his new criticisms. Esterson (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how quoting the relevant published work of a significant scholar or summarizing it in a fair manner can possibly be a BLP violation. Academics criticise each other, and to say that one has published something that is wrong is normal discourse and the basis of the academic process. If its been said in such a manner, it's our obligation to include it in a proportionate way. Many people have criticized Masson, and many supported him. An editor who inserts the views in an appropriate manner that does not overbalance the article is not violating BLP. . I think the material can now be restored. There now are 3 people not involved with the article contributing here, all of whom agree on that. DGG (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are all seriously mistaken. Esterson did not quote the relevant published work of a significant scholar or summarize it in anything remotely like a fair manner. He offered a personal opinion or interpretation of Webster's work. He used the article to try to debunk Masson. It was unquestionably a BLP violation. Since understanding this may depend on knowledge of the sources, I would urge you to say whether you have read Webster or Masson's book. I do not think that you can usefully comment otherwise. Skoojal (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the only book I can find on my office bookshelves that addresses this is Frederick Crews' edited "Unauthorized Freud". I find in his introduction to Borch-Jacobson's chapter* (pg 43):"Scarcely any well-informed Freud scholars, whether pro- aor anti-psychoanalytic, support Masson's view (see, however, Balmary, 1982; Krull, 1986). It is easy to see why not. Masson's arguments collapses as soon as one learns, from Freud's own papers of 1896, that the tales of molestation were not volunteered by his patients but pieced together by Freud himself from "as if" visualizations that he required the patients to produce. (for a definitive assessment of Masson's thesis, see Esterson, 1989)". As for the Borch-Jacobson's chapter itself (an excerpt from "Neurotica: Freud and the Seduction Theory" by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and Douglas Brick October, Vol. 76, (Spring, 1996), pp. 15-43 [6]), a quick skimming suggests it is a longer version of the same critique. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete.Hurd, the immediate question here is whether Esterson was being fair in the way he explained Masson and Webster's views (and not whether the views themselves are accurate or not). Obviously Crews's book has no bearing on this. Skoojal (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a rewriting of the relevant paragraph on the talk page, to illustrate what you think about the way of dealing with it was unfair. That's the way to deal with it--nobody else so far as been able to see the problem you see, so that might explain it. DGG (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will write an explanation of what was wrong with Esterson's editing, and add it to the Masson talk page. It will take me up to 24 hours to do that, since the issue is complicated and I have things to do with my time other than editing. Explanations like this would be more helpful to those who have read the books, and I again ask DGG whether he has done so. Skoojal (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal writes: "You are all seriously mistaken. Esterson did not quote the relevant published work of a significant scholar or summarize it in anything remotely like a fair manner. He offered a personal opinion or interpretation of Webster's work. He used the article to try to debunk Masson." (And he rightly adds that "the immediate question here is whether Esterson was being fair in the way he explained Masson and Webster's views...")

I quoted – or paraphrased – the (very) relevant writings of Richard Webster. (Perhaps Skoojal does not think that Webster's book is "the relevant published work of a significant scholar", but judging by the reviews of Why Freud Was Wrong many people do regard him as such.) Regardless of Skoojal's view of Webster, since he reported Masson's criticisms of Webster, any balancing paragraphs could not but provide what Webster actually wrote in his book. I did not offer a personal opinion or interpretation; I accurately presented Webster's views, as could be found on the pages I cited in Why Freud Was Wrong.

There's a certain irony in Skoojal's saying that I didn't summarize what Webster wrote in anything remotely like a fair manner, when I was careful to consult his book to ensure I adhered to what he wrote, and thereby provided implicit indications that Skoojal's (accurate) reporting of Masson's criticisms of Webster showed that it was Masson who did not summarize Webster's views in a fair manner.

The fact that Skoojal has described my scholarly articles on this subject published in prestigious journals (History of Psychiatry, History of Psychology and History of the Human Sciences) as "debunking" Masson indicates that on this matter Skoojal is unwilling to distinguish criticisms based on a close reading of the historical documents from "debunking". Esterson (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson, the place for Webster's views is, in my opinion, in the article on Webster. It's no more necessary or desirable to add an explanation of Webster's views to the article on Masson that it is to do the reverse. And regardless, your 'explanation' of Webster was a conjectural interpretation. Skoojal (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal writes: "It's no more necessary or desirable to add an explanation of Webster's views to the article on Masson than it is to do the reverse."

