Talk:Dream/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What a mess, cleaning up!

I've been working on the Lucid dreaming article for a few weeks, and for the first time I read this article. What a mess! I'm going to be doing some serious reorganization, so heads up, please don't feel personally insulted if a section gets nuked or rewritten because I plan on being very bold :) LilDice 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do! I may follow your lead (collaboration! everyone run! the species you hear about but never see); as I'm currently reading a reasonably respectable book about the history/psychology/etc. of dreams. –Outriggr § 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the lucid dreaming article for ideas, I think it's pretty well organized. I probably need to read another book at some point in this process so that I can weight sections more accurately. I do have access to lots of journals/indexes so I can get the most up to date peer-reviewed research, so let me know if you think something needs a cite. At this point first thing is organization though, then we'll go through and cite. LilDice 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, if you find yourself as bewildered by the section marked {essay} as I was, feel free to nuke it. V-Man737 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess. I think the point the author was trying to get across was a general overview of how science/psychology answers the question - "Why do we dream?". I am getting a book tomorrow that I hope has a good overview of the science bit. So I'm leaving it begrudgingly till I can replace it with something better. LilDice 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't wait, the more I read it the more out of place it was. Better to not have it then have it for the time being. LilDice 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Bye Joe Griffith/Human Givens

Alright, my research on pubmed/web of science/tomson gale powersearch/google shows that this human givens, 'expectation theory of dreaming' is not-notable. I can't find any peer reviwed research that discusses him/the idea or cites him. Reading the previous discussions it appears it's just someone trying to push their (self-published) book. LilDice 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some recent edits (diff) seem a bit questionable, although I can see some merit in a couple of them if the editor would like to provide sources for the statements and talk about wording changes here so we can establish a consensus. V-Man - T/C 03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit was attempted again; I examined it carefully and made a compromise, leaving the acceptable modifications. The parts I removed included "involuntary," as it contradicted the part about Lucid dreaming and needed a source; "in the mind" to avoid being redundant; "certain stages," since this ought to include which certain stages, but doesn't; and "assumed to unrealistic and therefore," being an amalgamation of poor grammar and a pretentious-sounding voice. Feel free to express opinions on this edit, inviting consensus. V-Man - T/C 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fairly good. I'm not sure what you mean by pretentious-sounding voice, but I think there is a pretentious-sounding voice in a lot of wikipedia articles, or perhaps a condescending-sounding voice. A suggestive undertone, usually along the lines of, "some people think this, but they're misguided fools and the real truth is bla bla bla...". Jonathanpops 10:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My Sleepwalking theory

"you may be wondering about why people may be able to commit to hypnosis but may not be a susceptible sleepwalker. But I don’t think that is the case at all - it’s possible that everyone who can be hypnotised can sleepwalk and vice versa, but not one without the other. Statistics show around 15% of people respond well to hypnosis, the exact same percentage of those who are known to or suspected to sleepwalk at some time in their life. Coincidence? I think not…"

I don't agree with any of that, it all sounds rather silly, and a little childish. Jonathanpops 13:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Instead of "his advisor" it should read "while working with Nathaniel Kleitman who had been investigating what he termed "the basic rest-activity cycle of infancy". Then after "ground breaking study in Science" : Kleitman continued to study this ultradian cycle until 1980 when he published a paper confirming that REM sleep is the nightly activity part of the rest-activity cycle.9. Kleitman, N. (1982) Basic rest-activity cycle - 22 years later. Sleep. 5(4) 311-317.

Added to page by User:Mmashleymd. Should be on talk page, not mainspace. WLU 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The angel did not tell Joseph that Mary's baby was "the Son of God"

At 1:54 on 4 September 2007, a "revert" was made to an earlier version of the text, as follows:

" the New Testament, divine inspiration comes as a dream to Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary, when the Angel Gabriel spoke to him in a dream and told him that the baby Mary was carrying was the Son of God."

The relevant passage is in the Gospel according to Matthew 1:20-23, which in a literal English rendering reads as follows:

"(v.20) But while he was pondering these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary thy wife, for what has been begotten in her by the Spirit is holy. (v.21)And she will bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. (v.22) But all this happened in order that (there) might be fulfilled what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: (v.23) Behold, the virgin will have in the womb, and will bear, a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being translated is, God with us."

Most likely, the initial contributor's memory confused the contents of the angel's annunciation to Joseph with that to Mary (see Luke 1:35), which, however, was not made in a dream and therefore not of interest in the context of the Dream article. So, the assertion in the Dream article needs to be corrected, either by a verbatim quotation, or by a correct interpretation of the angel's words. An interpretation is already offered in Matthew 1:22-23, although, strictly speaking, this is not an interpretation of the angel's words only, but of everything related from v.18 onwards.

