Talk:Ego

Redirect is better

Someone appears to have cut/pasted a school essay (apparently focused on Asian religious conceptions?) on "ego", complete with links to Google Books as references, rather than simply leaving the longstanding redirect to Id, ego, and super-ego#Ego. The redirect should remain, as the content it points to is far superior. Westbender (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, once such a bold addition is reverted, consensus needs to established to have it. The same content is also under Ego (Religion). Personally I'd prefer the disambiguation page itself here.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect is incorrect

Hi Wikipedians

The user has observed the inappropriate redirection (here).

We all know the great contribution of "Freud" to Psychology but here 'Ego' as an article is not challenging anyone's hypothesis. Its only the way notable people [links to their analysis are provided in references] have observed 'Ego' and how it is related to or different from 'Self' and 'Consciousness' which is mentioned in this article.

We all shall conclude the right way rather than being 'childish' and redirecting, which is a disregard to others' observations.

One more point - The user would like to talk to Westbender and Tikiwont only on this discussion page to wash away their (mis)conceptions with this article.

Regards Sushil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil10s (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I would not mind to have at this place here the disambiguation page itself, currently at Ego (disambiguation) or redirect there, but did not want to impose that either. That page also lists which also lists Ego (spirituality). If you think another artcile should be written, consider doing it, say at Ego (Religion) or a different title, where it can be judged on its merits, instead of reinforcing your own essay over this navigational point here and call others childish. Alternatively, you could try to explain in one or two sentences what the scope of the article is and why it should be located at Ego. Meanwhile, I'll list the alternatives below. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: The alternatives for this page

There are three proposed alternatives for this page. Which one is the most adequate?--Tikiwont (talk) 10:42 pm, 22 December 2010, Wednesday (13 days ago) (UTC+10)

• A disambiguation page that lists all articles that have to do with Ego (or a redirect there)

• Support, the current dab page mentions that this is first of all a Latin word, has been prominently used by Freud and can list all other meanings. It's the most helpful variant for any arbitrary reader typing or linking ego. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support- Westbender (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• A redirect to Id,_ego,_and_super-ego#Ego as supposed main topic, listing the dab page there in the head (previous status-quo)
• An article that compiles what notable people or religious/philosophical traditions have observed or remarked regarding the ego.

Well the only additional input after expiration of the listing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy was that of MikeLynch below. I've now moved the disambiguation page here, preserving the content on ego and religion at Ego (religion). Any other title is also fine especially if it explains better the scope of that article. On the other hand I still need to go thorugh the links to what is now a dab page, not least regarding those using it in a Freudian sense. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding WP:FIXDABLINKS, this tool makes the job easier (works best in Firefox - make sure you use Preferences to keep articles out of your watchlist and do the "I understand the risks" thing to get single-click saves). Cheers, --JaGa^talk 17:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I tried, but no single click saves for me and still always marked for the watchlist. I generally use AWB but can't do that everywhere.. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You can take care of the watchlist issue in Preferences. But if you aren't really interested that's no big deal. --JaGa^talk 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Tikiwont

Hi

Rather than asking questions to the user at a time, may you please redirect some other articles, e.g, Ego (Psychology) or Psychology of Ego or may be Ego (Science) to where you love to because that is related more to psychology or (presumptive) science. You shall not disregard several notable observations, though general, by considering one article as supreme.

'Ego' is a general term and how notable people have observed is mentioned here. If the user defines your name (for example) and keep redirecting your biography (a general article) to that defined article, wouldn't you mind?

I hope you won't misuse your authority.

Regards

Sushil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.142.22 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether i understand you, but this is not about me or by name, so I fail to see why you would make it a section header or insinuate that I might abuse my position. Nor do you seem to understand my point. I think as well that the ego is a general term and would prefer a disambiguation term for this page. I merely reverted instead of picking my own preferred target, because as opposed to you, I respect the longstanding redirect. You created your article/essay first at Ego (Religion), then redirected that yourself and expanded Ego instead. Where I don't think your text is helpful. I'll therefore list this at WP:Request for comment instead of continuing this exchange, paraphrasing your objective as I understand it. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tikiwont. This should be a disambiguation page. I still do not understand why this move to a disambiguation page hasn't been performed yet. Besides, this article focuses on religion and more specifically on hinduism. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And Mr. Sushil, please wait for consensus before removing redirects like that. You can't cite reasons like 'its past 72 hours since there has been a reply' or anything like that. Invite people for a meaningful discussion, and then a controversial revision can be made. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, after some unfortunate reverting I had listed this at WP:RFC. That has now expired without much further input.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Psychological 'ego' long before Freud

Yeah I noticed that the Wikipedia pages around Freud/psychoanalysis etc don't note that Freud was far from the first to use the term 'ego' in a psychological sense. The term was "widely used in the nineteenth century". How could this page clarify this, or does it have to inserted into the Freudian articles? FinalAccount (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)