Talk:Hans Eysenck/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Question

Please can someone explain why, what was put in the article about Freud, relates to the subject of this section of the article. We know Eysenck did not think Freud was a scientist but what in the following is evidence for Eysenck being right-wing? What was placed in the article: In the National Zeitung he reproached Sigmund Freud for alleged trickiness and lack of frankness by reference to Freud's Jewish background. [1] -- Sirswindon (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2012‎

Well, if he was writing in the National Zeitung that in itself is a connection with the far right. However, the National Zeitung may have reprinted a piece originally given to another publication. I would like to see that clarified. I'd also like to see the exact statement about Freud in that article. Haller and Niggeschmidt is a reliable source, so is Knebel and Marquardt. But I cannot find either of them mentioning this. I think it may be from a different academic source, but if there is no source for it at all, then it will certainly have to be removed. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It's from Jäger [1]: "In der April-Ausgabe der rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung von 1990 schreibt Eysenck einen Artikel, in dem er Sigmund Freud der Verschlagenheit und mangelnder Aufrichtigkeit zeiht, wobei zugleich auf Freuds jüdische Herkunft verwiesen wird." Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that was a rhetorical question. --WSC ® 18:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It does not belong in this section of the Article, it has nothing to do with Eysenck and the so-called far-right. It should be removed from the article. This is Wikipedia, not the "Yellow Press." Sirswindon (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the National Zeitung not far right then? Good luck with that one. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, the fact the the National Zeitung, may be far right, is not proof that saying something about Freud has anything to do with Eysenck supporting the far right. Please will someone explain: If the National Zeitung published that I had called Freud a fraud as a scientist would that mean that I supported the far right? Then please explain why the entry about Eysenck makes any sense to be included. Sirswindon (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Surely the point is not that he criticised Freud (which he certainly did), but that he allegedly tied the criticism to Freud's Jewishness -- something I find very strange, considering what Eysenck said about having so many Jewish friends, plus being married to a Jewess, and having Jewish ancestry himself -- apart from such a comment being totally uncharacteristic of him. I should like to see the original article. But until we do, I suppose we can't contradict the secondary source. Paul Magnussen (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I also would like to read the original article, but will we be given in English? And when it is given to us, will it provide evidence that Eysenck was guilty of being a right-wing extremist? Sirswindon (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Please get real again! Eysenck published in a far right magazin. There he don't wirte about the weather. He pubished an article about the jewish scientist Sigmund Freud in far right magazin. This fact alone is mentionable. That he lectured about Freuds jewish orgin in far right magazins cannot be concealed.
Paul Magnussen: You are always so supprised when you here about Eysencks activitys. You were supprised when you heare Eysenck publised in far right magazins and you are supprised when you hear what he wrote about. What did you expect? That he wrote about beautifull London West-Side? I think it would be better you accept the main facts. --WSC ® 07:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You are correct. It does surprise me; not because he wrote about Freud, but because it's hard to see how Freud's Jewish background could be relevant to anything, and it's unlike Prof. Eysenck either to drag in irrelevancies or to make personal attacks on the basis of someone's race or religion.
I say this on the basis of having read dozens of Eysenck's books and articles, including several on Freud. How many of them have you read, Widescreen?
The fact that Eysenck's statement is paraphrased, rather than quoted, suggests to me that this is another straw man (Strohmann-Argument) of the usual kind. But until that can be settled one way or the other, further discussion seems to be profitless.
Except perhaps: Widescreen, does Germany have an equivalent of the British Library, which keeps reference copies of all national publications? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there was one ref I read which said that the whole series of articles of Eysenck in National Zeitung was basically about his own work. I'll get back to you with specifics for the ref. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
His own work includes criticism on psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud. But no critics on Freuds jewish backround. Thats why this fact is so interesting. --WSC ® 11:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bringing my QUESTION to closure: Please, let us keep to facts. Freud was not a “Jewish scientist Sigmund Freud.” He never practiced science, he only practiced (and taught) nonscientific psychoanalysis. He was a non-scientific medical doctor “whose secular Jewish identity were of significant influence in the formation of his intellectual and moral outlook, especially with respect to his intellectual non-conformism…” Eysenck was a scientist, and it is understandable why he might have written about Freud. As is known today, Freud never used scientific methods and his legacy is not in science but in Philosophy plus Folklore and Mythology. Autobiographical Study, Robert, Marthe (1976) From Oedipus to Moses: Freud’s Jewish Identity New York: Anchor pp. 3-6. Having something about Freud published in a far right magazine DOES NOT PROVE Eysenck was of the far right! WSC --- why don’t you understand that having something about Freud published in the Daily Worker (the most communist paper) would not prove that the person being published was a member of the Communist Party. That is usually called a “non-sequitur.” Sirswindon (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, would you please stop spelling Jewish with a lower case j. It's insulting. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh english capitalization is a book of seven seals for me. Just as german capitlization. --WSC ® 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You want to disgrace me? Right? Eysenck wrote a blaming article about Sigmund Freud, a Jew, in a far right magazin. Now you wanna tell me that Eysenck doesn't know what that means? He doesn't spread his critic in a professional psychological journal but in a far right one, by reference to Freud's jewish background. And you fellers now try to donwnplaying this fact, taken from a reliable source? Do you try to fool me? I'm sick of your sophistry! Come back to earth, this is not a fairy-tale play. If you don't want to keep that issue seriously, I will. --WSC ® 22:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

About his series of articles, etc. Feit (1987)

After saying he wrote preface to Krebs, Die "Neue Rechte" in der Bundesrepublik, pp. 80-81 says:

