Talk:Philosophy of the Unconscious

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

Drop "The" from article title[edit]

Given that the infobox correctly cites Coupland's translation, which correctly (as in the German) had the title with no definite article, the article title should drop it. See also "Philosophy of the Unconscious", per [[1]] (Routledge, 1933, 2014) or here [2] 'First published in 2000. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company'. Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+and see in Thinking the Unconscious Nineteenth-Century German Thought Edited by Angus Nicholls and Martin Liebscher, chapter 7, CUP 2010[3], [4] Qexigator (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the German title is relevant to what the title should be in English. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why unsure? It is certainly relevant to Coupland's and other translations and reprints. The change should be made, with, of course, a redirect in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm not unsure. The book's name in German is irrelevant to the name of the WP article about the book. The relevant issue is what name is most often used for the book in English. I would have thought The Philosophy of the Unconscious was more commonly used than Philosophy of the Unconscious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The title of Coupland is sufficient. Please note that your revert of my accurate and clarifying correction[5] is not acceptable. Why resist the obvious? Qexigator (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, articles about books never begin with the words "The book". The article on Mein Kampf does not begin, "The book Mein Kampf...", and the article on Das Kapital does not begin, "The book Das Kapital..." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is easily resolved. Qexigator (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't grasp your point. What are you trying to say? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave out "The book..." to read thus: The "Philosophy of the Unconscious...". Qexigator (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting you never got agreement to remove the "the". That's what the discussion is supposed to be about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What agreement do you suppose is required to correct so obvious a discrepancy and internal inconsistency, once it has been noticed? Don't forget that there is no need to defer the corrections in the article while we are waiting for the change of the article title to be followed through. Qexigator (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia generally operates through consensus. You simply have not convinced me of the merits of the change. Maybe you should request a third opinion, or something like that? See WP:3O. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons, please? I am not the first npov editor to notice that those unable or unwilling to offer sufficient, or any, reason for their position tend to invoke one or more WP, in a way which frustrates improvement, as if by deliberate prevarication or obfuscation. But I am happy to AGF, and you now have the opportunity to offer reasons for opposing the neccessary correction which my edit, amended as mentioned above, would make. While noting that you may have made multiple contributions in various names or IPs, from April 2012 to the present, amounting to almost the entire article as it stands, I observe that their appear to be few if any others who have, in fact, contributed at all. Qexigator (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who wants to make the change, so it's up to you to offer reasons for it. I already noted that I found your reasons to be insufficient. Hence, it would be appropriate to ask for a third opinion, or maybe seek advice from members of WikiProject Books. You saying that I am wrong is not enough to convince me, but if someone else tells me I'm wrong, that might be convincing. And if you want to contribute anything of substance to the article, please, feel free. I'm not trying to stop anyone else from contributing. It just happens that this is one of several articles where apparently no one other than me has any interest in adding significant new content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken about this: my reasons are sufficient, and you have failed even to offer a rebuttal. A desire to perpetuate manifest error should not attempt to shield itself in the name of supposed WP. Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned the German title of the book, which is irrelevant. You also mentioned that apparently two English translations of the book title it "Philosophy of the Unconscious" rather than "The Philosophy of the Unconscious". How do you know that the title is usually given that way in English? I suspect that if anything "The Philosophy of the Unconscious" is more common. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

A third opinion has been requested. What is the title of the most commonly published English translations? That is the common name in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me, if you will, to judge a book by its cover. I've performed a few Google text and Google image searches, and every time I've seen a scan or photo of the cover of the book there is no "The" at the start. Simply it reads "Philosophy of the Unconscious". Therefore, it is my opinion that the title of this article should simply be "Philosophy of the Unconscious".
As for some of the argumentation, this is an English article, so the original German name is not of consequence when titling this article. I am not sure where the "The book" line of discussion was going, but it seems to be tangential. SueDonem (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those links seem to settle the fact-checking point, but I have now seen a print copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edn., and this may have been a main disseminator of the misinformation, giving "Die..." and "The...", which can sometimes be found in places where the work is discussed or cited. Qexigator (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember reading that encyclopedias are not necessarily reliable sources. Just can't remember where. SueDonem (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to move the article to "Philosophy of the Unconscious" I have no further objection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meantime, the article can be revised, per reverted edits. Qexigator (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+Done[6]. Please will some admin. or other adept now go ahead with the move? Qexigator (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+Done SueDonem (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, normally any user can move an article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"permitted" ≠ "capable" in the case of some, including...Qexigator (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's really, really simple. At the top of an article, you will see the word "more". Click on that, and you will find a "move" option. Select "move" and you're taken to a form that makes it possible to change the article's title. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, and for the consequential tidying on other articles. Qexigator (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche[edit]

