Talk:Donald Winnicott

Assertion of notability
An assertion of notability (summary/characterization of his contribution) needs to be added to the introductory paragraph. - Do c  t  orW  16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can some please explain something?
Can some one please explain why the tag stating that this article may not meet the general notability guideline has been added to this article? There are numerous articles on far less famous psychologists all throughout Wikipedia. Donald Winnicott is famous psychologist, probably second only to Melanie Klein in terms of contributions to object relations theory. I have a book on my bookshelf about him - are we really saying that a psychologist who has led to a complete volume is not notable? Some time ago, I made a proposal at Village pump about WP: Notability for academics, and I mentioned Hjalmar Sunden and was told he made it easily. Well, I would have thought that in the English-speaking world, Winnicott was far more famous than Sunden. I do not mind informed tags heading Wikipedia articles; what I object to is a cry for deletion in Wikipedia that is based purely on ignorance. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a cry for deletion, rather a cry for an assertion of notability, preferably in the lead, and sourced. Any personal knowledge--or ignorance--you or I have is irrelevant if it is not sourced in the article. As I noted in the edit history when I added the tag: "the essay-like text in "Major concepts" section alludes to potential notability, but this is not sourced." As always, no need to wait for permission, add something worthwhile to the article and then remove the tag! Maybe you were unaware, but there is a guideline for notability vis-a-vis academics at WP:ACADEMIC. And, I'm sure you know it, but please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Happy editing!! Novaseminary (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just took care of it, and it didn't even hurt! I added an assertion and a source. Feel free to build on the improvement yourself. Cheers! Novaseminary (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So here is the source
The book I was referring to in my comment above is: Phillips, Adam, (1988). Winnicott. Fontana Press (Imprint of Harper Collins). ISBN: 0-00 686094-X This book is one of the Fontana Modern Masters Series. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

True self/false self
surely Winnicott is highly notable for articulating true self and false self. They seem pretty obvious concepts to me, Not sure why Freud didnt develop them. Anyway i think there should be much more on true self and false self here. --Penbat (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Style cleanup
This page could use some cleanup in quotation-mark use and attribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations 38.124.22.170 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says Winnicott was a sociologist?
I have never heard him described before as a sociologist. He was a pediatrician and psychoanalyst, and also an author of books and papers on psychoanalysis. Does anyone have a source for calling him a sociologist?Grebe39 (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed "sociologist" and "psychiatrist" because the references I have (including Rodman, R. (2003) Winnicott: Life and Work. Cambridge, MA: Perseus) make it clear he's famous as a psychoanalyst who worked with children as well as adults. If anyone has other sources indicating his notability in the fields of psychiatry or sociology, please feel free to reverse these edits.Grebe39 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Brand new to discussion, so I've no clear idea what to do. I also note the efforts already made by others here and have not changed the article. I note the wiki definition of psychiatrist as "A psychiatrist is a physician who specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders" and feel that Winnicott meets this criteria.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psynapse56580 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense!
I would not call myself an English critic but as far as I can tell the following sentence from the main article does not make sense.

"Winnicott completed his medical studies in 1920, and in 1923, the same year as his marriage to the artist Alice Buxton Winnicott (born Taylor). "

Or is it in some way possible to complete medical studies in two different years (1920 and 1923)? If that is possible, some further explanation of how that is possible would be helpful.

Otherwise, I would suggest that perhaps this is changed to the following.

"Winnicott completed his medical studies in 1920. In 1923 he married the artist Alice Buxton Winnicott (born Taylor)."

I did not make this change myself as I am prepared to concede the original sentence may be correct in ways that I don't understand. If someone with more knowledge of Winnicott's medical training could do the necessary - either explain the sentence if it is correct or change it if it is wrong- that would be helpful in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBache (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)