Talk:Melanie Klein

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Austria Low‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ciaved.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

there must be the word --and-- after anna freud.

Expansion request[edit]

What is the view of modern scientific consensus toward Klein's work? -- Beland 06:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question is an excellent one Beland, and I am not absolutely sure of the scientific answer. However, as far as I know, Sigmund Freud's theories have had only a low level of acceptance from the scientific community. Furthermore, Melanie's Klein's theorising appears to be much inferior to Sigmund Freud's theories. For example, Klein's ideas about the 'depressive position' as a developmental phase in infancy appear to have very little scientific standing. 121.216.240.9 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

answer to Beland[edit]

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)[reply]

--Thanks for taking the time to respond, Bob. Obviously, you should be the one re-writing the article. We would hope that you have the time to that in the future. I will continue to edit and try to improve this as I have the time. Ed Basham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddwin (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert but I think it would be rather generous to suggest that the account of Melanie Klein's views contains inaccuracies. I would describe it as barely recognisable. I don't think minor adjustments will eventually lead to something reasonable. I think someone more expert than me (but does not have to be a world authority!) needs to give a simple basic account and then editing might make it better. I would be surprised if Eros vs Thanatos is the best starting point. Better to start from MK's account of infant development, describe what (she believes) happens in the paranoid-schizoid position and on that basis describe the depressive position.

Non Answer to Beland

Beland asked about the current scientific status of Kleinian theory. A response that deals with Kleinian reception among American psychoanalysts hardly addresses this question unless one makes the huge and highly questionable assumption that American psychoanalysts themselves count as scientists.

I think this question rests on a rather naive concept of science and its relation to psychoanalysis (and no doubt many other things). Psychoanalyst's investigations of the mind involve a different approach to that of natural scientists and there is no simple means of cross-adjudication - as if psychoanalysts can say roughly when the child starts to experience Oedipal issues and science can tell you the exact millisecond and quantify the intensity of the experiences using some kind of technical equipment.

Ken Gemes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.14.104 (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific error:

Bob Hinshelwood mentions multiple errors and inaccuracies, and I am not enough of a scholar to see all of them. But one which is struck me on reading the article, is the statement that "the Psychoanalytic Center of California is the other major training center that follows the work of Melanie Klein". Change this to read "is another major training center", and it would be accurate. Outside of Lacanianism, the Kleinian school is probably more influential in Continental Europe and at least parts of Latin America than any other (including traditional Freudianism, or 'Anna-Freudianism') - or so I have been led to gather.

- Joseph McCord lycodont@yahoo.com

"Criticism" section maybe ?

This article sounds very elogious to me. Just like Beland said, this article should include what scientists (or scientific psychologists) think of those theories. Wikipedia has a whole article on the criticisms of psychoanalysis, why isn't it the case for Klein ? And please do not reply that the article features what psychoanalysts think of Klein, cause this is not sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.110.98 (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up section currently headed "Literature"[edit]

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)[reply]

Do the divisions still exist?[edit]

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)[reply]

What does opinionated mean here?[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020: 'Infant observations' section[edit]

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...^[1]

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)[reply]

^ Sherwin-White, Susan (January 2017). "Melanie Klein and infant observation". Infant Observation. 20 (1): 5–26. doi:10.1080/13698036.2017.1311235. ISSN 1369-8036.

[1] Sherwin-White, Susan (January 2017). "Melanie Klein and infant observation". Infant Observation. 20 (1): 5–26. doi:10.1080/13698036.2017.1311235. ISSN 1369-8036.

[1]