The subsequent paragraph is unrelated to Eysenck; it starts to discuss another co-author of Kerbs' book, Guillaume Faye. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like WSC was right that the 1990 article that Jäger discusses is not part of this "series" on Eysenck's own work, published c. 1985 in the same Nationalzeitung. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It was Eysencks own work! The article Jäger means was part of this series in the National-Zeitung. He wrote a lot about the social-bological theories but also an article about Freud. --WSC ® 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, would you check the translation for accuracy, please? Thanks. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Better if Tijfo can, or we can request a translation. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can say, this translation is absolute correct. --WSC ® 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there a better translation for "it was concealed that", which reads oddly in English? "The theory of heredity as related to human behaviour" is not clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No. Verschiegen/Verschweigen: concealed/conceal or kept as secret or not mentioned. --WSC ® 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
These have different connotations. And we are left with more questions. Who is meant to be hiding facts? What is the antecedent of "dabei"? Sorry if this sounds nitpicking, but language is crucial here. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
He ment, I'll try a freehanded translation, that a lot of authors, write about Eysenck, forget to mention his far right acitivitys. --WSC ® 23:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
How about "the fact was concealed that" or "the facts were concealed that"? It's not very idiomatic as it stands, I agree. Paul Magnussen (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it relates to a fact in past and present. --WSC ® 09:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I can only get this in snippet view and we need more in order to be able to verify it. Widescreen, can you post the three or four sentences preceding the excerpt you already posted. Then we can get it translated by someone with dual fluency. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, who is supposed to have hidden those facts is unclear. Here's the full passage about Eysenck.


Presumably what "it was hidden that" ("wird verschwiegen") hints to is that Eysenck's affiliation was not disclosed by Krebs, i.e. Krebs presented Eysenck as a completely (politically) uninvolved scientist, whereas Eysenck belonged to the GRECE "Comité de patronage" and so forth. German can be hard to figure out when they employ those subtle hints (I hate reading Der Spiegel, in particular.) Anyway, I think this "wird verschwiegen" issue is a distraction. I quoted the passage here because it describes Eysenck's 1985 articles articles in DNZ. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I found a very good source for the content of the DNZ, which I've added to that article as further reading. I don't have time to expand from it now, but DNZ often has 'news' on the "blacks are stupid" and "Jews are devious" themes. So it's not at all unlikely they would have published some bashing of Freud (written by Eysenck--1990) as Jäger said, this in addition to the articles Eysenck wrote about the racial differences in intelligence (1985). I've not seen any quotes from these DNZ-published articles of Eysenck, but if they're anything like his 1970s book(s), in which he made wild speculations as we saw above in the passages quoted & criticized by Scarr, it's pretty apparent why the DNZ would seek to publish Eysenck's writings. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Eysenck was a British Psychologist not a German-British Psychologist

Windscreen, please do not remove an edit to the article which corrects a miss-statement. You know, as everyone knows that Eysenck was not a German Psychologist. If you wish to ask for arbitration do so, but please do not compound the error by listing Eysenck as a German Psychologist, which he was not. Sirswindon (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't have an itch for Eysenck. Take him keep him! --WSC ® 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Widescreen, how very kind of you, and you may keep Freud as your German pseudo-psychologist (remembering he was very Jewish). Sirswindon (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we have a truce, please? Mutual inspection, cultural exchange, all that sort of thing? Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Paul for asking for a mutual civil exchange. (I wish it were possible.) I shall try, but as you yourself have seen, it sometimes reaches the level of total frustration. But I shall take your advise and try. Truce agreed to. Sirswindon (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You can't have an mutual civil exchange, when you try to fool your opponent. --WSC ® 22:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I will try to be civil and objective. Widescreen this is not a contest between us, however since you just wrote the following, it needs to be addressed. "You want to disgrace my? Right? Eysenck wrote a blaming article about Sigmund Freud, a Jew, in a far right magazin. Now you wanna tell me that Eysenck doesn't know what that means? He doesn't spread his critic in a professional psychological journal but in a far right one, by reference to Freud's jewish background. And you fellers now try to donwnplaying this fact, taken from a reliable source? Do you try to fool me? I'm sick of your sophistry! Come back to earth, this is not a fairy-tale play. If you don't want to keep that issue seriously, I will." Widescreen please understand: Yes it is a fact that something written by Eysenck might have been published in a magazine that is considered to be far-right, yes it is a fact that the article might be labeled negative about Freud, but concluding that those two facts prove that Eysenck was of the right-wing or that he was a racist is a "non sequitur." Yes we might be considered as true Sophists in that we do not commit the sin naming rather than explaining. No one is downplaying anything, we accept that a magazine is a reliable source that something was published which might be considered negative about Freud, but it does not prove the author of the article is a right-wing person. Widescreen, please let us agree to disagree and leave it at that. Enough already. Sirswindon (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Siswindon, please understand, that not you are the one who estimate this! This information is from a reliable source, you don't want to notice. --WSC ® 09:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Widescreen --- You seem not to accept that if Eysenck had something negative about Freud published in the Communist Daily Worker, it would not prove that he was a member of the Communist Party, or that he was from the far left, or that he supported the far left. Your reasoning is usually called a “non-sequitur.” But since we disagree, please let us end this dialog about Eysenck and the reliable source. Sirswindon (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem not to accept that he don't published things in Daily Worker but in Deutsche National-Zeitung. And he not only write something negative about Freud, he wrote about Freuds Jewish backround in a far right magazin. Additional the source, I take this information from, point out to this fact to make cleare, what Eysenck pubished in those magazines. In view of the fact that Eysenck attacks Freud before, it's a interesting fact at all. --WSC ® 09:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
With apologies to Paul M. ---- but it seems we have here one of those individuals who never took a course in Logic, and whose use of critical analysis is so lacking as to be pathetic. I give him credit for his use of English, I only wish it carried over into logic!!!! Sirswindon (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Boring sophistry! Can we now add the sentence taken from a reliable source or do we have to listen that the authors of the source have to take a logic-course? --WSC ® 16:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

”A relationship with...” verses “having an article published in the...”