Qexigator, thank you for the addition about Nietzsche you made here. It would be good if you could add a proper citation, however. I will look up the passage and try to cite it if you do not add a citation yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, Wikisource. Qexigator (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with linking "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" to Wikisource, as you did here. The link should connect to the relevant portion of the article Untimely Meditations, as per my edit here. There is no reason why the content about Nietzsche should be cited to Wikisource. I will find a replacement citation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think again: the source for the content I added is the text at the Wikisource. If you have something further to add about Nietzche, as set out in the portion of another article to which you linked instead, why is that relevant in this article which is about the reception given, by some notable writers, to Hartmann's work? And remember, Wikipedia is not a source for an article's content. Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out to me where in policy it states that that is an appropriate way to source something? Consider that it is confusing to readers to click on a link such as "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" and be taken to another website, such as Wikisource. Readers would expect to be taken to a portion of Wikipedia dealing with the essay, because that is how links normally work here. The link to Wikisource violates WP:EL: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." NB, your comment, "If you have something further to add about Nietzche, as set out in the portion of another article to which you linked instead, why is that relevant in this article which is about the reception given, by some notable writers, to Hartmann's work?" seems totally confused to me, I have no idea what point you are making. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have "no idea what point" my simple and obvious comment above is making, then it may be because you are totally confused about this topic, and the way in which an article such as this should be constructed. I repeat "If you have something further to add about Nietzsche, as set out in the portion of another article to which you linked instead, why is that relevant in this article which is about the reception given, by some notable writers, to Hartmann's work?" Qexigator (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for linking "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" to the relevant portion of Untimely Meditations is perfectly simple: that is where readers would expect to go when they click on the link, not to Wikisource. Your link appears to violate WP:EL, which is a simple enough guideline. Could you please address the point? My edit here did not add, and was not meant to add, something "about Nietzsche", rather it was meant to help readers by making links work in a readily understandable way. Since the edit added no text relating to Nietzsche, the "If you have something further to add about Nietzsche" part of your comment is absurd. The "reception" section of the article is indeed "about the reception given, by some notable writers, to Hartmann's work", but that doesn't affect where readers expect to go when they click on a link. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken in claiming to determine "where readers would expect to go when they click on the link". It is undoubtedly more helpful to them, and agreeable with WP, to link directly to the source which happens to be available at Wikisource, than to cite as a reflist item the English translation published in print and ebook form. Again, if you have something relevant to add to the information about Nietzsche's comments on Hartmann's book, by way of link or otherwise, please do so without destroying either the text or its source which my edit contributed; if not, there seems to be nothing to discuss. I do not see it as helpful on your part to have repeated abusively your inablity to comprehend a simple point, and to seek to promote your position by calling my intelligible comment "absurd". Remember, the topic is Hartmann's book, not "the philosophy of the unconscious". Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What helps readers is to know where they are going when they click on a link. With the exception of links in the "external links" section, links on Wikipedia normally connect to Wikipedia articles or portions thereof, not to external sites such as Wikisource. Linking "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" to Wikisource rather than to the relevant portion of Untimely Meditations is confusing to readers because it violates the normal expectation of how links work on Wikipedia. It is wrong to confuse readers and send them somewhere they likely do not expect to go simply because, in your opinion, it is somehow "more helpful" to link to Wikisource. The Wikisource link could easily be added in the external links section; there it can be properly identified, so that readers know it leads to Wikisource. The issue is only where the links should lead to, and of course I have nothing "to add to the information about Nietzsche's comments on Hartmann's book." As for the confused nature of your comments, you are being confusing again by saying "the topic is Hartmann's book, not "the philosophy of the unconscious"; Philosophy of the Unconscious is the title of Hartmann's book, so the two are one and the same. I will be asking for a third opinion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will be evident that an editor who regards a book and a general concept as "one and the same" because the book's title includes the words Philosophy of the Unconscious..., while there is a general concept or classfication named "the philosophy of the unconscious", is likely to be confused by simple reasoning. It may be surmised that few if any readers of the article would be equally confused, especially where the book's full title is Philosophy of the Unconscious: Speculative Results According to the Induction Method of the Physical Sciences. Qexigator (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to discuss anything that does not relate to the issue at hand. Qexigator, please keep your comments to the point. So far, you have done nothing except to reiterate that in your opinion it is more helpful to readers to connect "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" to Wikisource than to a Wikipedia article. WP:EL contradicts your view about where the link should connect to. I agree that a link to Wikisource is helpful, but it is most helpful to readers when it is clearly labelled as a link to Wikisource, so that they know that they are going to Wikisource when they click on it. The obvious way to resolve this dispute is for the Wikisource link to be moved to the "external links" section. Why would you object to having a properly labelled link in the "external links" section? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an assumption that I have opposed letting Wiikisource appear as an external source. Qexigator (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you accept that it would help the article to have a link to Wikisource appear in the "external links" section, where - properly labelled as a link to Wikisource - it would be helpful, why then insist that "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" must also be linked within the paragraph about Nietzsche? There is obviously no need for multiple links to the same Wikisource resource. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, inline linking undoubtedly improves the article from a reader's point of view, and you have failed to give sufficient reason otherwise. I see nothing further that can usefully be discussed. Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"To my mind" is not an argument. If you believe that the article needs both a link to a Wikisource document in the "external links" section, one which is properly labelled as link to Wikisource, and also a link to the same Wikisource document in the main body of the article, a link that is not properly labelled as a link to Wikisource, then it is up to you to establish why. "To my mind" and "undoubtedly" really amount only to an admission that you cannot suggest any reason why two links to the same Wikisource document would be appropriate. The sufficient reason I have given for my view is that there is no reason readers would need two links to the same document. You are the one who has failed to give sufficient reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

