Talk:The Interpretation of Dreams

message: 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)
thread_title: This page

message: "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)
thread_title:  More comprehensive methods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On Dreams 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please read it 

message: 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)
thread_title:  75 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contested removal of remark by a [[Mark Blechner]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Contents" section is a stub and probably misleading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Everything was made up... is this not relevant?