As long as I am part of editing this Article any reference to Eysenck having written something about Freud will not be included in the section entitled: “Alleged relationships with far right groups.” It is NOT evidence that Eysenck had a relationship or was a supported of far right groups because (1) a newspaper is considered a reliable source, and (2) something Eysenck wrote concerning Freud, was published in the newspaper. Should WSC wish to included in the overall Article, the FACT that Eysenck wrote: Freud was not scientific and Freud used much Jewish folklore in his writings, which might have come from Freud’s Jewish background, then do so. But what Eysenck may have written (and which may have been considered in poor taste by some) does not belong in “Alleged relationships with far right groups.” It belongs in: “Eysenck’s thoughts regarding Freud and Psychoanalysis.” Sirswindon (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the authors of the reliable source why they mention this special article of Eysenck in theirs book about far-right and science? You have no argument against the mention of this fact. Now you start your own phantasies about the article and what Eysenck really means. Please, couldn't you write this on a blog or facebook. Thats not enzyclopediacal. --WSC ® 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

---It has nothing to do with my opinion of what Eysenck wrote, it is a question of where this belongs in the Article. Please request an independent review of this question before adding it to the “Alleged relationships with far right groups.” Sirswindon (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Writing in that publication is itself an association with a right wing group. To write there and to refer to Freud's Jewishness alongside his intellectual faults is certainly a prima facie indicator of association with the far right. But our own interpretations are secondary to the fact that this is in a reliable source. WSC, will you please pay attention to the initial capital in Jewish, English, German etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is hamstrung by the fact that we don't know what Eysenck actually wrote, so we can't tell if the accusation is a distortion or not. So I'll repeat my earlier question: Widescreen, does Germany have an equivalent of the British Library, which keeps reference copies of all national publications? I'm getting to the point where I'd be willing to pay the price of a PDF or photocopy, or it wasn't too outrageous. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Germany has the German National Library, with excellent collections. You may be able to request an interlibrary loan from the UK but you would need the author, title, issue and page numbers. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Until someone can document what is now "hearsay" this item cannot be included in the Article. Please stop replacing it until the question of (1) what is it that Eysenck is reported to have written, and (2) does it prove he had a relationship or was a supported of far right groups. Let us all relax and wait until we know what are the facts. Having an article published is NOT evidence of having a relationship. Other than that, make a request for someone from Wikipedia to decide what is to be done with the item. Sirswindon (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note to Itsmejudith --- above you wrote “Writing in that publication is itself an association with a right wing group. To write there and to refer to Freud's Jewishness alongside his intellectual faults is certainly a prima facie indicator of association with the far right.” Over the past 60 years I have had articles published in journals and newspapers whose editorial policy I may not have agreed with; but was done in order to reach an audience I might otherwise not reach. My motivation was not to associate with, or agree with the positions of such publications, it was in order that I be heard. “Writing in that publication is itself an association with a right wing group.” Not True. “To write there and to refer to Freud's Jewishness alongside his intellectual faults is certainly a prima facie indicator of association with the far right.” Since you do not know what Eysenck wrote, your statement has no basis in fact. Sirswindon (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone can see the typical procedrue: 1. The textpassage is doubted and the original passage is called. This talk about secondary sources is overrated anyway. 2. Next step is to doubt me, up to my cousins in the third degree. 3. Of course it dosen't matter if the passage was found in a reliable source. Importend is, what Sirswindon thinks about the Eysencks intention. Thats a much better source than everything I can present. Thats sophistry.

You must know, Sirswindon can't understand what that means! Eysenck wrote an article about Freuds Jewish roots and his lack of frankness in a far-right magazin. The authors leave it to the readers to estimate this. But they don't planned with readers like Sirswisdon whose grasp always ends with Eysenck racism. --WSC ® 06:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To try and get his views out to a wider public? A wider public of Nazis! And Eysenck had had best selling books published by Penguin. Don't tell us this wasn't falling into bad company. Very bad company indeed. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul, I think I have identified the record in DNB, the German National Library. ISSN 0340-1421. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be in the British Library as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Itsmejudith. Although I'm English, I'm actually in California; but I'll see what I can manage with the British Library. I may not have time for a while. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Leonie Knebel and Pit Marquardt (2012). "Vom Versuch, die Ungleichwertigkeit von Menschen zu beweisen". In Michael Haller and Martin Niggeschmidt (ed.). Der Mythos vom Niedergang der Intelligenz: Von Galton zu Sarrazin: Die Denkmuster und Denkfehler der Eugenik. Springer DE. p. 104. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-94341-1_6. ISBN 978-3-531-18447-0.

DNZ

I agree that the current article on the National Zeitung is not reflecting well the content of that paper (and its former sibling, the DWZ, with which it has been merged.) Here are some passages from the source I added as further reading there (p. 70 and 73), which should be more illuminating:


In light of these, I don't think it's wise for some editors to continue to challenge the far/extreme-right label of the DNZ, which has been cited from reliable sources in connection to Eysenck's publications, including Jäger (who wrote "rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung") and Schori-Liang who went further and actually wrote "far-right psychologist Prof. Hans-Jürgen Eysenck", but we didn't put that in the wiki article. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And Liang's PhD thesis was also on this topic: Liang, C. (2002), ‘German Far Right Ideology in the Decade of German Unification’, thèse no. 641 (Geneva: IUHEI). She has a bio here. de:Siegfried Jäger was discussed above already. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The far/extreme-right label may be alright if everyone will interpret the left/right continuum in terms of egalitarianism v. racism. But is that in fact the case? The COD, for example, says nothing about it: right wing n. the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system. left wing n. the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you have a look at this edit... --WSC ® 11:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


