Talk:Idée fixe (psychology)

Some reorganization of page references

This page has been written to cover the main usage of the term with the musical usage defined and referred to leitmotif. A disambiguation page has been placed at Idee fixe.

If there is a problem with this arrangement, please discuss it here. Brews ohare (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

definitions of words and terms are not suitable articles. From WP:NOT#DICDEF

"Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title."

from WP:NAD

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Yankee or fuck.

But the latter is not the case here. This content is more appropriate for Wiktionary, as described at WP:NAD, where there is already a page: idée fixe

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackburne: This article can be developed further; it is not a dictionary article per se, but begins a discussion of the psychiatric implications and introduces the musical idea with a link to Leitmotif. It provides sources for further development.

Prior to the formation of this article, the psychiatric and the everyday uses of this term were sidelined entirely to Leitmotif, which certainly is undesirable.

The page Idee fixe is now a disambiguation page, as it should be.

The article will expand eventually to a fuller discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the request for summary deletion for the above reasons. If there is still objection, I'd recommend a formal request for deletion with appropriate discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Per a request in the discussion of possible deletion of this article, I have removed the reference to the use of this term in music, and placed a template to see Leitmotif. Brews ohare (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a number of sources and explained different aspects of idée fixe and its role in pathology and the law. Its original usage and usage to day are pointed out and illustrated with quotations. Further historical background could be added if wished. The connection with the law is raised. More could be done.

This distinction from monomania is clarified.

Although Blackburne continues to carp about this article, I believe his objections have been met. Brews ohare (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote farm

A generic objection to quotations is not helpful. If there are some quotes in this article that seem unnecessary, they should be identified and argued against.

In support of the present quotations:

• The three quotations in the section "Today's usage" exemplify the common usages today (stereotyping and pathological) and provide striking examples of what constitutes an idee fixe.
• The single quotation in "Background" simply provides a source making a clear statement of the historical connection between monomania and idee fixe.
• The first quotation in the section "Legal requirements" shows how the legal position was viewed in the earlier epoch, in a clear and succinct manner, and the second provides an authoritative quotation to back up the use of idee fixe in diagnosing paranoia, a major player in the legal ramifications.
• The quotations in the section "In literature" follow a normal format to illustrate this occurrence.

Overall, the quotations flesh out the text and provide well written and authoritative statements. So, IMO, each quotation serves a purpose, and this article is by no means simply a a list of unnecessary quotations. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

This is something raised in the AfD discussion, which was one my main concerns with the article. Although the deletion discussion is now over the problem with quotations remains, and it can perhaps be easier addressed separated from that debate.

The problem is that there are too many quotations for the article. There is no arbitrary limit on quotations, but they are overused here. The main problem is quotations seem to be in place of proper explanation and exploration of the topic: rather than sections consisting of paragraphs describing the topic it consists largely of brief sentences and sentence fragments between lengthy quotes. These should be reworked into original prose, consisting of sentences, paragraphs and sections, with the documents that are quoted used as sources as appropriate.

The reasoning and policy are all described in great detail at WP:Quotations. The most relevant sections are:

• How to use quotations, which gives examples of when to use them to quote a source or author being discussed, or to deal with how to present a contentious statement.
• WP:QUOTEFARM on overusing quotations. The main points are that quotations should be pertinent, and too many may detract from the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. But other points are also relevant, especially that quotations should be "interspersed with original prose that comments on [them]", not added with "little or no original prose", which seems to apply to much of this article.

There are other problems. Quotes should preserve the text and format of the source exactly, so italicising terms when they are not in italics in the source is incorrect, as are any unmarked edits. For example this has both different formatting and content from the article – though to restore the content would make it even longer, again suggesting it needs to be rewritten as original prose. Lastly quotes should not be wikilinked, but as there's only one of those so I've fixed it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackburne: You exaggerate. For example, the quote from Sims in full is:

A frequent manifestation of the psychopathology within the context of paranoid personality is the presence of an overvalued idea (Chapter 8). This, alternatively described as a fixed idea (idée fixe), is a belief which might seem reasonable both the patient and to other people. However, it comes to dominate completely the person's thinking and life, and instead of testing its validity he tends to consider that every circumstance of life substantiates it; it becomes the basis for action which is sometimes aggressive or self-destructive. It is quite distinct phenomenologically from both delusion and obsessional idea.

This quote is shortened using ellipsis “...” to indicate the omissions, as is common in such matters, no changes in wording are made (other than the omission of extra details shown by ellipsis), and in no way whatsoever does the shortened quote change the meaning of the original text. Your other objections to other quotations are met above. By and large, you are simply continuing an unsubstantiated crusade against this article begun with your RfD. Brews ohare (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the article, with numbers added:

“A frequent manifestation of [1] ...paranoid personality is the presence of an overvalued idea...a fixed idea (idée fixe)[2]... [3]which might seem reasonable, [but] [4] comes to dominate completely the person's thinking and life.[5] It is quite distinct phenomenologically from both delusion and obsessional idea.”

