Talk:William James

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / People C‑class
WikiProject iconWilliam James has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Published works[edit]

THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY (1890) was published about the time Freud first published and was used as a text at Harvard.

PRAGMATISM: A New Name For Some Old Ways of Thinking was a series of lectures delivered at Lowell Institute, Boston (November and December, 1906), and at Columbia University, New York (January, 1907).


Wife’s name[edit]

In the text, her maiden name is given as Alice Howe Gibbens. In the picture-caption, she is called Alice Runnels James. What happened to the ‘Howe’, and where did the ‘Runnels’ come from? Valetude (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henry James template added and reverted[edit]

The {{Henry James}} template contains William as his brother, so is appropriate per the common use of templates for individuals on Wikipedia. Its use here was good faith reverted in the mistake that the Henry James template is just about his works, so asking for a double-revert back to the templates use. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- I disagree that the Henry James template is appropriate for the William James article - the article notes that William was the brother of the prominent novelist Henry James and the diarist Alice James with links to their articles, so we don't need the template to establish that - besides noting his relations, the Henry James template is nothing more than a list of his works and as William did not collaborate with Henry, Henry's books are a completely separate body of work and they aren't appropriate here - Epinoia (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? Templates of brothers, mothers, fathers, sisters, are commonly and almost always placed on pages, with the exception of the British royals (who would have quite a few related templates on each page). Establishing relationship comes in the text, connecting and easily accessing family accomplishments is accomplished by templates. For instance, a William James template, which would be a valuable addition to the project and to the collection of James family material on Wikipedia, would by common practice be placed on the Henry James page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Henry James navbox is not appropriate here - if you disagree, you will have to go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Epinoia (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally appropriate as an achieving family member. I've never done dispute resolution, not my thing (if you want to start one please ping me). This one is too obvious anyway, as immediate family templates are used throughout Wikipedia except on royalty pages. If someone eventually comes up with a {{William James}} template then I'd of course advocate for it being used on the Henry James page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- one of the advantages at WP:NAVBOX is, "They provide an organized resource for readers who went through an article in some broad topic to find other articles on the same broad topic" - this Henry James navbox provides a list of his books - no one is going to find out more about William James by linking to Henry's books - links to William's family members are already in the body of the article - the guideline also says, "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles" - there is no reason to add a list of Henry's books to William's See also section as they are unrelated, so there is no reason to add a navbox of Henry's books to William's article - Epinoia (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for discussing. What you're accurately describing applies to a potential {{William James}} template. The link in the {{Henry James}} template which applies here is William James, an appropriate entry on that template because William was James' brother. Then, once linked, the template is allowable on the linked page. That's how navbox placement works. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- WP:NAVBOX guideline does not mention family members - it says that navboxes help readers "to find other articles on the same broad topic" - the books of Henry James do not relate to the broad topic of William James - if the navbox was a list of links to extended family members (grandparents, parents, notable siblings, children, grandchildren, cousins, uncles, aunts, neices, nephews, etc), I could understand it, but this navbox is a list of Henry's books and is not relevant to William James - links to William's family are included in the body of the article and no new information or links to articles on the same broad topic are included in the navbox - Epinoia (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have given my take on it, which I believe accurate, but I won't add it back (not that important to have a back-and-forth over). Thanks for a good discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular Culture reference[edit]

Captain Picard makes a brief reference to a William James in Star Trek The Next Generation, episode Samaritan Snare. Found a clip on youtube: I might add it in but it doesn't seem noteworthy, and I might be biased being a ST fan. Walkingstick3 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

epistolary talent[edit]

Under Early Life the family of William James is described to have "epistolary" talent. The use of this adjective appears pretentious. The explanatory pop-up window refers to epistolary novels and makes sense for novels, but not as an explanation for talents. It is not clear to me what the author intends to say and either ought to be deleted of improved upon. Hskoppek (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


what are voluminous aspect of personality (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School of thoughts (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]