Talk:Frederick C. Crews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] Date of "Pooh Perplex" publication, ISBN #

According to the publication information page of my 2003 edition copy of the Pooh Perplex, it was first published in '63 by E.P. Dutton & Co. The ISBN I have given was on the back of the 2003 edition, though, so might be incorrect. Edward Wakelin 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted speculation

The article currently reads, 'It is likely that Crews will eventually be best remembered for this playfully witty book [ie, the Pooh Perplex].' This is speculation that does not belong in the article, and I am going to remove it.Skoojal (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship about Crews's comments on homosexuality

I am not altogether surprised to see my edits reverted, and before anyone tells me that they are worried about my feelings, let me add that I'm not that bothered about it, given that it was fairly predictable. I will point out several things. Firstly, it was Frederick C. Crews's choice to make those comments about homosexuality, not mine. None of those quotes were made up by me; they were all taken from Crews's books. They are part of the public record of his statements about a highly controversial issue. They are in no way a minor matter, and nor are they irrelevant to this article (Crews is primarily a literary critic, to be sure, but I think it is extremely pertinent what someone who wrote books about Henry James and E. M. Forster has to say about homosexuality). I assume that the person who removed them was concerned for Crews's reputation, but there are other issues at stake, such as the right of readers of this article to be informed about what Crews wrote.

Secondly, I strongly doubt that there is any useful way in which this article can be expanded without including those comments. Frederick Crews is a well known and influential writer, so it's appropriate that an article on him go into a certain amount of detail about what he wrote in his books. Readers of the article can be expected to already know something about Crews (presumably that is their motive for reading it), so why not tell them something they may not already know? Presumably that is the whole point of a wikipedia article. The Memory Wars, for instance, wasn't just about the recovered memory movement; it was an attack on psychoanalysis as well, and it is surely of help to the reader to be told, in Crews's own words, one of his reasons for attacking it. So why should those comments about homosexuality not be there? (The same point applies to comments about Crews made by other people - for instance, why cannot readers of the article learn that Judith Butler found one of Crews's comments homophobic? This is exactly the kind of thing an article should tell its readers)

Thirdly, this is not a matter of 'interpretation', not by any reasonable definition. That homosexuality is a mental illness is the plain meaning of Crews's first footnote in Analysis Terminable. I do not agree that this is 'considerable undue weight being given to one sentence of a book.' It should not matter if there was only one sentence; this is what that sentence, a very important and relevant sentence, means. In fact it is not the only sentence; the casual way that Crews mentions homosexuals in the same company as psychotics and neurotics in his postscript also suggests that he views homosexuality as a mental illness. If it is only the 'interpretation' of this sentence that is at issue, it can easily be re-written.

Fourthly, I think it accomplishes very little to expunge those comments from the article. Anyone with any interest in the issue can go to its saved older versions to see them. I expect that numerous people will do just that, especially since I have added this note here (unless of course someone is going to delete not only this note but also the old versions of the article, which really would be extraordinary, and damage wikipedia's reputation). And fifthly, some of the edits that were reverted had nothing whatever to do with Crews's comments about homosexuality. May I ask why that was done? Skoojal (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your own discussion of his books what we call original research on Wikipedia; there's lots of places those opinions would be welcome, but at Wikipedia, we simply report what other reliable sources have already said. Undue weight is another Wikipedia concept that you need to understand, especially when its on a biography of a living person (see the policy here to understand how careful you are required to be on these types of articles) -- devoting multiple paragraphs to something that is not integral to the person's notability also violates the neutral point of view policy.
I understand that you feel his comments on homosexuality were notable, but they were mere sentences in much larger works and are not integral to understanding those larger works. Unless you can produce reliable sources that single out those comments in the same way, I'm afraid its simply your opinion and thus not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Its also not a good sign that you're going out of your way to add "controversy" to the article and your response here does make it appear that you may be too involved in this subject to edit reliably. Considering the bulk of your edits were questionable, I chose, per WP:BLP, to remove them until such time as they conform to Wikipedia policy. Shell babelfish 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Where original research is concerned, the page on that subject says, 'Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.' This is what I have done. Crews's books are such a source, and I have done no more than to report what he says in them. As for notability, the fact that these were 'mere sentences in much larger works' is surely not important in itself. If it were, then there would probably be no grounds for ever quoting anything that anyone says in any book. They are among the most relevant sentences in Crews's books, since they concern his reasons for attacking psychoanalysis, and therefore are indeed integral to understanding them.
(As for adding controversy - Crews is a controversial person). Skoojal (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


