Talk:Procrastination

Removal of all information about historical perspectives on procrastination (II)

This article seriously needs historical perspectives on procrastination. Otherwise, procastination is naturalized. Naturalization should be always avoided. 186.19.98.10 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)amantedelacomida

Academic procrastination: Cal Newport 's blog reference

I think the sentence with reference 20 should be deleted due to primary research WP:ownwork. I looked at the reference/naked url of blog post of computer scientist Cal Newport and see rambling about procrastination, no third party sources, except a BBC article that didnt mention procrastination. this isnt helpful for a wikipedia article.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Famous procrastinators?

I agree with Jeraphine Gryphon: this section is unsourced and doesn't seem to me to be encyclopedic, as it's a collection of anecdotes. There is also potentially original research and synthesis in the comments about Coleridge. I removed this section but my edits have been undone, so I will remove the content again based on this rationale. Other users are welcome to discuss here! /wia /tlk /cntrb 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not a fan of the recent edits since most of it doesn't seem to be an improvement ("Identified criteria's"??), but I'm hoping someone other than me can fix this. The famous procrastinators section definitely needs to be sourced, not so much because it's "negative" content about these specific people but more because it seems like something from a Buzzfeed article rather than an encyclopedia. It's just not appropriate. Given how it's unsourced right now then it's better to just remove it entirely. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems no original research as mentioned the link is cited in comments as "http://procrastinus.com/procrastination/famous-procrastinators/". The only fact that could be inferred is difference in opinion on a published and existing article(anyhow people cant just make-up stuff from thin air). Then again I don't see the quote as irrelevant either, because it shows a perspective that was held in a certain period of time and its relevance that everyone is susceptible to procrastination low and high in socioeconomic class' and power. Coleridge was a good example to it. Bill Clinton was also good in showing how much has changed through a period of time. His activity in social service areas. Above all procrastination isn't a negative or slanderous matter. it is the stigma that is behind this defensiveness. Then again it seems you are pros. Add material though than censuring, it would help a lot of people.

That link raises another issue: the added content seems to have been directly copied from it. Take a look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more information; in general, we can't add content to Wikipedia articles that's been copied from another source without proper licensing and/or attribution. /wia /tlk /cntrb 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Read and Add

• http://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/resourceLibrary/28_Martinez_MOOCs_Procrastination.pdf
• http://isrc.ccs.asia.edu.tw/yourslides/files/258/Academic%20procrastination%20of%20undergraduates.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.21.10 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Onesided view.

"A 1992 study showed that "52% of surveyed students indicated having a moderate to high need for help concerning procrastination."[3] It is estimated that 80%–95% of college students engage in procrastination, and approximately 75% consider themselves procrastinators."

Here, valid sceptisism to relevance of schoolmaterial, is considered "procrastination". Where would criticism of ultranationalism and totemism be, if such things were not critisised? Indeed it is in school, many hold the opinion that nationalism, parades and totemic "cultural" symbols, are canonical. To "procratinate" about indoctrination, is a sign of mental health.