Talk:Jean Laplanche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Jean Laplanche is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in France may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] Socialisme ou Barbarie

It's not clear to me from the Radical Philosophy interview whether Laplance is referring to founding the group or founding the journal associated with it. He complains of Castoriadis' control over the journal, which sort of suggests he means the latter. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"Actif dans le mouvement d'extrême gauche antistalinien depuis la Libération, il est no des fondateurs, avec Cornelius Castoriadis et Claude Lefort du groupe et de la revue Socialisme ou Barbarie (1948)." [1] Jkelly 19:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
OK... I confess that the above quote is about as much French as I can read :-). But I can read that much, which seems clear. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing style

[edit] Footnotes

Hi. I notice that you changed the formatting of the notes section. It now no longer follows Wikipedia:Footnotes, and there is no longer any hyperlink connection between the ref-tag and the note-tag. Is there any reason I shouldn't change it back? Jkelly 20:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, we were commenting at the same time. In my browser, clicking on any of the footnotes jumps to and highlights the corresponding note. Does it not do so for you? It's possible some ref has a typo that breaks that, but I checked most of them. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote style

I simplified the footnote style to the first one listed in Wikipedia:Footnotes. I don't have a real agenda with this, but it was a bit confusing to me to have multiple 'a', 'b', etc. for the same article. And plus those had redundant numbers along with the labels. I'm used to seeing the simplest style in most articles, and remembering just the mneumonic for a ref feels easiest. Actually, I also find it simple to just link external URLs inline rather than refer to the endnote; but I'm happy to use endnotes if editors prefer that. Admittedly, this lets multiple auto-numbers refer to the same note, but the jump target remains the appropriate article.

Actually, I think there are more refs than we really need. Most of the facts are not particularly contested, so for the most part just listing sources at bottom is enough, without showing exactly which claim comes from which source. What are other editors thoughts on this? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

On the big plus side, the simple ref/note style prevents the numbering of endnotes from getting mismatched with references if more notes are added (which I've found is a big problem in many articles). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the "first one listed". Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use describes the ref-label / note-label system I was using. Footnote3 / Footnote4 (this style) was recently adopted as the standard footnote format. Are you recalling a previous footnote style perhaps? The "Style Recommendations" on the same page further says:
  • External links should be avoided in normal text since they break easily
  • External links in external links sections are fine, but should not be needed for the article text to be complete and verifiable.
  • External links should always be titled (like this)
One reason that I am invested in this is because it is increasingly true that anything less than scrupulously cited articles will not pass Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. While I am sure that it will be a long time before this article gets there, it is easier to begin with every fact cited than to have to go back and find them again later. I notice that WP:CITE expresses a great deal of concern about footnotes, which Wikipedia:Footnotes doesn't address, and seems to conflict with what is expected at WP:FAC. Jkelly 20:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Getting Broken

This revision is happyunhappy

The first thing[1] is really interesting (and first[1]).

The second thing[2] is OK too (and second[2])

The innocent thing[2].

[edit] Notes

  1. ^  I'm an innocently added additional reference, perhaps put at the beginning to alphabetize or chronologically.
  2. ^ a b  Boy, I sure like being first.
  3. ^ a b  I prefer being second.

[edit] What happened

Look through the revision history. An earlier version is happy. Then someone added the extra note "innocent"... and everything is messed up, and needs renumbering throughout article.

Yep, that is a problem with the footnote system, and one that I have literally spent hours having to work-around. Shall we move to a Harvard referencing system instead? Jkelly 21:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems less likely to get out of sync. But maybe rather than try to keep our a, b, c's in order through editing, we can use short mneumonics? I wasn't sure how the system worked, so I found Alchemy which uses it for an example. Maybe we could use, e.g.:

Hollister writes about foos {{ref_harvard|Hollister|Hollister p. 124|foos}}, and also about bars.{{ref_harvard|Hollister|Hollister p. 294|bars}}

instead of:

Hollister writes about foos {{ref_harvard|Hollister|Hollister p. 124|a}}, and also about bars.{{ref_harvard|Hollister|Hollister p. 294|b}}

Then our a's and b's can't get out of order, since we use (short) descriptive names. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard Sandbox

Just trying it for myself.

Hollister writes about foos (Hollister p.124), and also about bars.(Hollister p.294)

Smith also writes about foos (Smith p.5), but moves straight on to baz (Smith p.17).

[edit] Footnotes

foo bar Hollister, C. Warren (1990). Medieval Europe: A Short History. Blacklick, Ohio: McGraw-Hill College. ISBN 0075571412. 

foo baz Smith, Joe (1980). Something different. Smalltown Press. ISBN 007555412. 

[edit] Results

OK, Harvard looks pretty happy to me. I think I could maintain that style without getting numbering messed up. :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] m:Cite.php

This new system is supposed to do the right thing with multiple references auto-magically, and it seems to work as advertised. It's all the rage at WP:FAC now. Thoughts? Jkelly 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty good. I've used it elsewhere a bit. It doesn't seem like a pure win over the Harvard references, since you have to check each link against the bibliography, rather than jump straight to the full ref. But it's probably good in most ways. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mistakes

Sexual, 7 Problématiques, not 8. Dr Honoris Causa: Please can you verify my english ? I'm french. Thank you.--Bruinek (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hölderlin and the question of the father

I'm not sure for the year of the publication, because I'm in France. Can somebody verify, please? --Bruinek (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)