If you were just discussing his works, then you could say it was source-based research. However, what you did was cherry pick a few specific points to mention. If these points are so controversial and if he is such a controversial person, surely it will not be difficult to provide reliable secondary sources to back up those claims. Wikipedia is very strict on sourcing when dealing with biographies of living people. Shell babelfish 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is unclear to me exactly how the concept of 'cherry picking' applies here. In this context, I suppose it refers to trying to convey an unbalanced and misleading impression of something by selectively mentioning only facts that suggest that impression, while ignoring others. That is not what I did. Crews has made different statements about homosexuality over the years, apparently expressing different points of view. I mentioned what was relevant (it would have been cherry picking had I mentioned only those statements by Crews in which he suggests that homosexuality is a mental illness, but I did not).
Perhaps what you are really trying to say is it that it is wrong for the article to in any way include Crews's comments about homosexuality, but whatever term one might use for including them, it isn't 'cherry picking.' The fact that Crews is a controversial person has nothing to do with this. He is controversial; the fact that he made those comments is not. If you want to know what someone wrote about something in his books, then the books are all you need. Skoojal (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, what I'm saying is that you need to provide a reliable secondary source for the information you want to include. Let me see if it helps to put it this way -- you could say "His book says this" and provide his book as the source (but unless its something earth shattering, its unlikely a Wikipedia article would do that), you cannot say "His book says this, which is controversial" without providing a source that says its controversial. Hope that helps. You also need to understand that Wikipedia isn't a news outlet, its an encyclopedia. Articles don't contain things that aren't of enduring worth -- for instance, if someone makes a comment about the subject once during an interview, its unlikely it would be included unless what was said could be shown to be significant. We don't include every comment made about a subject, just the major points of view. This is discussed in depth at WP:NPOV. Shell babelfish 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbification of the article

I note that the article has recently been reduced to a stub. I do not necessarily think that this was a mistake, although much of the material described as 'opinion and speculation' seems clearly correct to me. That, for instance, 'Crews achieved fame in the popular press because of a controversy over his two essays critiquing Freud, Freudian theory and the recovered memory movement' seems clearly correct, even though there was no reference. One part of what was removed - a mention of the publication of Crews's articles about the recovered memory movement in The New York Review of Books and their subsequent publication as a book - was simply a neutral statement of fact. So I wonder why that had to be removed. Skoojal (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Clearly correct" isn't the standard of inclusion, verifiability is, especially in biographies. There's no reason any proper information couldn't be replaced with sources. Shell babelfish 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Does proper information include mention of criticisms Crews has made of other people? I have in mind specifically Crews's suggestion that Judith Butler interpreted one of his remarks as homophobic. Can this be mentioned in the article, and if so under what conditions? Skoojal (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as what you want to include was reported by a reliable secondary source and you add it in an appropriate weight (for instance, if you write five paragraphs on the incident, it would be out of proportion since the entire article isn't that large) it shouldn't be a problem at all. If you haven't taken a look at the policy on biographies for living people, it wouldn't hurt to read it over. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 08:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De-Stubbification of the article

Someone recently restored the article to the way it was before it was stubbified. It should be pointed out that, while much of the material in the article does indeed have a source, it also contains an inaccuracy: it suggests that Judith Butler used the word 'homophobic' to describe Crews. This did not happen. Butler said some things about Crews that he interpreted as an accusation of homophobia, but she did not use the word 'homophobic.' Those who want to see what Butler actually said can find it in Whose Freud?, by Peter Brooks and Alex Woloch. Skoojal (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Go ahead and correct it. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
I am not sure why you would suggest that I correct the article. It was you, not me, who re-inserted this material. The fact that I was aware that it wasn't 100% accurate was one of the reasons why I didn't re-insert it myself. Surely it is at least as much your responsibility to correct the article as it is mine? Skoojal (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, I suppose I really can't let the article remain the way it was, so I have corrected it. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Following the discussion on the Judith Butler talk page the last paragraph seems ill-sourced and trivial. Shall I delete it? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC).

