Talk:Dream dictionary

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance 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.

After reviewing my Freud and Jung texts on dreams, I cleaned out much of this article. I won't pretend to be unbiased, personally, but while "dream dictionaries" are a real and, therefore, necessary entry in Wikipedia, this article was horribly biased. No part of Freud or Jung based dream analysis advocates the use of dictionaries. I can provide better references for that (or someone who has either text can). In fact, Jung disdains such things and refuses to assign concrete meanings to symbols (read "Man and his Symbols" which I don't think the person who included those links has). There was a heavy Judeo-Christian bias without mentioning other cultures. This topic is handled in the

• If you are talking to me - 1. I do not own any websites, least of all this one. 2. I didn't link to this site, but don't see why it should not be linked to on this page. 3. What is an MFA site? Jonathanpops 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you cleverest person, that you just put whois privacy? Anyone can go to http://whois.domaintools.com/ and have a look for whois history of your domain.

• Yes, yes, very good. I've been through this already with other people. My username is Jonathanpops and the owner of that site is called Jonathan, ergo I must be the same person. I've heard it all before. If it was true that I wanted to promote my own site/s I would have used a different name, or perhaps you think I not the cleverest person?

And on top of everything else this is besides the point because even if it was my site I didn't add the link to it in the first place. I have added the link to that site in the past on the Dream page and had the same discussion about me owning it, which got so frustrating that just don't bother adding links to anything any more.

I think the link fits here, it is a link to a dream dictionary on a page about dream dictionaries. I did not add it but I will defend its right to be here and I would be having the same discussion with you if it were the dreammoods site you kept deleting for no reason.Jonathanpops 11:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure I would defend the DreamsTell! site now that I had a proper look at it though. It is a bit of a half hearted attempt at a dream dictionary with only two entries for some letter.Jonathanpops 11:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the external links, the rule of thumb is to have dream symbols dictionaries of all kinds. Maljonics, Dreammoods, Dreamstell, are all dream dictionaries and they cannot be deleted unless they do not follow the guidelines set for external links. Instead of discussing the deletion of Maljonics or the other two(or upcoming dictionaries in future), we should protect this article from link spammers. For instance, I have been deleting the "humanform" link, which does not have even one definition of a dream, but it has a google search engine and uses this to display content of other sites to make money. I think we should be careful about these kinds of sites instead of wasting time with a meaningless discussion. By the way, another suggestion is to add more textual sources and if possible create articles for the books that are mentioned in this article. Happy New Year to all! Long live Wikipedia...

Hi Maestroka, you've just answered my question about humanform on the link cleanup bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dream#Link_cleanup - maybe it should be removed from that page too?Jonathanpops

Do the external links really need labels attached? Surely it's pretty obvious what they are without adding extra text, or is that standard wikipedia practice or something?Jonathanpops 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the links added by 86.132.196.120 are related to York Interweb. maljonicsdreams has poor and unsourced content, like all the other sites created by this company. For me looks like linkspam, and all the other sites mentioned by 86.132.196.120 have been removed from their respective articles. My vote is to remove it from here as well.

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

About dreamstell, the same weak content exists, except for this very good page: http://www.dreamstell.net/related.html. Of course, it is good only because copies content from Dream

Stellatomailing 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if this was the dreams page, but this is the dream dictionary page. How can any dream dictionary be factual? There's no such thing as a factual dream dictionary. Jonathanpops 08:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu have a point. I would consider a "proper" dream dictionary something based on works by Jung/Freud. In the absence of that, maybe we should remove all of them ("Wikipedia is nopt a collection of links, etc. etc."). What do you think?

Stellatomailing 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you. As Jonathanpops said, dream dictionary does not have to base its definitions on psychological analysis (of Freud, Jung, or any other 19th-20th century scientist). If you have read the article, dream dictionaries are divided into two, as one being scientific and the other traditional. The traditional is based on myths, Biblical stories, or cultural symbols and does not have to be scientific or related with psychology. If we have to group these kinds of dictionaries in another way, they could be called spiritual dream dictionaries. Looking at the issue from your perspective (which I share), the links (and the books) should also be grouped into two (psychological/traditional interpretations). Unlike you, I don't think there are many links. In fact, my suggestion is to add some more (scientific) sources that are based on psychology. Books, should certainly be grouped and the list should be enlarged. --Scientia Potentia 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs significant rewriting. If you actually read Psychology textbooks on dreams (including Freud's Early work "The Interpretation Of Dreams") you will find that the term "scientific dream dictionary" to be farcical. There is no such thing. Interpreting dreams, in psychology is done on a person to person basis and is not about looking up what "loosing your teeth" means. Freud actually argues against this himself. Freud argues against such things. Interpretation requires one on one analysis to determine the deeper meaning of dreams. WIth that in mind, the "scientific" sections need to be removed. There is no such thing as a scientific dream dictionary. The term flies against modern (since Freud) psychology. Ezweave80 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ok up to a point Stellatomailing. I do think we have to try and not push a point of view too much, though I know it can be very difficult with such a controvercial subject as dreams. Jonathanpops 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok with me. I liked Maestroka point of that we actually have two POVs on Dream Dictionaries; my only point would be better material for linkage, not any material, but you guys are the more active here and have the opinion that the links are good enough; so I "retreat". :-) Stellatomailing 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section pretty much fails our guidelines - Links are supposed to provide useful information about the subject, not simply link to examples. What is currently here seems to be an indiscriminate directory of dream interpretation sites, which is not in keeping with our

