Talk:The Interpretation of Dreams

This page

Is not for posting account of your dreams. It is not a place to have dreams interpreted. It is a discussion page for an encyclopedia article about a specific book about dream interpretation written by Sigmund Freud in 1899. --Fastfission 02:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More comprehensive methods

"These approaches have been largely abandoned in favor of more comprehensive methods." Such as? This sentence needs to mention few of those methods, otherwise it's empty statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.79.73 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On Dreams

No mention of Frued's shorter version of this work, On Dreams? According to the back of the book, "Aware that his Interpretation of Dreams was a long and difficult book, Frued decided that he must offer a version that would be briefer and easier to follow." There doesn't seem to be mention of this short work anywhere on Wikipedia, and I would think that it would be worthy of mention here. RobertM525 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read it

in freaud dream interpretations the web have not included the dreams of the freud. and explain the freud dreams in others psychoanalytical perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.144.114 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

dreamed that someone you loved was not in our house Aozb his belongings and put them in a bag and a gap uncomfortable very people of the house and acting nervously at the same time I attended our girl claims to be his fiancée and he broke off his engagement has been handed over to the tribunal to try him, she says, I do not know why he did so, and I was shocked because this person was supposed to Alhakikhan Ikhtabna was Aoill his belongings in a bag back to us I thought he steal our purposes and was upset because he left his fiancée, but will not be retrieved ......

.....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.127.86.121 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 

75

On french newspaper (http://www.marianne.net/Freud-a-echappe-a-Elisabeth-Roudinesco_a241998.html): during the first eight years (1899 1907) he sold 75 copies per year only 600). Does someone there has a solid source other than French for this ?--G de gonjasufi (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Contested removal of remark by a Mark Blechner

My removal was reverted With edit summary: "You have provided no evidence that it is trivial and no evidence that he is "non-notable", which is, in any case, completely irelevant". My rationale was "P:TRIVIA: trivial opinion of a nonnotable psychoanalyst do not belong here"

• the remark "<...> The Interpretation of Dreams remains an extraordinary scientific record of dream texts<...>" is trivial and contributes nothing new to the knowledge about the book. It is nothing but name-throwing of Mark Blechner established to be nonnotable. Per WP:TRIVIA/WP:UNDUE we cannot possibly include each and every opinion of whoever blurbed something on the subject, especially of people not notable enough for their opinion to count. In case someone didn't notice, I am talking about relevance of opinions as opposed to facts. Even minor facts have a chance to eventually get into wikipedia is the subject covered up to deep detail. However an opinion of a random Peter the Psychoanalyst - hell, no. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The remark is an expression of opinion by the person who made it, so of course it isn't a contribution to "knowledge" per se. It is reasonable for the reception section to represent a range of different opinions about The Interpretation of Dreams, and it is reasonable to include Blechner's opinion, given the absence of anything similar. Matters would be different if there were dozens of similar comments, from dozens of different people, all expressing the same opinion, but there aren't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The whole section is a collection of opinions of real experts, some praise, some criticize. Who is Blecher to weigh in? Please tell me what in your opinion, is important in Becher's. ("remains an extraordinary scientific record" - the section already has praise. We don't have to have all flavors of praise. - "and an analysis of the mental operations that dreams demonstrate" - this is what the whole article is about -- ("even if one does not agree with Freud's theories " -- we do have recognition accompanied with criticism described) What else did I miss?) Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Blechner is, as the article notes, a "Neuropsychoanalyst". He is also someone who got published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, making his opinion obviously relevant. I have removed some unnecessary details from that material, as well as the peacock language; I don't see any convincing rationale for removing Blechner's comment entirely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • OK. The current version does not look too overblown. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why my edit was unconstructive. I removed redundant piece irrelevant to understanding of the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• It is obviously relevant where Blechner's comments were published. Readers wanting to know more (eg, to actually read the article in which they were published) benefit from having its place of publication clearly stated in the article's text. So, yes, your edit was unconstructive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • But this is clearly stated in the footnote. Reader wanting to know more, will follow the external link. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That's exactly the kind of assumption one should never make. The fact is, you don't know what readers will or won't do. They may not even find the external link (it is in the "references" section, which there is no reason to assume all, or even most, readers would so much as glance at). Therefore, it is best to indicate in which journal his comments were published clearly in the main text. This is no different from indicating in which book the various other authors made their comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Sounds reasonable, I will keep that in mind in the future. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Contested removal of remark by a Mark Blechner):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The Interpretation of Dreams and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Greetings, Staszek Lem and FreeKnowledgeCreator! I've read through the discussion here as well as the text of the article itself. I assume we are talking strictly about including the name of the reference work in-text, and not about the entire passage? It seems the two of you have already come to an agreement about the passage itself. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted this. I agree that there may be some value in including the publication name in the main text of the article. However, we have clear guidance from WP:CITE (in particular WP:INTEXT) that tells us to do the exact opposite: It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal. The example given is a very similar one to what is being discussed here; I agree that we shouldn't be trying to interpret what the reader is thinking, but putting the reference work in-text is in essence saying that the reader must know the reference work in order to understand/interpret the quote. I don't think that's necessarily the case: I think the quote stands on its own, and that's actually a good thing. I don't think the average reader gains much by knowing the work it is published in (using myself as an example, I was completely unfamiliar with Contemporary Psychoanalysis, and even after looking it up I don't have a clue of its significance vs. other journals). For these reasons I would suggest leaving it in the citation. I'll be watching this page for a few days in case you need me to follow up on anything. I hope this helps! CThomas3 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"Contents" section is a stub and probably misleading

The "contents" section seems like a stub because it only describes the first chapter, and I believe it is misleading.

I find the following sentence misleading in the context and the way it is written: "Freud describes three main types of dreams: 1. Direct prophecies received in the dream (chrematismos, oraculum); 2. The foretelling of a future event (orama, visio) 3. The symbolic dream, which requires interpretation (Interpretation of Dreams 5)."

The way this is written, I don't think it's clear to the reader that Freud is critiquing others' methods of interpreting dreams; at first, I read this as those main types of dreams are how Freud interprets dreams.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Freud's theory was that dreams are prophecies.

65.78.3.218 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Everything was made up... is this not relevant?

Frederick Crews, "Freud: The Making of an Illusion" (2017). This extremely detailed and forensically researched book shows conclusively, among other things, that Freud in fact had no patients before writing "Interpretation", and also that by that time he had been addicted to cocaine for many years. All these stories of dreams were made up to "prove" a thesis which he had concocted beforehand. Justification for mentioning this here is that the tone of the article is otherwise the typical reverential junk that Freud and his fantasies have attracted since this first best-seller which kicked off the whole scam pseudo-science. 81.187.58.246 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)