Talk:The Future of an Illusion
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The book Quotations[edit]
I used my studies and my quotes from a book from a library. I understand the book is widespread and is in many types, so I am unsure exactly what to do with my quotes. They could stay if I identified my ISBN, but I don't know what to do if I wanted to just quote the book without any regard for the page numbers. Should the page numbers be deleted?--Screwball23 talk 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Religion as projection[edit]
This article needs to address Freud's assertion that the idea of God is a projection of the parent. soverman 03:47 12 December 2005 (UTC)
WikiBooks?[edit]
Should this article be added to wikibooks as well?--192.160.130.12 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Nietzsche[edit]
This article should mention Nietzsche's influence on Freud, especially his conception of "god is dead" as well as the Ubermensch eventually freeing himself of the fantasy of religion...
Judaism and Christianity[edit]
It would be noteworthy to analyze what were Freud's attitudes towards Judaism and Christianity, since Freud is often said to be a secular jew. The accusation of totemism strikes me as a veiled attack on Christianity, which is rooted in veneration of holy crosses, while Judaism does not have crosses. ADM (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Your understanding of totemism seems to be askew. Ninahexan (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Drive by deletion of carefully prepared content without discussion & etc.[edit]
Probable religious/conservative POV or related issue(s) with transparently false justification for the action. Didn't look at the edits in detail and even if I hadn't prepared the content would take this action on general principle of conserving value of site content. Lycurgus (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your comment could be construed as a personal attack, Lycurgus, and you should refactor. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You are being foolish in assuming anything about my motives, and it's very tiresome of you to immediately jump to the conclusion that I must have some awful religious motive. I wasn't aware that it was considered acceptable here to attack people on the basis that one assumes them to people of faith, which would normally be seen as uncivilized behavior. Persist in behaving like this, and I will take the matter up on ANI. You are also being foolish in reverting edits without looking at them carefully. You do yourself no favors by admitting that that is what you have done. As you would have noticed had you bothered to actually look closely at my edit, I removed the content in question because it is off-topic for this article. It was an inappropriately long quotation from another book by Freud (Civilization and Its Disconents) that has no direct relevance to this article. Even if this article were Civilization and Its Discontents, there would be no good reason to include such a very long quotation; an encyclopedia article is meant to summarize the main points of a book, not quote vast chunks of text from it. The text I removed tried to connect that content to this article with the words, "The topic is resumed in the beginning of Freud's subsequent book, Civilization and Its Discontents", but of course this is not an article about Freud personally, so while the statement that Freud dealt with similar topics in another book may be true, it is also irrelevant. The fact that Freud dealt with the same topic in a different book says nothing about this particular book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well no, an observation is not a personal attack and I amended to 'related issue(s)' spent as much time as made sense on that redact. The basic issue is with the deletion of footnotes of great relevance and so the direct contradiction between what you are saying and facts of the relation of the content to the article which in turn, I'm sorry Dave, but in this past this has always turned out to be human error :) So the redact of back matter content, had I pursued it, would have gone into other personality issues as I assume you are not in fact either religious or conservative (other than the a priori probability you would have of being such by virtue of whatever your profile is). Lycurgus (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your "observation" is totally inappropriate, and I've just had to ask for admin help over this issue. I know I say that I value the Bible on my user page, but did you notice that I actually say nothing about my religious views or lack of them? Kindly don't make assumptions about my views, and don't distract attention away from the content issues here by making inflammatory and irrelevant comments about what you imagine I believe. Furthermore, I said your comment could be construed as a personal attack, not that it was one. Are you not aware of the difference between saying a comment can be construed as a personal attack and saying that it is a personal attack? Making comments that can be construed as personal attacks, whether they are or or not, is a very bad idea. The rest of your comment is just a mess ("the direct contradiction between what you are saying and facts of the relation of the content to the article which in turn, I'm sorry Dave, but in this past this has always turned out to be human error" you say - what does that even mean?). You give absolutely no good reason for having reverted me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well no, an observation is not a personal attack and I amended to 'related issue(s)' spent as much time as made sense on that redact. The basic issue is with the deletion of footnotes of great relevance and so the direct contradiction between what you are saying and facts of the relation of the content to the article which in turn, I'm sorry Dave, but in this past this has always turned out to be human error :) So the redact of back matter content, had I pursued it, would have gone into other personality issues as I assume you are not in fact either religious or conservative (other than the a priori probability you would have of being such by virtue of whatever your profile is). Lycurgus (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