The problems are

1. meaning change (object in source 'the psychopathology') not 'paranoid personality'
2. added formatting
3. meaning change as object 'a belief' missing
4. no indication that text has been removed
5. no indication that text has been removed

And this is just one quote: I have not checked the others in such detail (I did look at one or two others and confirmed that formatting had been added to some where it was not present in the source). It is easy to fix this: replace the quote with the full text as in the source. But that would make the article even more unbalanced in terms of overuse of quotations.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

An ellipsis is commonly used to denote omitted text in quotations. Your identification of meaning changes are nonsense. Brews ohare (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

when the source says "frequent manifestation of the psychopathology" and the quote reads "frequent manifestation of paranoid personality" that is a meaning change. As for the precise formatting it should be three dots not the ellipsis character, for reasons given in the manual of style.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says: “Use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation, unless square brackets are used to gloss the quotation (see above, and points below).” It identifies the ellipsis as three dots; which is what the ellipsis symbol is “…”. I don't see any requirement to replace this with “...” Brews ohare (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two or three ways to enter and ellipsis, give below the text you quote. It indicates that "…" is not recommended because it looks inconsistent and is more difficult to edit.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed ‘…’ back to ‘...’ (my original choice) as per WP:DOTDOTDOT. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of Quote Farm template

The Quote farm template has been inserted three times now by yourself: 1 2 3. Objections to this action were provided on the Talk page here on a quote-by-quote basis. This support for the quotations has not been addressed, suggesting addition of this template is not a request to improve the article, but more simply a disruptive editing of the article page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At the same time as you were writing that I was writing the section now immediately below it which goes into the problems in some detail, as well as identifying other problems with the quotations used. The template only says there are too many quotations, the discussion above and the relevant policy page go into more detail.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your remarks subsequent to the section Quote Farm do not address the point that all the quotations have been supported as contributing to the article on a quote-by-quote basis in that subsection.

Your specific remarks concerning the Sims quote are refuted; in particular, elisions have been identified, contrary to your remarks. Your other remark that the original Sims text:

“A frequent manifestation of the psychopathology within the context of paranoid personality is the presence of an overvalued idea”

and the quotation:

“A frequent manifestation of ... paranoid personality is the presence of an overvalued idea”

indicate a "change of meaning" is nonsense if you realize that the ‘psychopathology within the context of paranoid personality’ referred to here is simply the ‘paranoid personality’, a specific psychopathology. Brews ohare (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the text:

“an overvalued idea (Chapter 8). This, alternatively described as a fixed idea (idée fixe), is a belief which might seem reasonable”

is quoted as:

“an overvalued idea ... a fixed idea (idée fixe) ... which might seem reasonable”

You characterize this quote as a “meaning change as object 'a belief' is missing”, a characterization that simply is inaccurate nitpicking. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Quote Farm template remains an unjustified intrusion into the article. Brews ohare (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This full sentence

" This, alternatively described as a fixed idea (idée fixe), is a belief which might seem reasonable both the patient and to other people."

is currently in the article as follows

" ... a fixed idea (idée fixe) ... which might seem reasonable,"

so missing the context ('alternatively' and 'both to the patient and to other people'), missing that it is a belief, and with inappropriate formatting changes. Anyone reading the version presented in the article would have little hope of understanding the author's intent and meaning.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how trimming words from the original text and the quote in the article reinforces your claims. The omitted words indicated by ellipsis are not necessary to the point, which is simply that idée fixe is a symptom of paranoia. That point is not obscured or misportrayed by the elisions.

The Quote Farm template remains an unjustified intrusion into the article. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

John is still at it, insisting this article is a "quote farm", and refusing to engage on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You removed the template without giving reason for it (the edit summary was "other uses see disambiguation page"), or fixing the problem. See WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE for descriptions of the problem and how to fix it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your actions here have been already refuted above. Brews ohare (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the problems still remain. The most relevant guideline is

Overuse happens when:

a quotation is used without pertinence

This means that a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere.

And nowhere does it explain why any quote is relevant. Instead the quotes are simply given, and the reader has to interpret them. Many are not properly attributed, which should be given in full in the article text. See Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Attribution. Some quotes have emphasis in them but it is unclear whether that is in the original or added (this should always be indicated).

The overall problem though is there are far too many quotes, so much so that the text in places is reduced to linking sentences, absent any explanation of the topic never mind the quotes. The whole article should be rewritten to give a clear explanation of the topic, not dependent on quotes. They can still be used where relevant and their relevance is explained. But this will mean many fewer quotes as each has to be justified and relevant, while the article has to stand alone without them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with none of your assertions, John. The quotes are properly introduced and their relevance is clear. Brews ohare (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Background in 18th century Germany

If the concept of idée fixe cannot be traced in France beyond 1812 (which might well be possible, I have not tried it myself), it should be considered to investigate the possibility of the term originating in Germany in the 18th century. The German version of the article cites as a source for this claim the google books search, which shows several instances of 'fixe Idee' being used a a medical term much in the same way it is described in this (English) article in German literature before 1800 and the terminological match seems to be too close to deny any relation between the terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.194 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove all quotes

None of them belong. We don't need them. We can, should and do use Wikipedia's first voice to describe things. They wreck the article's readability. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Shiftchange, if I remove them all, do you have an idea for what to replace the material with? Maybe analyses? GBFEE (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Other views of, comprehensive summaries, references to rather than examples of. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Shiftchange, okay, it's something I'll make an attempt to do. Not soon, as there's other work I'll be doing on Wikipedia. GBFEE (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

On this talk page, there's been a lot of debate about the quotes, but the staunch supporter of them was blocked for an indefinite time a few years back. So I can move on this without restraints. GBFEE (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)