No, Xxanthippe, don't delete it. Other sources can be provided if necessary, and this is not trivial. Skoojal (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed the exchange between Butler and Crews. This will eventually be restored with the proper source, the book by Brooks and Woloch. Skoojal (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why I made a recent change

I have deleted the following passage from the article: 'especially in its decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual'. I have done this because I think the article is quite damning enough without it - there is no need to spell out the obvious. Skoojal (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Crews

Xxanthippe, I have undone your recent edit to the article on Frederick Crews. If you are going to undo my edits, you might at least be sure to get your facts right - Slate Magazine is not a "blog." Skoojal (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was placed on my talk page. I put it here where it belongs. The entry about Crews that I excised is abusive, defamatory and inconsistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, to quote: "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The entry is removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC).
While I won't immediately undo your edit, I think that was a mistake. Try looking at what other controversial writers have in their criticism sections (Camille Paglia is someone who comes to mind). The criticism does tend to be robust. If someone writes that someone else gives every indication of being a maniac in apparent seriousness, then it should be fine to mention this. The quote from the BLP policy does not appear to be relevant, because it seems to concern only how other people's comments can be reported and not what kinds of comments can be reported. My reporting of Sullivan's comment was written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. As for Wikipedia's blocking policy, you do not appear to be an administrator, so I am not sure why you are mentioning this. It looks arrogant and bullying. Skoojal (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disputed tag

This is an explanation for the {{disputed}} that was added to this article. Due to Skoojal's admission of bias in regard to this subject[1] site policy demands the article be tagged with {{disputed}} to warn readers that there may be a problem with the article's accuracy.

Having only reviewed it quickly I've removed some quotes and some criticisms in accordance with WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. Further examination of this page is necessary it is still a coat-rack and may, in fact, need to be stubbified--Cailil talk 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This does not surprise me. I've been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time, and I'm not in the least bothered. What wikipedia does to this article may prove something about wikipedia, but it can't save Crews. Nothing can. Skoojal (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Have changed tag to {{Blpdispute}} as more appropriate maintenance tag--Cailil talk 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled. What statements presently in the article do you think violate BLP? DGG (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. The note at the top of the article says, 'This biography of a living person may contain unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial claims.' Well does it or doesn't it? If it does, remove those claims, and the note with them. If not, just remove the note. Skoojal (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On changes not made

Before commenting on the changes Cailil has recently made to this article, I will comment on some things that he did not change. Cailil did not remove the following quotes from Crews.

Quote 1: 'when smoking replaces homosexuality as a mental aberration, more of the credit must go to caucuses than to new findings.' The effect of not removing this quote is to leave readers free to find out that Crews implied that homosexuality is a mental illness. It also leaves readers free to learn that Crews did this in a sarcastic and scornful tone, using language ('mental aberration' as opposed to simply 'mental illness) that is deliberately ugly and insulting.

Quote 2: 'I would like people to know that the guilt dispensed by psychoanalytic theorists to ... the parents of homosexuals, "neurotics", and psychotics can be plausibly declined.' The continued inclusion of this quote means that readers can find out that Crews thought that if parents did cause their children to become homosexual, then they should be ashamed of themselves, and that Crews was happy to place homosexuals in the same category as neurotics and psychotics.

Quote 3: 'Thanks to the once imposing prestige of psychoanalysis...gays have been told that their sexual preference is a mental disorder.' This is actually the most damning quote of all. Apparently nice, it is far worse than the other two quotes. Thanks to the inclusion of this quote, readers can find out that Crews, having sneeringly implied that homosexuality is a mental illness, later on attacked other people for saying that homosexuality is mental illness.

Do you think you're protecting Crews, Cailil? You are so wrong. What you have done makes no difference to anything that matters. The substance of my case against Crews is present in three quotes that you did not remove. Skoojal (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply can not see the implications of the quotations that you think so important. I think we would do well to concentrate on what the article says, not what one may think the quotations in the article may possibly imply. DGG (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
DGG, are you saying that you don't have any idea what Crews meant? If Crews's comments don't mean what I think they mean, then what do they mean? When I debated this with Allen Esterson, he told me that Crews was actually rejecting the theory that homosexuality was a mental illness, and indeed giving it as one example of the political influence on the DSM. 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 told Esterson that obviously what Crews was objecting to was the replacement of homosexuality by smoking as a mental illness, otherwise he would hardly have used the words, 'when smoking replaces homosexuality as a mental aberration.' When homosexuality replaces smoking as a mental illness, two things happen: homosexuality is no longer deemed a mental illness, and smoking is deemed a mental illness. Crews is a literary critic, someone alive to nuances of language and meaning, and one would be doing him an injustice to think that the exact implications of that statement did not occur to him.
Something similar applies to the casual lumping together of 'homosexuals, "neurotics", and psychotics.' There is no reason to categorize homosexuals with neurotics and psychotics unless one thinks that homosexuality, like neurosis and psychosis, is an illness. Crews, as a literary critic, would understand this too. Skoojal (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember that these were comments published in Commentary. Commentary has a well-established reputation as an anti-gay magazine. Its editor, Norman Podhoretz, is someone whose anti-gay views have been widely commented on. Commentary published an anti-gay rant by Midge Decter, Podhoretz's wife, two months after Analysis Terminable was published, and one month before the publication of its postscript. Commentary were on the war path against gays at the time. To think that Crews would have complained about homosexuality being called a mental illness, in Commentary, in 1980, defies belief. Skoojal (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On changes made

Cailil recently made several changes to this article. I will comment on several of them.