No one is challenging that the DNZ is not right wing. What is being challenged is that having an article published in the DNZ automatically makes the author a right wing individual. Sirswindon (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The topic heading isn't Allegations of far-right opinions; it's Allegations of relationships with far-right groups. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you: What is being challenged is that having an article published in the DNZ does not automatically establish a relationship with a right wing group. Sirswindon (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Even if it did not establish a relationship — and that, of course, is being strongly contested — that section of the article is about allegations. And it seems incontrovertible that the allegations were made.
I'm sorry, Sirswindon, but it seems to me that you're trying to have your cake and eat it: if the heading were about "Eysenck's far-right politics", you would be right in objecting that such a thing wasn't proven. But it's about the allegations, and it's proven that they were made. We have Eysenck's response further down, so he gets his shout too. I want a defence, not a whitewash, which would serve nobody's interests. Neutrality, neutrality… Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
First you have to accept we don't talk about right wing. We talk about extreme right. --WSC ® 19:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No Paul, I am not trying to have my cake and eat it too. It seems to me that the section heading is, as you point out, “Alleged relationships with far right groups.” Where is the reference that ties the article that Eysenck wrote to a relationship with a far right group? If the publication is that group, and the other editors wish to print: “An article by Eysenck appeared in the far right DNZ “ that is a fact. But the subject of the article is not relevant, unless that article itself, can be proven to show Eysenck had an additional relationship with the right wing. It is your other editors that wish to have their cake and eat non-relevant cake as well. I would even accept: “Articles by Eysenck appeared in far right publications including the DNZ.” However adding “hear-say” material about Freud is not being neutral, it is not acceptable editing. As to Widescreen, you can even add: “Articles by Eysenck appeared in extreme right publications including the DNZ.” the key is to only include FACTs and not "hear-say" material. Sirswindon (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me understand this: are you saying that writing an article for a publication does not constitute a "relationship" with it? (Let us leave aside, for the moment, a) the question of whether a publication is a "group", and b) whether the article was in fact written for the DNZ, or whether they just reprinted a previous one.) Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This sophystry of Sirswindon is not bearable. --WSC ® 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WSC if what I have printed is not bearable, I feel sorry for you. Now to Paul's question. I am saying it is a stretch to report that writing an article in a publication creates a relationship, but if it does, that would be a FACT. Including what is in the article is not relevant to that fact, and should not be included. If the other editors wish to discuss, what Eysenck wrote in his article, it should be presented, as a separate issue. Sirswindon (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You are talking here about a statement with an academic source behind it. It is perfectly usable as is, although because it is quite vague, it would be useful to get the original statement by Eysenck. None of us has a subscription to the journal in question. I can try asking on the resource exchange. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, If you feel that having something about an article created a relationship with the DNZ, than go ahead and post “Articles by Eysenck appeared in far right publications including the DNZ.” But please do not include anything about Freud or what you think was in the article as that has nothing to do with any relationship with the DNZ. Should you feel otherwise please give your reasons to Paul M. and I will ask him to be the editor to make a decision. Or ask for an independent Wikipedia Editor to opine. (Sorry, but this has reached the point of determining: "How many angels can be stacked on the top of a pin?) Sirswindon (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think WSC, at least, will accept me as an arbiter. But can we not say that Eysenck wrote an article for DNZ, which was interpreted by Billig (or whomever it was) as an attack on Freud's Jewish background? That seems to cover all the facts we're sure of, and contains no unsupported inferences. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Paul, I understand you are trying to be the nice guy. Going past the fact that an article by Eysenck was in the DNZ, the rest is idle speculation. Eysenck wasn’t attacking Freud’s jewish background, he was attacking Freud’s use of jewish folklore in his practice of psychoanalysis, and Freuds’s lack of scientific method in his studies. (Eysenck proved to be correct as Freud’s theories proved to be folklore and non-scientific.) But as of now, it doesn’t really matter. Your other two “so-called” knowledgeable editors will insist on including that Eysenck was this extreme right wing monster who attacked jewish Freud. It doesn’t matter anymore. In 50 years they will be dead and unknown and Eysenck will be considered one of Britain’s most renown psychologists. I remain a staunch supporter of Wikipedia (I have written a number of articles); it is only now and then that I have a tear in my eye. Wikipedia does allow much Folklore and Mythology in its articles, but if readers are able to read between the lines, it will help educated the masses. Sirswindon (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, in my AGF to infinity I'll try another approach. Lez talk about the sources we take this infomation from: It's a book about the Paul Singer a philsopher how writes about eugenics. In this book the authors make a long explanation about scientiffic racism. They write about positions of scientists how are racists. In this book they talk about Eysenck and his relationship to far-right groups (like thule-seminar and DNZ) and his publications in their writings. As example they take two articles: 1. the Krebs-book preface, 2. His own publications, 3. the freud-article in DNZ about Freuds Jewish roots. What exactly do you think what makes you believe that this got nothing to do with the far-right? --WSC ® 04:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, my beliefs are irrelevant here. But since you ask:

There are those who believe that the universe is however it is, and that it is a matter for empirical investigation and not a priori stipulation; and also that empirical findings should inform social policy, but do not determine it. This was Eysenck's view.

He dedicates the entire final chapter of R, I & E to the social responsibility of science; from which I quote:

"Human beings have rights, irrespective of their IQ […] The continued segregation of negroes in the USA, the still-prevalent restrictions on their employment and advancement, and the widespread prejudice against their political emancipation are inexcusable, and obtain no support from such data as those surveyed in this book. The educational problem which faces us is that of the low-IQ pupil, whether black or white, and its solution must be found irrespective of colour." (pp.142–143)

Does this seem like the far-right view to you?

There are also those who appear to believe that since racial differences are self-evidently impossible, anyone who asserts that they exist must be politically motivated.

Again I quote Eysenck:

"I found it very difficult to look at the evidence detailed in this book with a detached mind, in view of the fact that it contradicted certain egalitarian beliefs I had considered almost axiomatic. Others may share this difficulty, but in the interests of all sides it must be overcome; lasting and satisfactory solutions to social problems are not likely to be built on factually erroneous premisses." (p.12)

So there you have it: he changed his mind when he found that his opinion didn't fit (what he considered to be) the facts, as so few seem able to do.

Here you have his views, then, explicitly stated. Why root around anywhere else for them?