To be accurate, the angel's annunciation to Joseph concerns two issues: Firstly, Joseph is told to take his wife Mary (which is a reference to the formal "home taking" that concludes Jewish weddings), and not to be afraid (to do so), for the reason that the child with which his wife Mary is pregnant by the Spirit is holy. Secondly, Joseph is told that Mary will bear a son, and instructed to call his name "Jesus", the etymology of which is correctly given as "he will save his people from their sins".

It is wrong to paraphrase this as the angel telling Joseph that "the baby Mary was carrying was the Son of God".

Even after the change to the earlier contributor's text it is still not as precise as it might be. The reason for this is that many modern translations of Matthew 1:20 are not sufficiently literal to enable their readers to understand the precise meaning of the underlying Greek. If, prompted by this Dreams article, they look up the passage in Matthew, and most likely have a less than literal rendering, they should still be able to understand the assertion in this article on dreams.

P.S.: In view of the above ponderings, I have now deleted my previous addition "the promised Emmanuel", which, as I said above, is itself an interpretation, not only of the words of the angel, but of all that has been related from v.18 onwards.14:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dream (in religion)

Previous contributor(s) thought it of interest to elaborate on this point, but recently those contributions have been deleted, with some justification. Yet dreams within the context of religious experience merit an article. I therefore propose a new article styled "Dream (in religion)".
Here are the recently deleted paragraphs. They may serve as the starting material for the proposed new article.

Dreams in Judaism

The Torah tells the same story of Joseph, who was given the power to interpret dreams and act accordingly. Biblical stories and actions that came from dreams (and visions) form about one-third of the entire Bible.[citation needed]

The most significant OT dreams were those of Pharoah (Genesis 41:1-6) and Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:31-35). Joseph interpreted Pharoah's dream, leading to a 7-year preparation for an extended famine, and the ultimate relocation of Joseph's brothers to Egypt. Daniel not only interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but described it to him also (God revealed the dream to Daniel). Nebuchadnezzar's dream foretold the rise and fall of earthly kingdoms until the return of Christ. Vendicar (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dreams in Christianity

In ancient Judeo-Christianity: in the Tanakh, Jacob, Joseph and Daniel are given the ability to interpret dreams by Yahweh; in the New Testament, divine inspiration comes as a dream to Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary, when the Archangel Gabriel spoke to him in a dream and told him that the baby Mary was carrying was the Saviour of his people.[1] After their flight to Egypt, Gabriel appeared again in a dream to tell him when it was safe to return to the Land of Israel, and in a further dream to the district of Galilee.[2]

The story of Saint Patrick and his conversion of the people of Ireland also features dreaming. When Patrick was enslaved in Antrim he was told by God in a dream that there was a boat waiting in Wicklow to bring him back to his homeland.

The belief that dreams were part of a spiritual world continued into the Early Middle Ages. A story from Nevers, which is reproduced in the Golden Legend, states that one night the Emperor Charlemagne dreamed that he was saved from being killed by a wild boar during a hunt by the appearance of a child, who had promised to save the emperor from death if he would give him clothes to cover his nakedness. The bishop of Nevers interpreted this dream to mean that he wanted the emperor to repair the roof of the cathedral dedicated to the boy-saint Saint Cyricus.

Dreams in Islam

The Qur'ān, too, tells the story of Joseph, who was given the power to interpret dreams and act accordingly. In Islam, good dreams are considered to be from Allah and bad dreams from Satan.[3]

14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The above "Dream (in religion)" had been submitted on the page "Articles for creation". The following was the response:
Symbol declined.svg Declined. This article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it at Dream. Feel free to add this content to that article. Precious Roy 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreams IN literature

Is there an argument for including information on literature (as in fiction) about dreams - or would that warrant a seperate article? i'm thinking specifically of James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake", which is an attempt to represent the dream-state through language (and not as airy-fairy as it sounds, Joyce did an awful lot of research on the subject, it's a very thorough book on the dream-state, and very much a product of the Freudian influenced atmosphere of the early 20th century), but there are also many attempts in poetry and literature to represent dreams.

The point would be that the scientific side is an explanation of the physical state of dreaming, and the literature is man's attempt to represent the content of dreams. would such a section be pertinent do you think?Warchef 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gender Differences

Ok, the gender differences section has been having some problems. It originally said that 90% of the characters in men's dreams are other men, however, I checked the reference and found no mention of the porportions of men and women in dreams, so I removed the source and marked it as unreferenced. Now it says 70% of the characters in men's dreams are other men and provides a different source, but I still can't find any reference to that.

"Given these family patterns, it is not surprising that his male/female percent is extremely low at 50/50 vs. 67/33 for the norms (h = .35)."