I did not add "an explanation of Webster's views" per se. You described Masson's 1998 criticisms of Webster's supposed views and arguments. I balanced this by describing the actual views and arguments given by Webster in Why Freud Was Wrong that were inaccurately presented in your paragraphs. Esterson (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson, I have started a discussion at ANI that involves you. I am required to inform you of this. Skoojal (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to this thread is here. Skoojal, next time you do this, provide the link yourself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Thanks for getting the facts straight in the article [7], [8]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." =-] --J. D. Redding 02:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of many inauthentic or unsourced "quotations" attributed to Einstein.[[9]] The first known origin of the statement was decades after Einstein's death.

Just letting you know that I provided more explanation about what I was trying to say about Paul McHugh on the Freud talk page. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigmund_Freud#Psychiatrist.3F. I gather that you and I share some appreciation for a) Freud's huge impact on psychiatry and the importance and validity of many of his discoveries and b) the validity of the criticism of the metholodological failings of the analysts, and the troubled state of psychoanalytic practice. If that's a mistaken impression, then forgive me. If it's correct, perhaps you and I can put our heads together on some improvements to the Freud page.Hypoplectrus (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in responding to your post on my talk page. I am very busy in my "real life" right now.

It appears that your concerns are valid based on a quick overview of the Freud talk page. Unfortunately, I know nothing about Freud other than he is a highly notable psychoanalyst, and the father of psychoanlysis which has branched off into other forms of theraputic disciplines. And just as unfortunate, I don't have the time right now to catch up (read one or two books, etc.). If this were Einstein's page I could help out. So, good luck and it seems that you have some support from other level headed editors. Hopefully, it is enough support to keep the article accurate. However, if not let me know and I will see if I can find the time to get involved. You can email me if you want. Regards ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to me like the perfect editor to bring some balance to Mileva_Marić#Role in physics. It should cite some things she had a role in, and not be all about what her role was not. I feel like posting an {{NPOV}} in the article stating as much until it's balanced. Personally, I have faith that any close associate as intelligent these people are is an influence, esp. a wife.

And I question the tone of that section. It's to much like the evidentialism and evidence of absence that perpetuates environmental degradation. I also question the WP:COI concept, for it says an expert can't say anything on Wikipedia. How self-defeating that seems to me, and all because of a tempting tendency to wield combative bias, learned through mastering the defense moves, deceptive techniques garnered through battles with critics or taking questions at lectures. I have an essay on WP:COI, a sort of rant. So please try to stay neutral at all costs if you make contributions that balance the section, and don't get yourself into any edit wars, over any additions or deletions, or the WP:ANI will call foul on you. Sincerely, I would grimace to see that happen, esp. where the article looks so sadly empty and needy.

Now, I greatly improved the clarity and presentation of the wording on that section, but never did I have any opinion on the material, none whatsoever. So I will of course restore the improvement work I did, and it will stay in place until civil discussion takes it down, even if a part at a time. — CpiralCpiral 04:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cpriol: I fail to understand your questioning the tone of my comments on the Maric Talk page. I was perfectly polite throughout. What I did was to point out factual errors in your amended version (all of which I can document from the sources) or express reservations about some sentences. I also politely suggested that if you reintroduce passages in that section you should do so passage by passage rather than all in one go, so that the factual content of each passage can be discussed. Instead you have chosen to reintroduce almost all of your original amendments, including several which I have rebutted on factual grounds. Why have you not responded to my individual rebuttals to justify your reintroducing them? That is what the Talk page is for.

1)Your specification of sentences in question are clearly excellent discussion style. Yet ironically, I don't see them on the talk page there, and have asked you to itemize them there. 2)"All of your original ammendments"? I made about two edits? 1)An extensive copyedit of the entire section, just a copy of what was there? No amendments there? 2)A cited "fact" that was not a fact.

You write: of Maric:

It should cite some things she had a role in, and not be all about what her role was not.

By all means – when there is good evidence that this is the case, not mere assertions made by authors who have not sought out original sources. In fact there are several contentions that come from such authors before you made your amendment, so it cannot be said that the arguments for a contribution from Maric were not already there.

"It cannot be said": I say it by way of a copyedit, so "I say it" but only restate "what was already said". I did not make an amendment that somehow then prevented "arguments for a contribution from Maric"? (For more on this see talk page.)

I can neutralized this waste of our time, my friend. I can change the source of the problem. It is the bluntness that is inflaming the article. So I changed the section title! And I made the first sentence more specific. See the talk page...

By the way, "neutral" does not mean equal weight given to each side of an issue regardless of the available evidence. The same is the case in regard to "balance".

Correct.

You write:

I greatly improved the clarity and presentation of the wording on that section

I happen not to agree with this on either ground, and have pointed out why in some detail. Instead of discussing my points on the Talk page you have chosen to reintroduce almost all of them, including factual errors I pointed out, and with the same wording in sentences on which I expressed doubts about their clarity. On the Talk page I invited you to discuss the items I highlighted, so it is you who should be engaging in civil discussion there, not ignoring what I have written.

We should be sure we're talking about the same thing, my copyedit. Please? Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your suggestion that you may invoke WP:ANI, I shall be perfectly happy if you choose to do so. But before doing so I suggest that you show willingness to discuss my objections and reservations about your amended version on the Talk page first. Esterson (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Esterson. It is clearly not necessary at all. By the way, my username is spelled like "Spiral". Good Bye. — CpiralCpiral 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cprial (apologies for spelling it wrong): You write: "Your specification of sentences in question are clearly excellent discussion style. Yet ironically, I don't see them on the talk page there, and have asked you to itemize them there."

On the Talk page I specified two examples of unclear phrases. It is not my job to express your sentences in more precise terms as I don't think there was anything wrong with the sentences they replaced.

You write: " "All of your original ammendments"? I made about two edits?"

If you check the Talk page you'll see that I commented on around eight edits in your amended version!

You write: "It should cite some things she had a role in, and not be all about what her role was not."

Your statement here presumes there are things (i.e. scientific contributions) she had a role in. But the issue to start with is whether there are any things she had a role in (scientifically speaking). In any case, the original version did contains claims about her alleged contributions to Einstein's scientific work.

You write: " "It cannot be said": I say it by way of a copyedit, so "I say it" but only restate "what was already said". I did not make an amendment that somehow then prevented "arguments for a contribution from Maric"?"

Quite frankly, I find some of your statements difficult to understand, for instance the last one here. I'll just say here that the whole point of my response on the Maric Talk page is that you should not be making such an extensive "copyedit" without discussion on the Talk page first, especially as it is evident you do not have much knowledge of the subject. You admit as much on the Maric Talk page: "Please know that I don't directly study Ferris' or Einstein's, or Maric's works, and have no strong opinions about any of this."

You wrote above "I greatly improved the clarity and presentation of the wording on that section". With all due respect, the wording of your responses to me do not suggest that you are the appropriate person to improve the clarity of the section.

You write: "It is the bluntness that is inflaming the article. So I changed the section title! And I made the first sentence more specific. See the talk page..."

This change is, I suggest, an indication that you may not be an appropriate person to be making changes to the Maric article. The issue is about alleged contributions by Maric to Einstein's scientific work in general, not specifically to the 1905 special relativity paper. It should be obvious that your new heading does not describe the contents of the section, and is entirely inappropriate. I ask you again to make suggestions for amendments on the Talk page first. Esterson (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Esterson. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people or things you have written about in the article Mileva Maric, be careful. People close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may make them mistakenly add overly-flattering or overly-disparaging content. So please read our plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Here's a partial summary of its advice:

• Be transparent about your conflict of interest.
• Do not edit articles about yourself, your business, or your competitors.
• Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or create a draft in your user space.
• Your role is to summarize, inform and reference — not to promote, whitewash, or sell.
• If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject.
• Have us review your draft.
• Work with us and we'll work with you.

Please read the whole guide. See also our policies Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Autobiography, which everyone must follow.

Thank you.

Thank you for the notice. I quote: "but if you are affiliated with some of the people or things you have written about in the article Mileva Maric, be careful."

I am not "affiliated with" some of the people or topics I have written about, but am an independent researcher and have made a lengthy and time-consuming study of the subject and the sources of the various contentions made on the topic of Mileva Maric. The quality of my research has been such that the PBS Ombudsman upheld a complaint from me in regard to their documentary "Einstein's Wife", and PBS radically amended their accompanying website accordingly:

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2006/12/einsteins_wife_the_relative_motion_of_facts.html

I have not cited any of my own articles on the subject of Mileva Maric in my contributions to the Maric page.

I take it you are not saying that someone with expertise in a topic necessarily has a conflict of interest. I have looked at the list in the Summary, and I have adhered to all of them. If you have reason to believe this is not the case, please give an example.

Incidentally, the item about posting suggestions and sources on articles' Talk pages is one that I adhere to on principle, and do so conscientiously to obtain the responses of other editors before making any amendments, including reverting of other editors' postings. Esterson (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]