As to Freud: if Eysenck hated Jews, do you really think he would have married one? Perhaps you do. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked on the Resource Exchange and the reply was that several libraries have it on microfilm. I further asked how we access it, but have had no reply. I think it will require an interlibrary loan. I prefer not to request one myself. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: now we have been advised to put in a request at the German wikipedia equivalent of the resource exchange. Widescreen, could you do that, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Widescreen has reinserted the following: "In the National Zeitung he reproached Sigmund Freud for alleged trickiness and lack of frankness by reference to Freud's Jewish background."
I quote from RS: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article."
The original source is not being quoted, and the secondary source is presenting its own paraphrase. I therefore submit that this material should await the result of the resource exchange described by Itsmejudith above. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that these doubts on my contribs about Eysencks reproaches against Freuds lag of frankness is a reproche I have a lag of frankness. But I will cite the passage, taken from Jäger: "In der April-Ausgabe der rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung von 1990 schreibt Eysenck einen Artikel, in dem er Sigmund Freud der Verschlagenheit und mangelnder Aufrichtigkeit zeiht, wobei zugleich auf Freuds jüdische Herkunft verwiesen wird. Stolz verkündet die in letzter Zeit immer offener antisemitisch auftretende Deutsche Nationalzeitung, die von dem bekannten Alt-Rechten und Führer der Deutschen Volksunion Dr. Gerhard Frey herausgegeben wird, daß Hans-Jürgen Eysenck 'seit längerer Zeit zum Mitarbeiterstab der Deutschen Nationalzeitung und des Deutschen Anzeigers gehört.' " Sirswisdon trys to refresh his german. I think, he should translate it! --WSC ® 20:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you: that's an improvement. I'll translate it, if I may:
"In the April edition of the extreme-right Nationalzeitung, Eysenck writes an article in which he accuses Freud of deviousness and lack of sincerity, while Freud's Jewish heritage is referenced. The recently more-openly-antisemitic Deutsche Nationalzeitung, which is published by the well-known Old Right and the leader of the German People's Union, Dr. Gerhard Frey, announces proudly that Hans-Jürgen Eysenck 'has been on the staff of the Deutschen Nationalzeitung and the Deutschen Anzeiger for a long time.' "
How's that? Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I think thats okay. Deviousness sounds better than trickness. But frankness is better than lack of sincerity, I think. --WSC ® 21:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
WSC, what is meant by "Alt-Rechten"? Does that refer to the Nazis, or to something more recent? Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
WSC, You asked so I have tried my hand at translating it and there is no doubt now that we must read the original article and not what is reported here. As I have written before and do again, this is “hearsay” --- an opinion as to what was in Eysenck’s article, not what was in the article. Now my attempt at translation:

“In the April issue of the extreme right-wing national newspaper from 1990, Eysenck wrote an article in which he accuses zeiht Sigmund Freud of cunning and lack of sincerity, while at the same time referring to Freud’s Jewish origin. It was recently in the anti-Semitic German national newspaper, which is edited by the well-known leader of the German people’s Union Dr. Gerhard Frey, that Hans Jurgen Eysenck for sometime is on the staff of the German national newspaper Deutschen Nationalzeitung.”

We know Eysenck was not on the staff of the newspaper. The person who wrote the above is giving an opinion and not quoting Eysenck’s words. Until we have a transcript of Eysenck’s article, this is nothing more than “hearsay.” Since Widescreen hides his identity, we must assume he has an agenda in asking us to accept this “hearsay” without producing the actual article. (Widescreen writes that another editor is a Sockpuppet, but why does he not reveal his agenda in not producing the original article? Sirswindon (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Widescreen’s other approach

Widescreen wrote he is trying another approach. Please allow me to explain why his approach is flawed. But before I do, I would like to present a few brief excerpts from the TALK section of the German edition of Wikipedia.

(I do apologize for my poor German translations. I first learned the language following being wounded and captured in the WWII Battle of the Bulge, and having spent the next three months in a prisoner-of-war camp (Oflag XIII-B), being liberated, then recaptured, and late in April, escaping from another camp south of Nuremberg.)

Excerpts from German Wikipedia (in the order written) in September of this year:

Dass Eysenck Mitarbeiter der National-Zeitung war, ist unbestritten: Wenn er dort einen Artikel veröfffentlicht hat, ist er Mitarbeiter, logisch. Ich seh aber nicht ein, wieso diese Tatsache zweimal hintereinander im Artikel vorkommen muss.
“That Eysenck was an employee of the national-Zeitung, is clear: if he published there an article, logically he is an employee. …”
Someone replies:
No. He has written an article as a psychologist. This can be done as an independent commentator.
Nein. Er hat als Psychologe einen Artikel verfasst. Das kann auch als unabhängiger Kommentator geschehen.
Then another reply:
Hallo Widescreen, belege mir doch bitte mal, dass es einen Unterschied zwischen einem „unabhängigen Kommentator“ und einem Mitarbeiter“ gibt, der nur einen\ einzigen Artikel abgeliefert hat. Zeitungswissenschaftlich ist meines Wissens jeder, der einen redaktionellen Beitrag abgeliefert hat, ein Mitarbeiter der Zeitung. Ich lasse mich aber gerne eines besseren belehren. Und wo bitte stellt ihn die National-Zeitung als „ständigen“ Mitarbeiter hin? Viele Grüße,
Hello Widescreen, please show me there is a difference between an “independent commentator” who wrote only one single article and an “Employee”……

This talk goes on much the same as here on the English Talk with the exception of adding the word “fascists” to the conversation:

……, und nicht bloß eine Selbstaussage der Faschisten anführen.
Then someone asks Widescreen for the source, the detailed reference:
Ich weiß nicht, welche Quelle du meinst, Widescreen. Hinter dem von kritisierten satz steht kein Einzelnachweis.
The TALK returns to Eysenck writing contributions [note it is plural] for the national-Zeitung with again the use of the word “fascists:
Offenkundig hat Eysenck Beiträge für die National-Zeitung verfasst. Das soll man dann aber auch so schreiben, meine ich, und nicht bloß eine Selbstaussage der Faschisten anführen. Ich ändere entsprechend. Gruß,
Widescreen replies: “It is in the source.”
es steht so in der Quelle. Wenn du diese Darstellung nicht teilst, finde doch eine andere, wo es genauer steht.
Again, asking Widescreen “what source” “behind the criticized sentence, no itemization.”
Ich weiß nicht, welche Quelle du meinst, Widescreen. Hinter dem von kritisierten satz steht kein Einzelnachweis.

