Talk:Melanie Klein

message: What is the view of modern scientific consensus toward Klein's work? -- Beland 06:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion request 

message: I have to say I think this article is very bad, full of inaccuracies, devastatingly important ommissions, and a few somewhat unkind ad hominem comments from time to time.  It is what gives Wikipedia a reputation for unreliability. I wish I had the time to do a proper article, as Klein's discoveries, and those of her followers, Rosenfeld, Bion, Segal and Joseph, become more and more mainstream within the psychoanalytic world.  The answer to Beland's question on the current status of Kleinian thought in psychoanalysis is that it is slowly gaining adherence, especially as American ego-psychology has gone into crisis and American psychoanalysts are trying to find a way out, by looking to Europe and British psychoanalysis.  Curiously Melanie Klein has always been well-regarded in South America, perhaps due to the Latin suspicion of North America.  Kleinian ideas have also been extremely important in teir application to social science and organisational studies for more than half a century  In short this article will not do.
Bob Hinshelwood 09:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  answer to Beland 

message: I think the list of further reading at the end could do with a good tidy-up - the references are not in alphabetical order, for a start. Also, for the sake of convention, why is this called "Literature"? Would it not be more conventional to call it "Bibliography" or "Further Reading"? To distinguish sections headed "References" (containing articles and books cited in the main body) and "Further reading" (containing books on Klein in general), and also to put the internet resources in a new section headed "External links", would be an improvement to the presentation of this section. ACEOREVIVED 19:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up section currently headed "Literature"

message: is the following passage correct? I am pretty sure there are no separate divisions in the British Psychoanalytic Soceity these days but could be wrong. ALso, and I am much less sure about this point - is it right to think of the Freudian division as Anna Freudian? I though it was more Freudian as in Siggy...
"the British Psychoanalytical Society split into three separate training divisions: (1) Kleinian, (2) Anna Freudian, and (3) independent. This division remains to the current time."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.91.44 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Do the divisions still exist?

message: It says she was strongly opinionated. What other psychoanalysts are strongly opinionated and which ones aren't? Was Freud opinionated? What about Pavlov? Could you tell me one who was opinionated and one who wasn't so I can compare them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.211.208 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does opinionated mean here? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Melanie Klein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060724003901/http://www.mdx.ac.uk/rescen/archive/motivationpsych204.html to http://www.mdx.ac.uk/rescen/archive/motivationpsych204.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231132210/http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/klein.html to http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/klein.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section ends with what I believe is material lifted directly from another source, just based on the writing style:
 ... it is easy to mistake a baby that does not particularly dislike their food and cries a little for a happy baby. Development later shows that some of these easy-going babies are not happy. Their lack of crying may be due some kind of apathy. It is hard to assess a young person's state of mind without allowing for a great complexity of emotions. When these babies are followed up on we see that a great deal of difficulty appears. These children are often shy of people, and their interest in the external world, play, and learning is inhibited. They are often slow at learning to crawl and walk because there seems to be little incentive. They are often showing signs of neurosis as their development goes on...
While it is sourced, I can't get access to the journal. We need to verify whether the Sherwin-White article is being improperly quoted in WP. Would an editor with access to International Journal of Infant Observation and Its Applications please check the passage above against the article and, if possible, format the quote as a quote if it turns out to be one. In lieu of this, just send me an article snippet including any matching text from the article. Thank you.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2020: 'Infant observations' section