Jump to content

Talk:The Psychopathology of Everyday Life

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Jones

[edit]

why refuse the assignment ( According to Jones ) ?--Doltoto (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rewrite every Wikipedia article so that every statement sourced to a particular author is prefaced by "According to..."? If not, why insist on doing that here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If yes ... ? This setence is only the statement of Ernest Jones (hagiography of Freud = non-neutral).--Doltoto (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have the faintest idea what you are trying to say. Please try to re-express your thoughts in more comprehensible language; then it would be easier to respond. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This non-neutral sentence is a sentence that comes from E.Jones. It must be attributed.--Doltoto (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is nothing "non-neutral" about it. It's not a controversial statement. There is no reason it should be attributed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fact, it's your POV.--Doltoto (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is that supposed to mean? I am not even completely sure what you are trying to say. As far as I can tell, the statement is uncontroversial and does not need to be attributed. Your comment above is just pointless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Pointless" ?! one which became perhaps the best-known of all his writings...what's (your) the proof ?--Doltoto (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about "proof." Articles are based on reliable sources, per WP:RS. The statement that you object to is based on a reliable source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is only the opinion of Jones, it is not an uncontroversial generality (WP:A & WP:RSOPINION ).E.Jones speech isn't sacred and is not an absolute truth, don't you think? --Doltoto (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those links you provided do not support your position in any way. Wikipedia:Attribution has no official standing. WP:RSOPINION states, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers." Jones's book is the classic biography of Freud, and it is hardly on the same level as an opinion piece in a newspaper. Your comments here are becoming tendentious, and if you cannot provide a better argument for your views I'm not sure that I am going to continue to respond to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...--Doltoto (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but once again, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please read the guideline again, as I am not sure you have understood it correctly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand (or read) WP:RSOPINION : but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says... ?--Doltoto (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, no, I am afraid it is you has failed to understand the guideline. The guideline is saying that in some cases it is wrong to offer statements as fact without an inline qualifier. This is not one of those cases, as I tried to explain to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand that Jones' opinion (that you write statements asserted as fact) should be assigned; when we strongly disagree.--Doltoto (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Sorry. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doltoto, you simply cannot continue to make the same edits to this article and refuse to discuss them on the talk page. I am afraid that some of the text you added to the criticism section ("In epistemology, Renée Bouveresse criticized the work of psychoanalysis which this book of Freud") is simply incomprehensible in English. In its current form that sentence does not make sense. If you can rewrite it so that it does make sense, then it might have a place in the article, but otherwise it must be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

A third opinion has been requested. Unfortunately, I don't understand what the question is. I think that I agree with User:FreeKnowledgeCreator in that respect. If there is a question about whether to include a particular sentence or paragraph in the article, please provide it on this talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t figure out from the talk page what the question is. It begins with a question: “Why refuse the assignment (According to Jones)”? That, in itself, isn’t comprehensible. Was there an attempt to add “According to Jones” to a sentence in the article? If so, which one? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently reads, "Psychopathology of Everyday Life (German: Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens) is a 1901 work by Sigmund Freud, based on his researches into slips and parapraxes from 1897 onwards,—one which became perhaps the best-known of all his writings." Doltoto wants to place "according to Jones" before "became perhaps the best-known of all his writings." I consider that unnecessary. There are other disagreements as well, as you can probably see. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through the history of the editing of the article, I agree that "According to Jones" is unnecessary. It may be referenced to Jones, but it doesn't need to be included in the article as such. I also agree that some of the edits User:Doltoto are ungrammatical in English. I am removing the third opinion request as answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth Opinion: I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator and Robert McClenon - it is unnecessary as there is no good reason to suppose that Jones is mistaken in assessment that this is possibly his best known work (which by the way is not a particularly non-neutral statement). Personally I think On the Interpretation of Dreams is more likely to be his best known work, but I am pretty sure Jones is more likely to know more about that than I.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That page, as already noted, has no official standing on Wikipedia. I understand that this may be confusing. What the page actually says is that in some cases material needs to be attributed to a source. In this case, there is no need to do that as the statement that The Psychopathology of Everyday Life is perhaps one of Freud's best-known books is not controversial in any way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a controversial sentence !--Doltoto (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Now this discussion is over unless you have something new to say. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't choose by yourself the setence is or isn't neutral (or if the discussion is over or if my true opinion isn't ""new""). WP:RSOPINION : "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." " Jones isn't neutral or a fact, is he ?--Doltoto (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Psychopathology_of_Everyday_Life&oldid=1204207172"