Talk:London Psychogeographical Association

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Sources for attribution to Stewart Home[edit]

Where is the sources for the attribution to Stewart Home???? or Luther Blissett for that matter?? 217.83.121.69 06:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, in the external links at the end of the paragraph. (I'm ignoring the LB part of the question.)Dogville 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eeeeeeermmmm, no they is no mention of him on any of those pages... 217.83.98.190 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. Home is explicitly cited by Sinclair in both of the linked interviews. Are we somehow talking at cross-purposes? Dogville 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the poem "Jack and Jill went up the hill", it is clear that Jack is different from Jill Likewise when Sinclair uses the expression Stewart Home and the LPA, this would seem to indicate a working relationship between different entities. 217.83.98.190 08:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of 3 July 2006[edit]

Not sure why you've deleted my contribution. Far from being "Home-esque silliness", it was a purely factual addition. Fabian Tompsett was the architect of the LPA in the early 90s. I know this because I met him several times, attended walks and games of three-sided football organised by him, and he sent me a complete set of LPA newsletters. Please explain further why you have deleted my contribution. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I'm going to put it back. --Richardrj 19:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional apologies. I've reverted to your edit myself. Having said which, none of the above autobiographical recollection is of course sufficient by Wiki standards. If you can provide any acceptable sources for any of this stuff, that would be very helpful. Dogville 22:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... sources might be difficult, since this stuff was at the time, by its very nature, slippery and protean, not to mention done without attribution. There are a few Google hits linking Tompsett with the LPA, but many of them are old versions of this page - looking at the edit history, his name has been here before, but was deleted in favour of his Essex pseudonym. My memory is sound, though. --Richardrj 04:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Hoax?[edit]

The phrase largely fictitious organisation devoted to psychogeography makes the subject sound like a hoax. Autarch (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should check out more about Psychogeography. As the project questioned the construction of social reality, the phrase largely fictitious organisation attempts to capture this ambiguity. If you feel this makes the subject sound like a hoax, perhaps you could find a better way of articulating this rather than disputing the truthfulness of a well referenced article.Harrypotter (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase largely fictitious organisation seems in breach of WP:WEASEL and questions the existence of the organisation. (The article has also been tagged for weasel words since.) It thus seems reasonable to question whether the article refers to a real organisation. As for the article on psychogeography, it has been tagged for being like an essay and may contain weasel words. Autarch (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To question whether the subject of the article is a "real" or "fictitious" entity is really to miss the point. Skomorokh 09:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain further? Autarch (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's responding to your point above that "it thus seems reasonable to question whether the article refers to a real organisation". The point is that even if the organization was not real, that is no reason to assume that it was a "hoax" or that it's not worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with articles about fictitious organisations in Wikipedia (consider Star Trek or any popular TV show) - just that the phrase made me suspicious and it seems to fall foul of WP:NONSENSE. Autarch (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, I can personally attest that the LPA was a real entity, as I wrote above three years ago. It may not have had a formal subscription list, but it had a head, meetings, outings and a regular newsletter to which I subscribed. Doesn't sound much like a fictitious organization to me, largely or not. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely the "largely fictitious" phrase is the problem? Autarch (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it kind of depends on how you define "real" and "fictitious". We don't seem to be getting very far... --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given what definitions we accept and what methods we deem acceptable this could go on forever, so I'll just point to WP:VERIFY and ask how could it be verified that an organisation is largely fictitious. (Something that sounds unverifiable, IMHO.) Autarch (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked Issue No.1 of the LPA Newsletter, and so I think the reference clears up the matter.Harrypotter (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two organisations and another issue[edit]

The article refers to both the 1950s and the 1990s - the 1957 line reference mentions it was involved in setting up the First Exhibition of Psychogeography - however the reference says this was the London Psychogeographical Committee, though other names are given. This supposedly merged with the Situationist International (the link provided as a reference is dead).

The 1990s version (the East London one) was described as "reinvoked" - a very odd way of putting it - would it not be simpler to say they are two different organisations?

The sentence The work of Luther Blissett, Stewart Home and other psychogeographical groups is said to involve the issuing of numerous leaflets and letters under a series of aliases, both personal and organisational, and the description of interactions, including collaborations and feuds, between both these and other, real people and groups (for example between Luther Blissett and the parapolitical researcher Larry O'Hara uses language (is said to) that falls foul of WP:ALLEGED and the link provided shows that the Stewart Home page in question lists feuds with Larry O'Hara and others, but not neccessarily supporting the claim made in the quoted sentence. Editors should keep WP:BLP in mind.Autarch (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Many references are dead - this article needs more. The LPA publications could be used but not as the sole or main source as per WP:SELFPUB.Autarch (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on London Psychogeographical Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]