First, Cailil removed a quote from Frederick Crews about Henri F. Ellenberger's The Discovery of the Unconscious. I have no idea why this quote should be considered objectionable. Cailil needs to explain his decision to remove it.

Second, Cailil re-wrote the article so that it no longer says that Camille Paglia was angered by Crews's comments about Freud and Jung. This is just silly. Obviously Paglia was angered, and she was pleased to make it clear that she was angered. So why shouldn't the article say this?

Third, Cailil removed part of the quote from Frederick Crews about what he deemed to be Judith Butler's accusation of homophobia against him. This is strange, since that part of the quote shows Crews's awareness that such accusations can potentially destroy people's reputations, which is a serious matter that readers of the article deserve to be aware of. It also shows Crews's apparent belief that Butler would not know what his social views were, an interesting assumption that readers of the article may well find curious given what else is in it (see 'on changes not made' above).

Fourth, a quote from Andrew Sullivan about Crews was removed. This is actually the second quote from Sullivan to be removed from the article. Xxanthippe removed the first one, and while I complained about that, I didn't restore it to the article. Neither of the two quotes came from a 'blog'; they were both from Slate, an online magazine that is not a 'blog.' DGG is thus in error in saying that I inserted 'negative statements about living people sourced only to blogs.' That never happened. Cailil needs to explain his decision to remove this quote.

Fifth, a criticism of Crews by Richard Webster was removed. Cailil needs explain this decision also. Cailil implied that the quote violated BLP policy; I have no idea how.

Skoojal (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you are quite right that it is not a blog. The material is opinion letters nonetheless, and that is not acceptable for the purpose of inserting these strongly negative quotations in articles subject to BLP. In addition, the opinions of Paglia and Butler about Crews and homosexuality do not seem to me relevant to the article in the first place. Though the two of them are are well know literary figures, I do not see that their comments on Crews and homosexuality or homophobia are significant in the first place. Probably it is only an minor part of his criticism of Freud--as I recall his works, the accusations of Freud deliberate inaccuracy in reporting cases were much more significant, whether or not one think them correct. I would support a rewriting of this article to contain all mention of homosexuality and homophobia in a single small paragraph. Making a big deal out of it is simply undue weight.
I'll also mention that as I see it, in the climate of the early 20th century, the doctrine that homosexuality was a medical illness does not represent homophobia. It was an advance over the earlier prevailing doctrine that homosexuality was a matter of evilness in ones personality and a signal of moral degeneracy. One protected and defended homosexuals by considering them only mentally ill, rather than criminals. To the extent Freud's work was an influence on this, he was a positive figure in the development of the later attitude of tolerance leading to the contemporary attitude of acceptance. I think trying to twist the quotations here to imply otherwise is a expression of an agenda that may is not relevant here. This is an article on Crews, not on Freud. If Crews said Freud thought homosexuality an illness, he may well have been right, and it's something that, in the historical context, one would commend Freud for having the independence and courage to do. But all of this is afield from the discussion of Crews. To go from Crews saying this to Crews being an homophobe seems, a rather odd extrapolation at best, and probably a reversal of the real situation. If there are notable authorities who have indeed said this explicitly, we can find a way to mention it without reprinting their charges. DGG (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with the enlightening comments by DGG above. What is grotesque about the situation is that Skoojal has failed to understand what Crews was saying about psychoanalytic theorists. Crews did not assert that homosexuality was a mental disorder. What he did was criticise the psychiatric establishment for having held that view. The exact opposite of what Skoojal is suggesting. Skoojal has spent his last few hundred edits tilting at windmills. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
The only quotes about Frederick Crews's views on homosexuality came from Frederick Crews himself. Granted that she is a homosexual, the remarks by Paglia did not mention homosexuality. Judith Butler, also a homosexual, did not mention homosexuality directly, although Crews correctly judged that she did so by implication. Thus it's not what others said about Crews, but what Crews said himself, that's at stake. The importance of Crews's remarks about homosexuality can best be judged not by how many of them there are, but by the emotional intensity that goes into them and the rage they express. Skoojal (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Freud's views on homosexuality, Crews's comments were not about this directly. They were about the influence of psychoanalysis generally. Freud sometimes wavered, but usually did not see homosexuality as an illness. As for why Crews's views on homosexuality should matter: Crews began his career with books about Henry James, E. M. Forster, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Two of those three writers (a majority) were either homosexual (Forster) or suspected of homosexuality (James). This makes it particularly important that Crews's attack on psychoanalysis later in his career, after the cultural upheavals of the 1960s and the cultural decay of the 1970s, was partly motivated by anti-gay sentiment. I am trying to perform a public service by focusing attention on this. Skoojal (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There are also other reasons why Crews's comments on homosexuality matter. I won't mention them, because it would be wearying and take me too far from the main point, but anyone looks into criticism of psychoanalysis in enough detail will find out what they are. Skoojal (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal it's quite simple, this article is being disputed because you have made significant changes to it and you have admitted to being an agenda driven account. The full extent of your agenda driven edits here will require the community to fact check everything - that takes time. It will be removed when the page is properly fact checked and I suggest bringing to WP:BLPN and project:critical theory for opinions there - when they have reviewed it and if they deem whatever is here up to standard I or someone else will happily remove the tag.