If all the above sounds familiar, it should.

If and when Widescreen produces a transcript of the National-Zeitung article, which was titled: Retter oder Scharlatan (Savior or Charlatan) you will find Eysenck was not attacking Freud for jewedness, he was attacking Freud’s being non-scientific and using Jewish folklore as science. Widescreen and others are attempting to carry this over to labeling Eysenck as some right-wing extremist, and it won’t fly. Buchanan, Eysenck’s harshest critic, never placed the label of extreme-right-wing-racist on Eysenck, and he was through in his research. Widescreen has never let us know anything about himself or his agenda in attacking Eysenck on both the English and German editions of Wikipedia. Magnussen and I have been totally open as to who we are. Come out of the dark Windscreen, and produce the N-Z article and give us the exact transcript from the “book” reference to which you were referring (“in this book they talk about Eysenck and his relationship to far-right groups” ). Sirswindon (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice talk I had a month ago. This dispute ends with the add of a ref behind the sentence. I like to cite in Harvard Style. Thats custom in my profession. To cite at the end of a paragraph also. What has that got to do with the reliable source, Eysencks article is reviewed? --WSC ® 19:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, it was nice talk, but please provide a transcript of the N-Z article and a transcript of the reference you quoted. We then can understand what was presented, in order to make a judgment as to if it is relevant. And what did you say your profession was? Sirswindon (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's not let German wikipedia discussions spill over here. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought the use of "Faschisten" on the German TALK page would be of interest to us all, thus German TALK was used. Note that Widescreen posted his stuff on the German TALK page in September, and is now posting it here in October. Are you suggesting he should not have "spilled" his stuff over to the English TALK page? The good news is that so few people read the German Eysenck Article; the English Article was read 14,260 times in the past 30 days (the primary reason Widescreen wants to "spill" over here). We all should be looking forward to reading the transcripts of Eysenck’s NZ article and the transcript of Widescreen's other reference, that is if he (or someone else) is able to produce them. Sirswindon (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The difference between german and english diskussion is, that in de:wp the authors accept the reliable source and don't doubt it anymore when they've checked it. Most notably is that the german authors don't want to discuss to keep the discussion alive. --WSC ® 06:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Those of us who have been following this discussion would not want to sit by and quietly accept “reliable” sources without having the original material verified. From 1932 through 1944 the German people accepted reliable sources, and never checked them out; they failed to keep the discussion alive. I for one can wait until someone provides the original material. InigmaMan (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, InigmaMan is on the road again! Won't you tell us which Sockpuppet you are? --WSC ® 19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one am still waiting for the transcript of the original article, which everyone else seems to have ignored. Sometime ago I wrote: "If and when Widescreen produces a transcript of the National-Zeitung article, which was titled: Retter oder Scharlatan (Savior or Charlatan) you will find Eysenck was not attacking Freud for jewedness, he was attacking Freud’s being non-scientific and using Jewish folklore as science.....Buchanan, Eysenck’s harshest critic, never placed the label of extreme-right-wing-racist on Eysenck, and he was through in his research." So when will Widescreen or someone else produce the article. If it is not produced soon, we shall need to delete that portion of the article, until it has been produced. Sirswindon (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that what he says: Freud treats Jewish folklore as science? If so, aimed at a Jewish person, that does read as antisemitic. I would like to see the textvitself and hope Widescreen or someone can get hold of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
So if I were to write a book passing off Druid mysteries as scientific, and you criticised me for it, that would make you anti-English? I'm sorry, Itsmejudith, that doesn't seem very rational to me: it's argumentum ad rem, not ad hominem. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice conversation! Can we come back to reliable sources now? --WSC ® 10:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler proved to be unreliable sources when they reported there were no “death camps.” Rather than using your “so-called” reliable sources, will someone please produce the original article. Sirswindon (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure you would be comfortable to interpret the original source by your own. The right place for that would be a internet forum. Here at wikipedia we work with secondary sources. Please note that in future. Thanks for your cooperation. --WSC ® 16:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I would not be comfortable interpreting the original source by myself. I would rather we all read what Eysenck wrote, and with objectivity, attempt to understand his purpose in writing an article entitled “Retter oder Scharlatan” (Savior or Charlatan). I believe the title is some help in our evaluating Eysenck’s motive, but reading the entire article should provide a more complete answer. If the article proves Eysenck was a right wing racist, so be it. But when will we have the article, in order to attempt a translation from German to English? (I look forward to the discussion, which will take place when the translation has been presented!!!!) Sirswindon (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You haven't accept our thoughts are not relevant. Just the secondary sources. --WSC ® 00:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Au contraire mon ami. You say you are an editor, therefor you need not accept secondary sources --- think for yourself. The second world war would never have happened if the German population had not accepted what was feed to them as gospel. Shall we delay finishing this dialog until we read what Eysenck actually wrote? Sirswindon (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think your political orientation is a bit confused after this discussion. Eysenck is the one alleged to be far right at this time. Not the german population 60 years ago. If you try to persuade me to overstate original sources you better try it with argumentations why the several secondary sources are not reliable. Not in the way to allege me as a left liberal a responsibility for takeover of Nazi-regime just because you try to bring your primary sources into play. Thats a bit to tricky for me. --WSC ® 16:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not suggesting you are a left liberal or that you belong to any political orientation. I am suggesting that secondary sources may be suspect and that we as editors have an obligation to read for ourselves the original material. In asking if the German people had not blindly followed the Nazi-regime we would not have had a second world war, I was suggesting they did not think for themselves, they relied on hearsay and secondary sources. As editors we should always attempt to read original material and not blindly accept so-called secondary sources. It is quite possible that my attempt to present an analogy went astray, if so I do apologize. But my point remains the same --- let us all read the original material and attempt to understand what Eysenck and the secondary source wrote. Sirswindon (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I got a notice this morning that discretionary sanctions may be applied to myself and Sirswindon. However, when I look at the WP:AE page, it recommends that no action be taken. I should be grateful if someone would explain. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What EdJohnston said on your talk page is that he is simply going to close the AE thread with an official warning/notice (to you) that this page is subject to sanctions. But you probably know that already anyway... Tijfo098 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Can I delete this section now, since it's of no further interest and it clutters the talk page? Or is that contrary to policy? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
You shouldn't delete a talk page section unless you have general consensus to do so. My guess is that the other editors would not agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Ed Johnson, now we can hope that someone will locate the original text and allow us to read it. Who was it that said: "Trust --- but verify?" Sirswindon (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This was unexpected

