Talk:Wilfred Bion
 | The contents of the Bizarre object page were merged into Wilfred Bion on 13 December 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Colorlessness
editArticle feels a little colorless, maybe something with faulty Wikipedia processes based on misrepresented policies. The concrete lack of the article is explanations on what Bion actually achieved (i.e. much/influential etc.), and the dry non-explanative colorless description on the superficial structure of his life. Said: Rursus ☻ 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Bion's theory of mind
editSorry, this kind of jumps into the middle of the discussion, but i wanted to get something started that might invite others to help elaborate a rather complex theory of mental development, as nothing was actually said about what is so exciting about Bion as a theorist. Have at it! Majicshrink (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
portal
editShouldn't this be part of the psychology portal? Bion is a theorist within psychoanalytic discourse. If so, I have no idea how to make this happen, so I just say so here. Majicshrink (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Bionic Iceberg
editHope to have moved the article on a tad, but still scratching the Bionic surface, I feel. C-constructs, -L, -H: these are just the bits that I know I don't know....Eventualism! Jacobisq (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Bion, reality and truth
editI note from my limited reading (this afternoon, briefly, three papers) on Bion's work and legacy, that he was considerably concerned with "a drive for truth" and "reality". Yet much of the present article seems merely to uncritically elaborate various of his theories, without any attempt to provide evidence for their truth or reality, or even for their significance to later psychology outside the rather limited "Tavistock tradition" of psychoanalysis.
I conclude that in its present form the article lacks our cherished Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Can anybody (better informed than I) redress this imbalance? yoyo (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editThe bizarre object article does not make sense. I am unable to examine the cited sources because I do not have easy access to them, but by their titles, they seem to not have "bizarre object" as their subject and instead generally present the work of psychologist Wilfred Bion.
The current title of that article, "bizarre object", is surprising because it is a strange name referring to a specific aspect of a psychology theory which does not have its own Wikipedia article. Ideally we could merge this content to an article on Bion's theory, like we have an article for Freud's psychoanalytic theories, but since that article does not exist, I think it is best to move all of this content to the biography of Bion. If anyone made a page for Bion's theories in the future then this content could go there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Ambigous citation
editIn the Section on "Alpha elements, beta elements, and alpha function" a work is sourced as (1962), but two sources from 1962 exist, 1962a and 1962b 178.115.39.170 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)