Now, I'm not here to protect anyone, and I will warn you that speculation about other editors motivations is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL & WP:EQ. For the record I don't hold or agree with any of Crews's ideas or views, as you have expressed them - quite honestly I understand your position Skoojal - however wikipedia has a standard, we don't write articles as coat-racks to hang quotes, criticisms or defamatory comments upon. My removals as explained yesterday are covered by WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. They are also in-line with WP:UNDUE and with the general thinking behind "when not to use a quote" from the essay WP:QUOTE. It needs to be recognized that this page has structural and policy problems and I'm still of the view that it probably needs stubbification. Right now the page is a series of bullet points not an encyclopedia article.

You seem to be very able to make good edits (meaning in-line with encyclopedia standards and policies) but this "public service" crusade against Crews however noble or otherwise is not what wikipedia is for--Cailil talk 12:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd be happy to reduce this to an accuracy dispute from a BLP dispute if others are satisfied that the page is in-line with BLP--Cailil talk 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All the changes I made to this article that were in any way controversial I have already pointed out. There is nothing else of a contentious nature that I have not mentioned, and thus no rational reason for that note to be placed at the top of the article. Skoojal (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, you have not answered several of my questions: why remove the quote from Crews about Ellenberger, why re-write the account of Paglia's reaction to Crews, and why remove the remarks by Webster? I am not threatening to undo any of your changes (I have no intention of making any more changes to this article for the moment), but I still think that you should explain each of these decisions. You imply that the quotes violate several wikipedia policies, but I want to know specifically how. Skoojal (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I might decide to add the quote from Webster to the article about him at some point, so if there is something objectionable about it, please say so now. Skoojal (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Skoojal what's left on the page needs to be checked by people who have the books to make sure there is no further OR. Secondly I have answered you twice. The article is not a coatrack for quotes (or anything else) it still suffers from being one at present. It is preferable to summarize points rather than quoting large chunks of text in the manner the article previously had. Also the issues were given too much weight (as per WP:DUE)--Cailil talk 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I agree with Webster the point is undue for an encyclopedia. Adding it again treats the page as a coat-rack for hanging as many criticisms of the subject upon as possible and that has BLP implications (ie our policies of doing no harm)--Cailil talk 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure

I have restructured the article and pruned trivia in an attempt to make the article more balanced and NPOV. I have not found it necessary to retain a blow-by-blow account of decade-old controversies. The article contains direct quotes from Crews. The accuracy of these quotes needs to be verified. From the point of view of balance the article may need attention from editors more familiar with Crew's work than I or previous editors. I would like to see a more substantial treatment of Crews' literary criticism, for example "Postmodern Pooh", rather than what seems to be an overblown concentration on psychiatry. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

I'm not going to undo your edits, since I'm in sin bin at the moment, but some of them seem clearly mistaken to me. For example, there is absolutely no point in saying that writers more supportive of Freud have criticised Crews, and then citing the book by Brooks and Woloch. Just that reference, without a quote, gives readers no idea at all what the basis of the criticism is. Moreover, the general point that writers supportive of Freud have criticised Crews can be made without mentioning that book, so it's ridiculous as it stands. Skoojal (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A couple of other things. Does the main section of the article really have to be called, 'Publications, work, research and criticism.' Wouldn't something a bit more concise be better? Also, the material in this section is not arranged properly by chronology; the publication of The Critics Bear It Away, in 1992, should come before the publication of Crews's articles about the recovered memory issue in The New York Review of Books, not after. Skoojal (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)