Talk:Psychoanalytic dream interpretation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): InikoThornell. Peer reviewers: Ashleyickes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've added the rewrite tag due to poor grammar and confusing phrases. I'll do what I can, but this article needs to be brought to the attention of WikiProject Psychology. —Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Why is this a separate article from _Dream interpretation_? Why did neither of these articles show up when I searched for "dream interpretation"? Is there a section _Ancient dream interpretation_ or something, and where can I find it? CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.179.221 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is as if Jung and dream interpretation don't exist on Wiki. Very strange.

Sources and Citations

Hello people working on this page for the APS-Wikipedia Initiative, or other editors, I feel that one thing that would really help this article is if you changed some of the sources into citations. Also, like previously stated, if you could link this page to some other pages on Wikipedia or other pages that would help a lot. The authors of Wikipedia have some great tutorials for both citations and linking pages that really helped me! If you need any help with this I will try to check this page regularly and answer any questions, good luck! Fredodin (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that citations are warranted in the first paragraph of the page. That first paragraph also seems a brief overview. I wonder if another paragraph could be added for this "intro" section. --Raybird618 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"... experienced as a series of actual events".

Uhhh, whenever I have dreams, which is reasonably often, it is quite clear to me that I am asleep and having a dream, ie, that it is not "really" happening. It is like "seeing a movie inside my own head whilst asleep". So no matter what injuries or deaths or violence happens in the dream, therefore, it is not "scary" because I "know" it is not "real".

So I don't fit the definition. Does that make the definition "wrong"? Does it make me "weird"? Or some combination of both? Old_Wombat (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I worked on the citations to (hopefully) improve them. I did not add anything that wasn't originally in the text as an in-text citation, but I changed all the citations to references at the bottom of the page. The rest of the article still needs some work, but hopefully this helps. Swimmergirlie (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Psychoanalytic dream interpretation/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is another psychology-related college assignment. I'm going to give a few basic recommendations and comments:

• The article reads like a college essay. Consider your audience: general readers who have little-to-none in the way of psychology knowledge. You can't write this like you would a college paper. Citations should be given for every fact and non-common sense statement. The citations should be entered using the ref tag, and not be included using a format where the author and date are put into parentheses (author, date), nor with the author (date) format. This is an encyclopedia article, not a persuasive essay, so avoid sections that are pros and cons. You're not trying to give a "balanced" view of the subject. For science, you need to present the current scientific consensus of how this subject is approached. For this subject, I'm sure that will mean it feels "unbalanced" because then there will be more con than pro.
• When using book sources to reference a major fact or statement, you need to give the page number(s). Something as fundamental as "Freud believed dreams represented a disguised fulfillment of a repressed wish. He believed that studying dreams provided the easiest road to understanding of the unconscious activities of the mind" needs a page number in the book reference so that it can possibly be verified. I know that sounds silly here, where it seems obviously true, but you should do it. In fact, I would avoid the primary source, and use independent sources for statements like this, if possible.
• Starting a major section with "According to Domhoff,..." without ever saying who Domhoff is or why they are important enough to be quoted is another college essay styling that ahs intruded into this article. In fact, the intro is followed by a whole quotation. Just paraphrase with the naked name in there, and use proper citations, like this: "Dreaming is defined to be a sequence of experiences, perceived in the mind during sleep. Currently, researchers have no way of observing a person's dreams directly. They must rely on verbal or written reports provided by a person when they are awake." Note the use of general language without jargon. That's what you want to aim for.
• Article is painfully underlinked.
• The article is heavily-biased towards a psychiatric viewpoint which may not be representative of the modern scientific viewpoint. For the broadness/major points criteria for GAs, I'm not sure I'm getting the full story here. I don't feel like I'm getting a history of this practice, apart from its use by Freud, and then how it's used by some clinicians.
• Awkward statements like, "Also considered arbitrary and imprecise, Freud dismissed the decoding method as well" should be located and fixed. Who considered the methods arbitrary and imprecise? Freud or researchers? It's not apparent in the sentence.
• There are entire statements and even paragraphs without references or citations.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

In general, this is a decent start to the subject, but there are major issues. Many of these issues are outlined above.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Many prose issues (see above). There a bulleted list that should be converted to prose. Make this article accessible to the general reader, not just audience of professors and students in a college psychology class.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Since many statements, and even paragraphs, remain un-referenced, I cannot evaluate this criteria.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Focused on subject, but I feel like I'm not getting the most broad picture. A greater inclusion of history, particularly the development post-Freud will help in this regard.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Again, because the citations are mainly to single papers, it's difficult to tell if everything here is the scientific consensus. The supporting references would be more convincing of this if they were recent review articles or book volumes edited to include our current understanding.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems stable enough.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two images. The second image needs alt-text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Major issues with this article must be resolved. I'm failing the nomination because I think it will take significant work to improve it for GA status.

"Disagreeing with Freud's view that the..."

I used at one time to find it extraordinarily difficult to accustom readers to the distinction between the manifest content of dreams and the latent dream-thoughts. Again and again arguments and objections would be brought up based upon some uninterpreted dream in the form in which it had been retained in the memory, and the need to interpret it would be ignored. But now that analysts at least have become reconciled to replacing the manifest dream by the meaning revealed by its interpretation, many of them have become guilty offalling into another confusion which they cling to with equal obstinacy. They seek to find the essence of dreams in their latent content and in so doing they overlook the distinction between the latent dream-thoughts and the dream-work. At bottom, dreams are nothing other than a particular form of thinking, made possible by the conditions of the state of sleep. It is the dream-work which creates that form, and it alone is the essence of dreaming-the explanation of its peculiar nature. I say this in order to make it possible to assess the value of the notorious 'prospective purpose' of dreams. [See below, p. 579 f. n.] The fact that dreams concern themselves with attempts at solving the problems by which our mental life is faced is no more strange than that our conscious waking life should do so; beyond this it merely tells us that that activity can also be carried on in the preconscious-and this we already knew.

Freud was explicit that the true meaning of a dream is not derived from the latent content, but instead the dreamwork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HegelianPotato (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References