This is the best I can find, and it says that approximately 67% of the characters in mens' dreams are other men according to whatever study the source is referencing. Can anyone make sense of this source?Ziiv (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Nightmare' article

I know this kind of doesn't belong here, but I'm inexperienced and thought this might work :). There are probably a lot of experts/knowledgeable people here in this subject area (Dreaming), so I ask some of you to go look at the nightmare article, which, at this point (29 Dec 07) is in extremely poor shape and there seems nobody able/willing to work on it. Somebody here might have the necessary skills to clean it up, as it doesn't look extremely good for Wikipedia, having a 'fundamental' subject such as that with a poor article. Just trying to rally the troops.... Chris b shanks (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC) as a source

The link is used as a source to support the statement "It is believed that in men's dreams an average of 70 percent of the characters are other men". I can't find anything on the linked page that makes this assertion - there is a sentence in relation to Kafka's dreams - "Of these 95, 63 were male and 32 female, yielding a male/female percent identical with the male norms" but no indication that I could see of where this number comes from. The page is about specific individuals and small focused groups, it is not a general population. It doesn't seem like this is an appropriate reliable source for the general claim about prevalence. Did I miss something? -- SiobhanHansa 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See #Gender Differences above - the same concern is mentioned. Take it out pending a reliable source - this one seems to be some web page. If this is a real figure, it should be reported in a reliable source, a scientific journal or peer-reviewed scholarly book. WLU (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed. WLU (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert contributions needed?

There have been several previous calls for expert review, but confusion about exactly what is needed. What I find is missing is an explanation of which ideas floating around in the article are generally accepted as true, and by whom. And also which ideas are popular but armchair-based psychology, and which have actually been investigated by scientific studies. The section "Functional hypotheses" is lacking context with regard to scientific studies entirely. The supersection "Dream theories" is lacking historical context. So these studies were done in the 1970s or whenever; are they currently accepted, rejected, or is there no consensus. With regard to "Dreams and memories" I seem to remember hearing about relatively recent studies that detailed how sleep impacts long-term to short-term memory conversion. The information in the article seems out-of-date in that regard. The section "Dream interpretation" is also lacking scientific context and information about which schools of thought are still active in 2008. Someone familiar with the scientific literature in the field (or who is willing to do a lot of reading) would be quite helpful here. Or perhaps these things are explained in intro to psychology textbooks? -- Beland (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

We would like to verify our link ( as we feel it directly correlates to the topic of dreams. As a relatively new website, we're striving to increase the awareness of lucid dreaming by providing a community based online resource. By utilizing social networking technology we hope to provide a broad opportunity for lucid dreamers and alike to network among each other and share their perspectives whether it be through our forum or archived information. We're consistently trying to make improvements based on user responses and feel it would be a great benefit to the LD community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawfd (talkcontribs) 06:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this here. In my opinion your site does not meet our guidelines. Wikipedia is not a portal or link repository. It is not our goal to have a significant list of general resources on our articles - we look for links that give authoritative, further encyclopedic information about a subject. New sites and community sites almost never meet this requirement. If your site gains a reputation for being *the* place to go for accurate and authoritative information on dreaming in general it might become an appropriate link for this page.
We also ask that editors do not add their own links directly to the article page as you have. Unlike Wikipedia dmoz is a directory and would likely welcome your link - I encourage you to register it there. Their web address is We currently link to their directory on this article. -- SiobhanHansa 12:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We ask you take another look at and reconsider its inclusion into external links for the wikipedia entry 'dream'. Since its previous deletion, we've taken steps to make reference articles more authoratative, unique, and original. ( We consider the information contained within to be directly related to dreams and a useful additional reference resource. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved from my talk page [1] User:SiobhanHansa}
From my perspective the changes to the site do not address the fundamental question of its own authority - Who writes it and what are their qualifications? Who reads it and what do they think of it?.
The most appropriate sites are ones that themselves already have a reputation as being good places to get sound information among experts in the field. This sites doesn't seem to meet that standard. It also contains quite a lot of advertising which is another negative mark against its use.
Please do not try to design your site for inclusion in Wikipedia. We're not a marketing platform. Such attempts are likely to be frustrating and unsuccessful at getting you exposure. Look to design for your audience - if you become a well known site respected for accurate information on the subject you will likely be added to the article by other editors. -- SiobhanHansa 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dreams or Dream Interpretation Links

Question: How can a dream interpretation or dream analysis web page get added as an outside link to wikipedia? Is that legit? Here's the site I've been working on [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Technical answer: You simply put the link [3] (perhaps with some enlightening comment like Forum "Dreamsnare" to discuss dream experiences in the "External Links" section of the article. But (legitimacy caveat), as has been noted elsewhere on this page, it's generally considered a bad idea to insert links to one's own pages into WP. Either other people think it's relevant, then they will link it, or it might be better suited to dmoz or the like pages. Have fun! --Syzygy (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)