Talk:Controversial discussions
Latest comment: 10 years ago by LookingGlass in topic Expert attention?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
editThis topic, it seems to me, could easily be incorporated into something broader, say the general history of the British Psycho-Analytical Society. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly DISAGREE. The only reason I can see behind this statement is that the article is currently, and sadly, so brief. I for one am very gratefuil that wiki keeps (in some areas at least) a modular approach to knowledge and history. This approach allows readers to move between general and detail levels without having to read copious amounts of text that, while perhaps edifying for the authors of the voluminous articles that seem to creep like a cancer through wiki, are endlessly frustrating for people who use wikipedia as other than an alternative to a Kindle. LookingGlass (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Expert attention?
editI find this article very interesting, and not only for the fact observed in it's final sentence:
The discussions were thus foundational in defining the nature of psychoanalytic thought and practice in the UK.
Could anyone help to flesh out a basic outline of these discussions? LookingGlass (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)