Talk:Ressentiment (book)

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

A Good Wikipedia Entry

Somebody tagged this article as needing cleanup for being "like a dissertation, rather than an encyclopedia entry." I don't know what you're talking about. Have you checked out the economics entries? Wikipedia should not be aiming to replicate the lowest common denominator level of informativeness found in commercial (so market-constrained) encyclopedias. It can be more informative. This entry is certainly not written like a dissertation. I find it really informative as is. Perhaps it could be added to or reorganized. I would not want to see it emptied of what seems to me really useful content. Somebody did a great job here. I'm removing the reproving cleanup tag. I feel the cleanup tag was motivated not by the best interests of the public, but by ressentiment. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's written neither like an encyclopedia entry nor a dissertation -- it's written like a contribution from an "independent scholar". The style is generally poor, informal and bloated. I agree with the need for cleanup. 205.208.122.147 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the shittiest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Which is a bit ironic, given the content, I suppose. But what's interesting is that this seems to have gone untouched since 2010! The summary at Ressentiment#Scheler is briefer, but much more comprehensible. Arided (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]