Talk:Hurly-Burly

Deletion

Justification for non-deletion:

Hurly-Burly is a notable journal with a solid reputation in the field of psychoanalysis and the wider field of contemporary cultural theory. The former President of the World Association of Psychoanalysis, Éric Laurent, stated this year at the NLS Congress in Tel Aviv: "I would like to iterate just what an instrument of public service the journal of the New Lacanian School is" (see: http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?page_id=2593).

The editorial policy of Hurly-Burly is opposed to peer-review selection, thus precluding inclusion on academic databases, which indeed it has never sought.

Since the creation of the article on the morning of 6 December 2012, a number of links to the article have been created, often by adding hyperlinks to existing references to the journal on other Wikipedia pages.

Refusecollection (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

KEEP THIS ARTICLE!

Concerning the argument to delete this journal:I am surprised and rather shocked that a journal such as Hurly-Burly, that has such a world-wide readership (UK, USA, Australia, Greece, Israel, Poland, Ireland...) and which is such an important source for those working in psychoanalytic practice on such a scale, would be deleted because of the strict application of these rules. For academic purposes, Hurly-Burly is one of the few journals to publish English language translations of Jacques Lacan and French academic and analyst Jacques-Alain Miller, that cannot be found in any other journal. The two major psychoanalytic institutions on an international scale are the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) and the World Association of Psychoanalysis (WAP). The IPA's English language journal "The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis" is recognised by Wikipedia, whereas the English language journal of the WAP, Hurly-Burly, is being contested? Please note that Hurly-Burly is the only English language source for the following papers by Jacques Lacan: "Report on Seminar XI" (HB5), "The 1st International Encounter of the Freudian Field" (HB7), "Postface to Seminar XI" (HB7), "Address on Child Psychoses" (HB8). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blabbler (talk • contribs)

categories and template

Why are there so many redundant categories, plus a huge template, for such a short article? Farrajak (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "redundant"? And what is the correct article length/template ratio? Please provide a link. Refusecollection (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I mean including categories and their subcategories, and a huge template on psychoanalysis - when only two of the contributors are even psychoanalyists - the others being a Sanskrit and Buddist scholar, a French biologist, a British poet, an American philosopher, a Canadian philosopher, a French philosopher and playwright and a British cultural critic? Are all these people addressing psychoanalysis? Seems rather alot when the article says nothing, has no references, and the citations fail to verify the quotes. There's no evidence the publication even addresses psychoanalysis. Farrajak (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see your point. Are you a) contesting whether the International Lacanian Journal of Psychoanalysis includes articles on psychoanalysis, or b) suggesting there is an infringement of an article length/template ratio guideline that you have yet to reference?

Regarding the list of contributors, kindly read more carefully: "Hurly-Burly also includes texts by major psychoanalysts and prominent figures from contemporary philosophy and cultural theory". Regarding what you have twice claimed to be a citation that fails to verify the quote, kindly follow the link. It's all there.Refusecollection (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why can't references be provided that support the notability of the journal? Your statement isn't supported by anything. Just your word for it and the ridiculous number of categories for an article that says nothing. Read about overcategorization. Farrajak (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Provide the link as I've requested and I'll happily read it. 2. The references do support the notability of the journal. This is an old matter now settled. Your claim is that the information is not in the links provided. I'm telling you (three times now) that it is. 3. Which statement is not supported? Please specify. Refusecollection (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• WP:Overcategorization - this article has "category clutter". It really shouldn't have the psychoanalysis template. It's irritating and doesn't pertain to any journal. No other journal uses it. It's ridiculous. It's a misuse of the template. Please provide some sources that support that this is a notable journal, not a source that only peripherally says anything about the journal. Nothing you say is supported by a source. But I see you're the author of this thing, so I guess you have a vested interest. Farrajak (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for providing the link. Your allegation of overcategorization is not, however, compelling. The page clearly seeks to address the accumulation of trivial and excessive categories. There is nothing trivial or excessive about categorizing an international journal of psychoanalysis in the category "psychoanalysis". I'm afraid that your descriptions "irritating" and "unsourced" remain purely subjective until you can manage to be more specific as to how anything in the article infringes the WP guidelines. My vested interest as author of the article is that the article should meet WP standards. Is that not self-evident? Refusecollection (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Re: further uses of Psychoanalysis template for journals. See here: International Journal of Psychoanalysis.Refusecollection (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Provide some sources then'. The article doesn't meet standards. And remove some of the overcategorization. It's only you watching over it and reverting requests for improvement and attempts to remedy the ridiculous categories that keeps this article in the state it's in. It says nothing, offers no sources. Be happy! It's yours! Farrajak (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• This is descending into the absurd. There is no consistency in your argumentation. Kindly refrain from altering the article unless you have anything specific to note that does not meet WP standards. Any further meddling will be reported directly. Refusecollection (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)