Re: [2] Widescreen, what is your objection to this? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this was unexpected to me. I answer with a sentens taken form the article Mankind Quarterly: "It has been called a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and an "infamous racist journal",[3] and "journal of 'scientific racism'".[4]" --WSC ® 21:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Please look at the diff more carefully. I know the software sucks (while we're being plastered with giant banners for yet more donations), so it takes some effort. I didn't change anything about Mankind Quarterly. I added a sentence: " Eysenck book The Inequality of Man, translated in French as L'Inegalite de l'homme, was published by GRECE's publishing house, Éditions Corpernic.[40]" before the sentence " In 1974 Eysenck became a member of the academic advisory council of the Mankind Quarterly ..." I assume you didn't intend to delete the info about GRECE. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Shame on me! I thougt the Mankind Quarterly was delated. I agree with your alteration. --WSC ® 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Please add it back yourself then; I don't want to run into some overzealous admin who counts my reverts without reading the talk page... Tijfo098 (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Done! I hope, it's okay so? I know this kind of admins. --WSC ® 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, you duplicated a sentence, which I then removed. Other than that, ok. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Billig about another article of Eysenck on Freud

[3]: "Nouvelle Ecole in Autumn 1973 gave page-space to Eysenck's words. It reprinted an article by Eysenck, not on race, but on Freudian psycho-analysis.(68) To accompany the piece Nouvelle Ecole included several cartoons, photographs, and selected quotations from psycho-analysts, which taken together had more than a faint whiff of anti-Semitism." Ref 68 is "68. H.J. Eysenck 'Le déclin et la chute de l'Empire freudien' Nouvelle Ecole, 1973, 23, 57-73. The article was originally published in English in the American girlie magazine Penthouse. " This seems related to the issue of Eysenck's article on Freud in the DNZ; it might even be the same article in two (or three!) different languages. Of course, the issue of interpretation remains. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Something not useful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The text of that article, without images, seems available on-line here. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, that's just a coincidence in title. That page is a synopsis of the translation in French of Eysenck's 1985 book Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire. Itself probably an expansion of his earlier paper(s). Tijfo098 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Article posting by Rcb1 was correct

I will replace posting by Rcb1 (Dec. 20, 2012) unless you are able to list other places where Eysenck was accused of being a supporter of the extreme right other than on the basis of his publications about psychoanalysis and/or IQ. Sirswindon (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sirswindon verifiability of material in WP:Mainspace

--> Wikipedia:Verifiability <--

"All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

--WSC ® 12:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Widescreen, please now list for us subjects other than psychoanalysis and intelligence where Eysenck was accused of being a supporter of the extreme right. If you cannot, then what you have deleted must be replaced. And while you are at it, produce the full article about Freud. Sirswindon (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. Please give us an reliable source of that recent enlightenment!
  2. What a nonsense!
--WSC ® 09:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd Man Out test

The Odd Man Out test is an orphan article in which Eysenck has some importance. Is it relevant enough to link it in Hans Eysenck's article? Rscholles (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Weasily?

"This opposition came when he supported Arthur Jensen's questioning of whether variation in IQ between racial groups was entirely environmental". That wording sounds very weasel to me. Was the "support" the mere academic assertion that it is right to ask the question, as it is right (indeed a requirement) to always ask questions? Was the opposition to the "support" an anti-academic assertion that such a question can never be asked? And if the answer to both my questions are "no", why is there no content in the article that explains exactly what the "support" was that made it so contentious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.27 (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Eysenck did of course support Jensen's right to ask the question; he also supported Jensen's careful interpretation of the facts, namely: "all we are left with are various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed altogether, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the negro-white intelligence difference."
Eysenck wrote a review of the evidence for popular consumption, Race, Education and Intelligence (The IQ Argument in the US), which quoted extensively from Jensen's work.
In answer to your second question, there certainly was "an anti-academic assertion that such a question can never be asked?", which manifested itself (among other things) in Jensen getting threats on his life and Eysenck getting punched on the nose at LSE (if the perpetrators ever actually disputed Jensen's facts or logic, it has escaped my notice). Birmingham University was daubed with the slogan "Fascist Eysenck has no right to speak".
There was of course a spectrum of other opinion, including scientific opinion that accepted Jensen's right to enquire but disagreed with his conclusions; for instance, Flynn. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Eysenck's biography Buchanan, Roderick J. (2010). Playing with Fire: The Controversial Career of Hans J. Eysenck. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-856688-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (already cited in the article, but too little used so far) discusses these and other issues in great detail. Editors who have access to the Eysenck biography Playing with Fire (which should be available in any good academic library and in larger public libraries) would do well to use that book as a source for article updates. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Gjboyle and Peacock tag

Gjboyle appears to be Gregory J. Boyle, Ph.D., D.Sc., FAPS of the University of Melbourne, with a long string of professional publications in Psychology, and, in particular, Psychometrics. He thus seems extremely qualified to contribute on this subject.

He has made a lot of edits to this article, but he certainly didn't write the majority of it — I contributed large chunk of myself (admittedly some time ago).

