Talk:Free Association Books

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Untitled[edit]

I'm not sure I agree that the article is merely promotional, though it could do without the name of present publisher. The project was innovatory and radical for the reasons stated. The company was sold in the 1990s, and is no longer associated with those mentioned in this article. The Journal, 'Free Associations', is now quite separate from the company, and is edited by Caroline Bainbridge as an online journal. Maybe these details should be included?

A comprehensive, and academic, account of the Free Associations project was written by Karl Figlio and Barry Richards, and that reference might be added:

   Figlio, K, and Richards, B Psychoanalysis in the public Sphere: Some recent British developments in psychoanalytic social psychology.  In Hinshelwood, R.D. and Chiesa, Marco (eds.) (2002) Organisations, Anxieties and Defences.  London: Whurr.

Bob Hinshelwood (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Bob Hinshelwood (22 Jan 2014)[reply]

"who" tag[edit]

AllyD has quite reasonably put the tag into "It inspired a great many ^[who?] looking for an intellectual home." If he looks at "What links here", which has very recently grown a lot, perhaps he can find the answer. I'm not sure who and what to choose. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed you've put quite a lot of effort into these links. Regarding the sentence in the main article, I'm wary of conflating "published" and "inspired". Publication is often a matter of opportunity rather than necessarily sympathy - indeed, a good publication imo publishes those who oppose its viewpoint. So perhaps the sentence could either be toned down to a statement about the range of its contributors or changed to reference some explicit statements of inspiration. For example, did anyone ever publish a retrospective appraisal of the magazine and its influence? AllyD (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did all the links was a) as a convincing, if unconventional, proof of notability, and b) as a way, successful in your case, of attracting other editors who knew something about it. The guff at the end of the article was put there by Bob Hinshelwood over two years ago, but he seems to have left wikipedia. I'd suggest that the last two sentences are just deleted, and replaced by a list of some of the most significant authors who have been published by FAB, using "what links here" to find them. I'd appreciate your advice as to who the most important ones are. As for a retrospective appraisal, that would be super if we could find one, but I don't know whether or where one exists. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made the change I suggested above. Feel free to alter things. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]