No I didn't see anything on your page, just glanced at it. Agree, let an admin decide. Lycurgus (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you "glanced" at the page, you would presumably have seen something. I'll be interested to see exactly what an admin will make of your weird response to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- 'Glance' means look at it for not more than about 2 seconds, so didn't see and still haven't seen anything about what your positions are, just your mention of the bible above. Haven't read above in detail but will do so by Tuesday. Have to get my mediawiki instances migrated by monday. Lycurgus (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm looking for is an explanation of why you think this article about a book by Freud should include a very, very, long quotation from a completely different book by Freud. I am still not seeing one (or an awareness that you have failed to show good faith by making unfounded assertions about my motives). As you have failed to explain why this article about a book by Freud should contain a lengthy quotation from a completely different book by Freud, I have simply removed it again. The length of the quotation alone makes it inappropriate. The one relevant point conveyed by that quotation seems to be that Romain Rolland was critical of The Future of an Illusion. I should have hoped that it would be easy to find a way of conveying that worthwhile information without an unacceptably long quotation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I still haven't looked at this in depth, but just wanna check an apparent basic fact here. Is your issue with the support that although it is Freud referring to the work that the article is about and providing his essential motivation for the work, because he did not do so in the work itself (i.e. in DZeI) that that somehow makes it irrelevant? Because that's utterly absurd, indicates some disorder, it's utterly without merit and in that case it will have to be apparently decided by an admin if you don't restore the text and that is your argument as you've reverted my revert. Lycurgus (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to comment on the article at all, then it really, really would help if you looked at it in depth. You sort of disqualify yourself from talking about the article seriously by not doing that. The quotation from Civilization and its Discontents is partly relevant, to the extent that it concerns The Future of an Illusion, but it is obviously much too long to be included in this article (it amounted, in fact, to more than half the total size of the article). See WP:UNDUE. The only truly relevant information in the quotation was the fact that Romain Rolland was critical of The Future of an Illusion, and I have added new material that covers that. Oh, and it would help if you didn't make unnecessary assertions that an argument made by another editor "indicates some disorder". You should have enough familiarity with Wikipedia to realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot by doing that. I see from your talk page that I am not the only editor you have made inappropriate comments to. Just keep behaving that way, and the arguments about content are going to become quite irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I still haven't looked at this in depth, but just wanna check an apparent basic fact here. Is your issue with the support that although it is Freud referring to the work that the article is about and providing his essential motivation for the work, because he did not do so in the work itself (i.e. in DZeI) that that somehow makes it irrelevant? Because that's utterly absurd, indicates some disorder, it's utterly without merit and in that case it will have to be apparently decided by an admin if you don't restore the text and that is your argument as you've reverted my revert. Lycurgus (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm looking for is an explanation of why you think this article about a book by Freud should include a very, very, long quotation from a completely different book by Freud. I am still not seeing one (or an awareness that you have failed to show good faith by making unfounded assertions about my motives). As you have failed to explain why this article about a book by Freud should contain a lengthy quotation from a completely different book by Freud, I have simply removed it again. The length of the quotation alone makes it inappropriate. The one relevant point conveyed by that quotation seems to be that Romain Rolland was critical of The Future of an Illusion. I should have hoped that it would be easy to find a way of conveying that worthwhile information without an unacceptably long quotation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- 'Glance' means look at it for not more than about 2 seconds, so didn't see and still haven't seen anything about what your positions are, just your mention of the bible above. Haven't read above in detail but will do so by Tuesday. Have to get my mediawiki instances migrated by monday. Lycurgus (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would be pleased to offer a third opinion. May I assist? - Slugfilm (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- No one is stopping you. The normal thing in offering a third opinion is to simply go ahead and do it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
3O Response: I have reviewed the disputed edit regarding the inclusion of the quote from Civilization and Its Discontents. My third opinion is that the quote is too long for inclusion in its proposed form. I refer to WP policy on use of quotations: "Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information." As originally proposed, the length of the quote dominated the article. However, I agree the quotation appears to be relevant to the article. I therefore suggest the quotation is reduced in length and/or paraphrased. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Slugfilm (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am not necessarily opposed to restoring a shortened version of the quotation, and will consider how best to do that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- No one is stopping you. The normal thing in offering a third opinion is to simply go ahead and do it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