A Third Opinion has been requested. It appears that the question is whether to have the link take to the Wikipedia article that might be called Untimely Meditations or Thoughts Out of Season, or to Wikisource. It seems to me to be more expected by the reader that they will be taken to a Wikipedia article than to a text in a different Wiki. I will be removing the Third Opinion as answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Whether "to have the link take to the Wikipedia article that might be called Untimely Meditations or Thoughts Out of Season, or to Wikisource" was indeed the question, as far as I'm aware. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What basis has anyone for determining generally "where readers would expect to go when they click on the link", and, in particular, whether in the above discussion, that would be more helpful to readers and agreeable with WP than linking directly to the source which happens to be available at Wikisource? Qexigator (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a naive question. Wikipedia was not created just yesterday, and there are of course established guidelines and conventions about the question of where links should connect to. Please read WP:EL. The understanding is that links on Wikipedia normally connect to Wikipedia articles, not to external websites, except for links in the "external links" section. The whole point of having a section called "external links" is that that is where external links go - not randomly distributed throughout the rest of the article. The Wikisource link is appropriate to the "external links" section, but not to anywhere else in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is off the mark, and I note that the question What basis has anyone for determining where readers would expect to go when they click on the link has not been answered. Qexigator (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a reasonable answer. Wikipedia has an established set of guidelines regarding where links should connect to (WP:EL), and as editors we should respect those guidelines. Your response is totally off the point. Maybe it is impossible to prove, via some kind of survey, where readers expect to go when they click on a link. It is foolish to suggest that this is a reason for ignoring established guidelines about how to link. Wikipedia's guidelines about linking have been in place for a long time, and obviously it is reasonable to assume that readers will expect that a link not in the "external links" section will link to a Wikipedia article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, your comment now acknowledges that your claim above to determine "where readers would expect to go when they click on the link" is baseless. Further, you may not be as fully conversant with WP as the tone of your comment implies, and it may be better to reconsider your position than claiming foolishness on the part of one who disagrees with you. My comment was very much to the point. Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Qexigator, my claim is not baseless. It is based upon common sense, the fact that Wikipedia has a well-established guideline regarding how to link (WP:EL), and the fact that this guideline has been in place for a long time. Under the circumstances, of course it is reasonable to assume that readers will expect a link not in the "external links" section to connect to a Wikipedia article. The wider Wikipedia community will recognize this even if you for some reason cannot. You have already received a third opinion from Robert McClenon agreeing with me; how much more of this kind of thing will it require to convince you? A request for comment, perhaps? WP:IDHT may offer useful guidance in this situation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, baseless etc. Please do not persist with this vain attempt to make your point. Qexigator (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Qexigator, common sense. If you make ridiculous assertions that ignore well-established Wikipedia guidelines and common sense, you can expect both me and the larger community to disagree with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy and sweet.!.[edit]

Intellectual and witty at the same time knows life's worth. . 172.56.13.72 (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophy_of_the_Unconscious&oldid=1209747507"