 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2008. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
Someone seems to object strongly against the concept of thoughts without a thinker, a perfectlyt valid concept in science and philiosophy alike. It is erased from various pages, time and again. What's the problem? People are looking it up and telling me they can't find what was there before...
I've informed other Bion scholars through one of our our e-mail lists and am confident that more scientists than just me will be curious to see how the Wikipedia thought-police is going to deal with this issue.
To be frank, I should add that the previous disqualification which said that Bion´s concept was "patent non sense" has been replaced by a milder formulation. It seems we´re moving in the right direction...
- Hi, I would like to point out that Wilfred Bion actually has an article on Wikipedia and if they are not already included in there, incorporating Bion's scientific/philosophical concept in that article rather than creating a separate article might be more appropriate. Mvjs (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've probably checked that page too and must have noticed that it has an internal link to this one. You don't want to see a biographical page cluttered with explanations of concepts that deserve a lemma of their own, do you?
By the way, are you aware that already as we speak the Google search engine ([1]) has almost 1.500 hits on the lemma, feauturing this page with Wikipedia's proud Quick Deletion stamp on top?
To conclude: the mere suggestion that this page is at odds with Wikipedia's policy of not publishing original research or original thought, is downright preposterous. Please go see Wikipedia:No original research where it says clearly how this is defined: original thought it taken to mean "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
Wow! And I almost literally quoted Bion's publications and even added the references for those who would want to check for themselves. Generations of professionals have been trained on this groundbreaking work. So now I'm told that my text is an abuse of Wikipedia for the sake of advancing my own opinions, and I'm not supposed to take offence? Well, anyone who can read the entry and understand it will see why I am now 'having' lots of thoughts...
And Mvjs (however famed for your tireless and comprehensive work on airports) and Gwen Gale (who seems to be equally remote from the subject matter), sorry but no stars for you today.--Gerard van Reekum (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)