I have checked a random sample of his edits. Some of them are merely corrections of typos. I see no peacock language, nor COI.

I note also the discussion of "Alleged hounding of Gjboyle by SPA User:Baroccas".

And so I'm reverting the edit, at least for now. I will attempt to check Dr Boyle's individual edits when I have the time,

Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the Buchanan biography is still massively underused for updating this article

It seems a shame that a major biography of a famous deceased person like Eysenck has thus far been little used in updating the Wikipedia article about the life and work of Eysenck. The book was published five years ago and full of interesting information, and I encourage Wikipedians to read it to gain perspective on Eysenck for updates to this article on this rather important figure in the history of psychology. Here is the citation: Buchanan, Roderick J. (2010). Playing with Fire: The Controversial Career of Hans J. Eysenck. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-856688-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article cites that book 8 times. It is the article's single most-cited source, and is quoted at length in the "Publication in far right-wing press" section. How does that make it "little used"? 192.253.251.35 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: "Close Connection" Warning Label

I notice the warning label now placed on the Hans Eysenck biography. This warning is quite unfounded. The assertion that "the majority of this article [was] written by GBoyle with a significant COI and extremely subjective tone/content)" is factually untrue. I made only some minor adjustments to this article which presumably had already been written years ago by others including Paul Magnussen. The fact that Eysenck happened to be among my circle of professional academic contacts involving the occasional written communication re research/writing (the normal business of university researchers/scholars) does not suggest any COI whatsoever. Researchers frequently co-author publications in peer-reviewed journals with an academic colleague overseas, but that does not imply any kind of close personal relationship. Gjboyle (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To say, as you have publicly said, "I will remain forever indebted to both Ray Cattell and Hans Eysenck"Remembering Raymond Bernard Cattell suggests to many readers of Wikipedia that your number of edits on this article recently fits the requirements for the template that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." The template properly reminds all readers of Wikipedia to be curious about what level of objectivity and scholarly detachment has been applied to editing this article so far, and reminds all of us editors to go back to the reliable sources and check what they say about the late article subject (many of whose writings I have read, and some of whose writings I have cited in other articles I have worked on improving to good article status here on Wikipedia). You could help the Wikipedia project a lot and your own reputation here a lot by rolling up your sleeves to edit articles on topics less related to people to whom you are forever indebted. I, um, would be forever indebted to you if you did that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Er… We're all forever indebted to Louis Pasteur. Does that mean we can't edit the article about him? As long as his edits are supported by the proper reliable references, I see no problem. Many of them have just been fixing typos, anyway. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Gjboyle and Paul Magnussen that the warning label is unnecessary. It seems WeijiBaikeBianji is the only editor arguing for its inclusion, so I'll remove it now. 43.228.157.36 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
WeijiBaikeBianji is correct in applying this COI warning on the article page and by saying: "The template properly reminds all readers of Wikipedia to be curious about what level of objectivity and scholarly detachment has been applied to editing this article so far".Baroccas (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What parts of Gjboyle's edits, then, are not considered properly detached? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Good sources for this article?

Hi, everyone,

An edit conducted just a little while ago[4] deleted from this article one paragraph that has been in the article for a while and that appears at first glance to be cited to reliable sources. The edit summary for that edit, which I just reverted with comment on the editor's user talk page, was "removed biased language. ad hominem attacks. research quotations from a discredited source". I reverted that edit to open discussion per WP:BRD and am opening discussion here. Let's discuss first what sources are good sources for the life of the late Professor Hans Eysenck. I have used Eysenck's writings as sources for editing several articles on Wikipedia, particularly IQ classification, a winner of the Wikipedia Million Award, so I have some degree of familiarity with Eysenck's career, which extended well into the period when I began writing about psychology research. I have formerly circulated Roderick J. Buchanan's biography of Eysenck, Buchanan, Roderick J. (2010). Playing with Fire: The Controversial Career of Hans J. Eysenck. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-856688-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) from a local academic library, noting that the book specifically quotes Eysenck's widow as saying she does not agree with the book's conclusions. I see that book has several favorable reviews. Eysenck had a very visible public career, so of course there are a lot of writings from the hands of other scholars about his life and career. What other sources do you recommend for expanding and updating this article? Are there sources now cited by this article that do not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia reliable sources content guideline or that are otherwise misused or inappropriate for this article? I look forward to hearing from everyone watching this page about these issues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

While using online database searches to check for sources for this article and other Wikipedia articles, I ran into quite a few articles about Eysenck's life and work published just after he died. I also found an encyclopedia article, Buchanan, Rod (2005). "Eysenck, Hans Jürgen". In Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly (ed.). Encyclopedia of Social Measurement. Academic Press. pp. 939–945. doi:0.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00482-5. ISBN 978-0-12-369398-3. Retrieved 8 August 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |doi= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.) by Rod Buchanan, who was later Eysenck's book-length biographer. Maybe this encyclopedia article is more accessible to some of you than the full book-length biography. From previous library research, I was aware of two festschrifts about Eysenck from later in his career, one in the Falmer series Modgil, Sohan; Modgil, Celia, eds. (1986). Hans Eysenck: Consensus And Controversy. Falmer international master-minds challenged; 2. Routledge. ISBN 1-85000-021-2. Retrieved 9 August 2015 – via Questia. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) and one in the Pergamon (Elsevier now) series Nyborg, Helmuth, ed. (1997). The Scientific Study of Human Nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at Eighty. Elsevier Science. ISBN 978-0-08-042787-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). I could obtain either or both of these volumes from the library where I've seen them to check edits on this article. Reviews of each of those books also provide perspective on Eysenck's life and career. I'll check the article here for which sources it already relies on and await everyone's suggestions here of other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 15:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hans Eysenck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Eysenck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Attacked physically?

Is this true: 

[...received] death threats; Hans Eysenck, who publicly agreed with Jensen’s views, was physically attacked at the London School of Economics.

? Zezen (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans_Eysenck/Archive_3&oldid=965627382"