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree. I think the links on the page show visitors what a dream dictionary actually is, what they look like. If all we had was a link to another page describing a dream dictionary, visitors still would not actually know what one looks like if they hadn't seen one before, which I would assume is the case if they're looking it up. Jonathanpops 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SiobhanHansa's description of the current external links as an "indiscriminate directory". Linking to one or two examples of dream dictionaries is a good idea, but only if we can find ones that are notable or contain verifiable content (e.g., sourced information on historical interpretations of particular dream elements). The sites currently linked simply give the non-notable opinions of their authors. For now, I'd recommend replacing the list with a link to the DMOZ category for dream dictionaries.

EALacey 08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Dream symbols

That link to http://dmoz.org is useless. Its just a dream directory. Its imposible to joing it because the peopkle who run the sitys have long since lost interest. Just dump it. Its worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.128.142 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should include information about the various sources and inspirations for symbols. Some dicts use classical mythos; others refer to religious texts and stories; others still apply astrological knowledge. Some authors argue that these symbols are universal—I believe that symbols are ultimately personal and experiential, but are culturally influenced. How symbols are abstracted depend on how we perceive them in real life, consciously and subconsciously. —Nahum Reduta 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your citations, man? I see references but no cites... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.238.141 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello, good morning. i had a dream just this morning, it goes this way, that i get a glass of water for me to gargle but when i sip the water, the lips of the glass suddenly broken. please help me interpret my dreams, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert ligan (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link for any dream interpretations. I've always found ti to be very good.

talk) 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've now added this as an external link as it's quite a comprehensive and useful site. No doubt someone will disagree with me, however.

talk) 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've removed it along with the others because it just builds into a huge list. We have a link to the DMOZ directory listing so people can find a variety of similar sites. It seems with this subject once we get one site that's someone's favorite the list just grows and grows. -- SiobhanHansa 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Analysis of an Article

I would like to see a more elaborate definition of a "dream dictionary." When you say a "tool", you're being very vague. A tool can be a literal dictionary, or it can be a machine that interperets the dreams. It is lacking significantly in information, facts, statistics, reliable references, and just research in general. This is how I would like the article to look:

1. First, start off by giving a solid definition of what a dream dictionary is. Describe what it is, and how it works.
2. Secondly, talk about why we dream. Talk the enviornmental factors that cause dreams, i.e., what causes us to have good dreams and what causes us to have bad dreams
3. Next, talk about why it is not considered "scientic". Do all scientists believe it can't be proved? Or do some think it is science? Give opinions from both sides of the argument.
4. Describe examples of the symbolism in dream dictionaries and elaborate on them. For example, long objects represent penises and wide objects represent vaginas.
5. Talk about the history of dreams. Who was the first one to start studying dreams? What is there background and beliefs? You mentioned Freud: talk about his field of physchology and mention is emphasis on your subconsious and sexual behaviors.
6. Finally, wrap it up with a well thought-out conclusion
7. Make sure everything you write is from a reliable, preferably scholarly source. At the end, state the sources
8. And lastly, make sure all grammar is correct and each section has a headline

SCayce1230 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think this topic is very interesting. But there could be a lot more information that could be added to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.150.230 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i find this topic very interesting. there is a lot more information that could be added to it like a link to a dream dictionary to give an example of what it is. Samatlock (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to one at the bottom. --MTHarden (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i find the topic of dream dictionary very interesting. but theres not enough history about it.Cman101 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream dictionaries are not used by psychologists. Hence the edits. Read the section on dream interpretation for scientific views on dreams. Ezweave80 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I tell me what it means when you dream some one Digging a hold

Life dreems (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could u Life dreems (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]