Talk:Man's Search for Meaning

Untitled

I added an info book to this. it could use some clarification in the info box. b_cubed 16:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That citation is in the book; when I get a chance I'll page through and find it --204.169.28.98 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (crucible guardian IRL)

It's on page 104 of the Pocket Books 60th Anniversary Edition. This is to satisfy the inquiry regarding the quote (which was accurate) but the citation needed tag is inappropriate here. The entire section is a summary of the book contents--if it's inaccurate, change it, but you don't footnote a summary of a book.--Buckboard 05:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1frankl-book.JPG

Image:1frankl-book.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoring quotations from book

I have restored the quotes that someone deleted. The person thought they were poorly written. I disagree. I believe all of the quotes are accurate. If they are inaccurate, I think we should correct them but not delete them. I will request the user who deleted them to respond here to discuss and reach consensus before making further changes. DBlomgren 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be more useful and accurate is page numbers were listed. Guest 02:46, 5 June 2010 ()

What about the nine days

Frankl has dictated the book in only nine days. what does that mean? Twipley (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Publication date

The original publication date for both the first writing, titled From Death Camp to Existentialism, and the revised and expanded version titled Man's Search for Meaning was 1959 by Beacon Press. The date is clearly stated in the Pocket Book edition that was published in 1963, which I have in my library.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again today I stand corrected. I searched a little longer and found that the work was first published in 1946 as trotzdem Ja zum Leben sagen: Ein Psychologe erlebt das Konzentrationslager (translated: ...saying yes to life in spite of everything; A Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camp).
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the second-most widely read Holocaust book in the bookstore of Washington's Holocaust Museum.

Seems to suggest people read the book in the bookstore. I'm guessing it means second most purchased? Thmazing (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference doesn't work

Currently the first reference (Man's Search For Meaning full text) seems broken.

Wouldyoujust (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Move reference to Langer's criticism to Reception section.

Paragraph 3 of the article should be moved to become a second paragraph in the section "Reception." Explicit reference to other criticism, such as that of Timothy Pytell, could be added. 2604:2000:1103:81AA:19A8:733A:8EF9:D380 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Henry5400

Lede and reception

The third paragraph in the lede is unnecessary and out of place. Criticisms, especially if they're only from one author, should be in the reception section. Also it kind of stinks of WP:OR

Unless anyone is opposed let's move the holocaust memorial museum factoid to the reception section which also needs serious work.

Edit: I wrote to the USHMM store at the email provided on their website (Museum_shop@ushmm.org) and they said that they sell multiple books by Victor Frankl, including Man's Search for Meaning.

Kilometerman (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Kilometerman (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You know the term lede, yet you are not familiar with WP:LEDE? Which contrary to your personal belief here, spells out very clearly that any 'controversy' is required to be in the introduction of every article.

Moreover your claimed email, is not a reliable source and this your blanking of the actual reliable references is classified as WP:vandalism. Do not do it again. It is notable that this book is/was not on sale there.

213.202.136.143 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Did very quick research. According to the museum catalog (collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/bib7750) The book is available at the museum. This is a primary source and therefore outweighs the interview which claims his writings are unavailable at the museum. Kilometerman (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEDE Says to "not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." Having the book's controversies taking up half of the lede is not WP:NPOV. Kilometerman (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Psycholog vs. Psychologe

The title in the 2nd edition graphic here uses "Psycholog"; other editions (including Penguin, 2009) spell it "Psychologe" ... is this an Austria vs. Germany spelling thing? (Was first published in Austria, later in Germany.)

Asr34 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Psycholog" is (older) Austrian German. Like all Southern German dialects they sometimes drop the "e" at the ending. Even though published some decades later the title would have included "Psychologe", the "dropped e" version is clearly possible in an edition around 1950. JensOhle (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Improving the Article with Summary, Additional Description of Logotherapy

I believe that the article should have more in depth discussion about the format and a cohesive summary about the book. As well as a significantly expanded "Logotherapy" Section. I will add as I have time. I recently completed an Essay and Summary about Man's Search for Meaning available here. I will use this as source material and begin working on the article. Jroibal1 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You cannot use a self published essay as a source, see WP:RS and WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

10-4, I get it, thanks Mr. Ollie for protecting Wikipedia Jroibal1 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Impartiality

The last sentence of the fourth paragraph in "Reception" hardly seems impartial or informative.

It baselessly calls published criticisms of the book "inapt" and "misleading" and says that they "could be dismissed altogether".

The sentence feels out of place and opinionated, and it could be omitted without making the article any less informative.

Any suggestions for replacing it? VNTRY (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)