Talk:Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Freud did call it Oedipus complex by 1905, actually he'd used the term as far back as 1897 in a letter to Wilhelm Fließ, on both facts see http://nyfreudian.org/abstracts_00.html. --TlatoSMD, 05:28, 21 May 2006 (CEST)

I don't see anything at that link that I see which says this. From what I understand he called it something else; the "complex" part was named by Jung. --Fastfission 20:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The translation provided is a dead link. Aneurysmal 20:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's working fine for me. --Fastfission 20:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be working now. My mistake. I have recieved an error 403 (Forbidden). After a few minutes it became 503 (Service unavailable). Restored ;) Aneurysmal 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Contested deletion edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --197.220.148.230 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC) not coolReply

Relevance to Art edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it would be helpful for someone to comment on why this article is vital to Wikipedia's coverage of Art. A next step might be to identify some of the best sources in that connection. This research is obviously relevant: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3381499/ It deals with iconography in a pretty straightforward, historical way. Freud's book seems to be frequently cited in the literature on Surrealism, and sometimes on Modern art in general. What else is out there to document specifics? What do art researchers need to know about the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic