Jump to content

Talk:Carl Jung/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Alcoholism section

One more revision needs to be made to this section, and I'm not sure of the best wording. The problem with the statement by Jung about an alcoholic from the Oxford Group is that no proof exists that Jung was referring Rowland Hazard. And if Jung was referring to Hazard, Jung's version is actually incompatible with Wilson's. In Jung's version, the conversation in which Jung refuses to treat the man and tells him to go back and be cured by Jesus again, occurs after the man has been used as an advertisement for the Group, and then relapsed. Nor does Jung say that he had just analyzed the man, or that he ever had (although perhaps he would have left that out to avoid identifying a former patient). So although the quote may have some relevance, it does not support Wilson's story even in its general outlines. It seems to me that there are three options which would be fair to the evidence: remove the reference to what Jung said, or provide a more complete explanation, or remove the claim that it refers to Hazard and supports Wilson's story. The problem with providing a more complete explanation is that it would take up a lot of space, probably out of proportion to its relevance. Does anyone have any ideas for a compromise?Rose bartram (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wife's orgasm?

In the "later life" section it says " The marriage lasted until Emma's orgasm in 1955". Should this not be "her death"? Carpetphone (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallucination

I have a problem with this factoid: "One night he saw a faintly luminous, indefinite figure, coming from her room. The head was detached from the neck and floated in the air, in front of the body."

This has no place in an encyclopedia. I think the above should be reworded in such a way so as not to imply that these sort of things actually exist. Perhaps it should be changed to "One night he claimed to have seen ..." Flaviusvulso (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong, but I would favor incorporating a brief explanation of the family's move and his mother's problems into the previous or following paragraph and taking that paragraph out. Just my take.Rose bartram (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

These sorts of things do exist. The mind exists and its content is real, with its own kind of reality. Hallucinations exist, religion exists, etc. As Jung himself said, all the objects around us (chairs, computers, etc.) wouldn't be there if they didn't exist in someone's mind first. If "he" saw it, then "he" saw it. It was real for "him". If it's real as in consensual reality, that's another problem.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
No, according to conventional dualistic, materialistic, reductionist thought, material objects such as chairs and tables exist regardless of there being anyone there to perceive them. Would the chair exist if there was no human present but a rabbit was there? Hallucinations only exist in the mind. The wording of the article implies that the hallucination existed independently from Jung's mind which is clearly bat shit crazy. If there are no other objections I will amend the article accordingly. Flaviusvulso (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Before I get misunderstood, I'm not even worried about it. I just regret that some people decide to shorten the others' experience and access to descriptions of experiences, and do it with such absolute certainty. If you find these adequate or inadequate, that's just as fine by me! --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Someone has requested the IPA for Jung's name - I believe it is ['ka:ɐ̯l 'gʊstaf jʊŋ], but can someone please confirm this before I add it. Lfh (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that his name is pronounced as you say: "Karl Gustav Young". This is certainly the way his name is pronounced in the English-speaking-old-world. Jung pronounced: "Young". MacOfJesus (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Father Victor White

I recently started a page on Father Victor White - I shall be grateful if any readers could extend it above stub status (I thought here was where I would most likely find those with knowledge of him). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this page. I'v left a comment on the talk page of Answer to Job. The letters are not easily available.

You know more than I do about him. Sorry. If I do come acorss anything I'll do my best to put it in.

Do remember though, that if the families are like this, they will be very conscious of copyright. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I ask the Adm. and all: do not delete the page Father Victor White, as it is an essential auxiliary page to Carl Gustav Jung. The letters between the two are very important and the family concerned will not publish them, we believe for more money. They have only last month published The Red Book (Jung), at a heavy price! The letters started when Jung published "Answer to Job". All these Article pages are linked and are important. Do not attempt to delete. Study the subjects first!

I'v only come across one student/professor of this study who studied the letters in dept, as they were lent to him through a University, (conditions prevailed). MacOfJesus (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

political views

I can understand how some of the rhetoric for the political views section would have been shifted to make the section more neutral, but I sincerely think that some of it was neutering Jung. I included the specific comment about Jung constantly referring to the state as a form of slavery because he really did chatter that much about how he thought it was a form of slavery. Im not jumping to conclusions or assuming premises. I figured someone would find that sketchy or not neutral, but I didnt supply 4-5 references with Jung talking about 'state slavery' for nothing.

Also, I don't think it is an improper synthesis or 'original thought' to say that he stressed the importance of the individual and his rights, that was the main thesis of 'The Undiscovered Self', the book sourced the most in that section. This is what the summary on the back of that book says just to help give you an idea; "In this challenging and provocative work, Dr. Carl Jung =one of history's greatest minds= argues that civilization's future depends on our ability as individuals to resist the collective forces of society. Only by gaining an awareness and understanding of one's unconscious mind and true, inner nature -"the undiscovered self"- can we as individuals acquire the self-knowledge that is antithetical to ideological fanaticism. But this requires that we face our fear of the duality of the human psyche- The existence of good and capacity for evil in every individual. In this seminal book, Jung compellingly argues that only then can we begin to cope with the dangers posed by mass society ("the sum total of individuals") and resist the potential threats posed by those in power." ProductofSociety (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would like to challenge the one who indicated on the Article page at the point of "Politics" to justify stating, there is an unfair influence.

Jung, would appear to me to defend the independance of the human mind and to identify any encrouchment on that freedom. Hence, his thought here would be true to what we know of him, as evident in his conflict with Father Victor White as seen in his opposition to privatio boni. Hence, I accept that this entry is true to Jung, I am less sure if it fits as his "political views". MacOfJesus (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this article PLEASE get the book by Krafft-Ebbing correct

This article - erroneously - claims that Jung was inspired by the famous book by Krafft-Ebbing "Psychopathologia Sexualis" to study psychiatry. In fact, it was not this text, but Krafft-Ebbing's "Lehrbuch als Psychiatrie" which inspired Jung to study psychiatry - this information can be found in Storr, Anthony (1973) Jung. Fontana (one of the Fontana Modern Masters series of books). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Influences

In the article page, underneath the photograph of Carl Gustav Jung there is a list of people who influenced Jung. In it should be "Father Victor White" who (according to Jung himself, was one of the few people who "knew the problems facing pschology in the modern world"). In the Article page of Father Victor White I'v written to this effect, and his influence on Jung and vica versa.

I do not think that I can edit that entry? MacOfJesus (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can! And I did! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone has removed the declared influence of Jung on The AA. I quote here from the Article page from the paragraph concerning Alchololism:

"The influence of Jung thus indirectly found its way into the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous, the original twelve-step program, and from there into the whole twelve-step recovery movement, although AA as a whole is not Jungian and Jung had no role in the formation of that approach or the twelve steps."

Hence, Jung had an indirect influence on The AA. This is an important witness to his work with this form of adiction.

I propose to replace this entry at the place indicating: "influences" at his photograph. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason it was removed was that the link went to a disambiguation page, with a whole list of different entities abbreviated AA. Read the edit comment, it said as much. Yworo (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So what do you propose? "Alcoholics Anonymous", or fully "The Alcoholics Anonymous Society". It is surely not an option to just delete. Also: "Father Victor White", you could say must be distinguished from "Victor White", (An Ace-Pilot), who lived at the same time. Hence: "Father Victor White" would be better than: "Victor White". This was a confusion that was sorted out last year and the article page "Father Victor White" was written. So too, "Victor White (flying ace)"

I am concerned with writing a true article page, true to history, and to Jung. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Victor White is distinguished simply by linking to the correct article, Victor White (Dominican), which has been done. There is no reason to include his title in the link. Yworo (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What yard-stick is here? For if that is the case; then it should be: "Victor White, OP". & "Victor White, RAF". Clinicaly speaking this would be correct. To leave it the way it is then the titles are still in but at the end of the name not at the fore. So the stand you take is alogical. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually studied the article pages in question? MacOfJesus (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernard, the reason is because of the way Wikipedia uses disambiguation to resolve conflicts in article titles. Please read the page Wikipedia:Disambiguation to get a better understanding. Wikipedia:Article titles is also relevant, particularly WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME. -- Ϫ 10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Confusion of name

In the article page of Jung we see a reference to Father Victor White, whose article page was written last year together with another Victor White, an ace-pilot, both lived approx. the same time, and confusion occured because we thought they were one and the same person! The person that was confidant with Jung was Fathe Victor White. Hence, it is important to put in "the Father", as that is how Jung knew him. There are now two article pages one to each. To avoid confusion it is necessary to keep in "the Father". I was one of the people who wrote this article page, of Father Victor White. It is to the credit of the editors who sorted this confusion out, initally. Now we have to keep it that way, devoid of ambiguity. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How Jung knew him has nothing to do with it. We typically don't include titles, religious or otherwise, in article names or links. There is no valid reason to do so here. What matters in that the name links to the correct article. Yworo (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article pages explain. The student looking at the article page and printing the page off my not be aware of this. The Jung/White relationship explains further. We were confused before it became clear there were two people of the same name living at the same time. Again the content of the article pages in question explains. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What yard-stick is here? For if that is the case; then it should be: "Victor White, OP". & "Victor White, RAF". Clinicaly speaking this would be correct. To leave it the way it is then the titles are still in but at the end of the name not at the fore. So the stand you take is alogical. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually studied the article pages in question? MacOfJesus (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernard, Please read this page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating. Also relevant to this discussion are WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME. Please read these pages to get a better understanding of Wikipedia's processes. -- Ϫ 10:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, again OIEnglish, I have read them and see the criteria. What annoyed me was someone deleting without correcting, when that was well within their capacity and (I presume, brief). I understand that "The AA" could be associated with a lot of things, but it was quite clear that The Alcoholics Annonomous was meant. They changed "Father Victor White" to "Victor White" which of couse does link up up to Victor White (Dominican), but in the Article page under the heading: Influences, then it should be: Victor White (Dominican), as it is ambiguous the way it is, and that ambiguity is unworthy to the article page Jung.

So my valid reasons are: 1. Ambiguity, as the name could easily read, Victor White (Dominican), not "Victor White", as it is now! 2. This list of Influences of Jung are listed at the top of the article page and, this above all, should be clear and precise, as anything else is unworthy of Wikipedia.

I put in "Alcoholics Annonomous", but my entry of "Fr. Victor White" was changed, hence, I am reluctant to touch it again. Also it could be in alphabetical form, or time-related form. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Alphonse Maeder

Hi, i am quite surprized about the fact this fellow isn't known on :en. See french article about this Jung's friend and other major funder of analytical psychology. --Prosopee (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Influence in Film and TV

Boggles the mind NOT seeing Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" listed under influences on film. There may not be a a more accessible way one can teach young people the importance of his ideas. The varying responses of the new recruits to the attempts by the drill instructor, to turn them into killers, (and how they play out throughout the film) are at the root of Jungian philosophy, and is an essential point Kubrick makes in the film. Really should be added to that section.

Respectfully, mbpinnyc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbpinnyc (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move the whole article to the section above the Contents?

130.130.37.12 (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by this. -- Ϫ 10:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this not a vandalism motivated point? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jungian ideas are covered by both Psychology & Humanities not either

Hi, this subject was disputed, and I tend to agree against the OP. Humanism is discussed in Psychology in the first year of course work, and how could Jung not be, as some consider him a driving force between fanatics of various other vices - like AA. I know not how to add this from Wikipedias' Humanism to support my claims - into Notes and references? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#cite_note-15 TIA. Mutuussentire (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

While it's good you provided a ref your change [1] of the wording has introduced a sentence which doesn't make much sense. His work is covered in which Faculty of Humanities? The Faculty of Humanities of the University of Zürich?
What does the source actually say? If the source says his work is covered in the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Zürich or whatever, I question whether this is of sufficient relevance to mention the article. If the source says it's often covered in humanties departments or faculties (which in some universities may include psychology anyway) thoroughout the world then we should say something like that (and it's likely of relevance), rather then saying it's covered in some particular Faculty of Humanities.
If your note sure how to get the wording right, perhaps because English is not your first language then feel free to explain what you're trying to say and I'm sure someone will help you. Perhaps provide a quote from the reference you are using.
Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The article page mentions him having an indirect influence on the AA, and explains the influence in the paragraph on Alchololism, in the article page, and naming the people he helped, who went on to found the Oxford Group and later became the AA. I think it is very clear and factual, not OTT at all. However, I am not clear if this is what you are referring to? Did you notice that when some wanted to come back to his Clinic, because of relapse, he would not let them; saying: I cannot heal you better than Jesus. Also, did you notice that Jung had great empathy with the patient. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Seven Sermons

An early writing by Jung, dating from 1916, was his poetic work, The Seven Sermons To The Dead ...

The Seven Sermons hardly qualify as poetry. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC) The Seven Sermons To The Dead was an early example of Jung's use of the technique of active imagination. It was never intended to be viewed as poetry.Analyticaljung (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Most well-known works

Highly subjective statement as to Jung's most well-known works. How exactly can one prove these two works are his most popular? the paperback editions of 'Alchemy and Religion' and 'Alchemical studies' have in all probability outsold the two volumes cited.Norwikian (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Carl Gustav Jung vs Carl Jung

In german speaking countries he is commonly referred to as "Carl Gustav Jung", which was his actual name. So I would suggest to change the page title to that instead of merely "Carl Jung".

Except that, um, this is the English Wikipedia and Carl Jung is the more common usage in English-speaking countries. I'd say go make that comment on German Wikipedia, but it's already Carl Gustav Jung there. Who says nothing's perfect? Yworo (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In the English speaking old world he is known as Carl Gustav Jung. In the English speaking world I live in, if I were to say: Carl Jung, I found I got confusing glances. When I said Carl Gustav Jung I got immediate recognition. Anywhere I go I find the same, in the old world; English speaking! So it is untrue to say that; "In the English speaking world it is Carl Jung", perhaps because we are nearer to Germany. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Don't people finally realize what a huge disappointment C. G, Jung really was in his late years especially. The Red Book is worthless doodling of artistic nature. His opportunistic and scandalous behavior when the Nazis came power totally discredits his late work. And of the recent Jungians, there are a very few good ones. Maybe Scott Hyder is one of them. But essentially Jung succumbed to the collective psychosis he himself predicted. Also his analogies between Islam and Nazism are just plainly wrong and just feed into the current misunderstanding of Moslems. This is just a fact, and people still celebrate him as as a good psychiatrist, His teachers were much better, Bleuler and Freud really made a difference. But he just took the power that was due to the elimination of his jewish colleagues at the time. Also Jung's preoccupation with the occult more puts him into the category of Heinrich Himmler. That is also why, here in Switzerland, we don't teach him in schools. He became much more a cult personality than a scientists. Nobody questions his abilities but he had no integrity and he did not consider any political aspects or even philosophical and ethical consequences of his work and his affiliations. Jung is overvalued, clearly. We should rather focus on the work of other psychoanalysts such as Freud, Adler or Fromm. In fact, Fromm's critique of Jung was very accurate and fitting. Jung essentially became the desire for the mortuary of consciousness. ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC) To ring out the old year with some sentiments. Shouldn't we delete Jung altogether from wikipedia and put a swastika in its place? ML (I do sign this with my real name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei (talk • contribs) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want me to elaborate with regard to what really happened to the core group of Jungians, meaning the Institute here in Küsnacht? What became of those who followed Jung? Only a few very good ones in my opinion and in the midst of these talented people, raping analysts who had no respect for their patients. All what Jung followed in the end was a Nazism, that fell victim to his own analysis. Those Jungians then did not understand Freud anymore, did not even read him, became the worst and the most ruthless analysts ever practicing on the face of this earth. However, such names as Amann, Fergus, Hyder, Robin, Jacobi stood out as dignified members of the true Jungians while others sunk into the deep abyss of degrading consciousness and deceit. There was a line drawn and those who really understood Jung were able to reject him as well. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal

Did Jung have any faith in supernatural ? As far as I know Freud did not beleive that any entity does survive bodily death. But Jung's collective unconscious is some what near and dear to spooks...no ?

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article page Victor White (Dominican), it seems to give credence to the notion that he accepts this, for he said there was plenty of evidence for the Devil and others. You will see this under the section called: "The letters". MacOfJesus (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

However, you could ask: "Did Jung have any faith?" He accepted Christ but only in a myth/reality sense, perhaps not as a faith, for he referred to the Gospels as propaganda (Answer to Job). MacOfJesus (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So you could say that Jung accepted the existence of devil and demons, but not a faith in a supernatural. Certainly not "faith", in the sense of the consent of the will, or orientation of the heart to. He accepted these existed in a very real sense of myth/reality. So it would not be correct to say that he had a faith in supernatural. Such a free thinker could not allow his mind/heart to be governed by faith. He also warned about accepting country/goverment control of person. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of those familiar with his works as they progressed see that he considered himself to be Gnostic. This was never explicitly discussed, but it is the most logical implication with his strong interest in the study of the early Gnostics, the way he spoke of Gnosis as a personal mystic path, and some interesting quotes such as in the 1959 Face to Face interview when asked "do you believe in God" his response was, "difficult to answer... I know. I needn't... I don't need to believe... I know." While a distinction can surely be made that Gnosis is different than Faith, in modern language, the distinction is difficult and Faith may be just as good a word as any for the phenomenon. I'm unsure if this is necessary for the article, though most Jung scholars should be aware of this element of his personal belief system, especially in later life. As for what a "free thinker" could allow his mind to do, that is speculation and limited in scope. Jung's psychological theories are extremely complicated and draw from many types of experiences. It seems logical that his personal spirituality would be just as diverse.

JDClaunch (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDClaunch (talk • contribs)

I do accept Jung as a believer in Jesus. I base my argument on his statement to: B. Wilson as stated in the article page under the heading; "Spirituality as a cure for alcoholism". I quote: "The above claims are documented in the letters of Jung and Bill W., excerpts of which can be found in Pass It On, published by Alcoholics Anonymous.[59] Although the detail of this story is disputed by some historians, Jung himself made reference to its substance — including the Oxford Group participation of the individual in question — in a talk that was issued privately in 1954 as a transcript from shorthand taken by an attender (Jung reportedly approved the transcript), later recorded in Volume 18 of his Collected Works, The Symbolic Life ("For instance, when a member of the Oxford Group comes to me in order to get treatment, I say, 'You are in the Oxford Group; so long as you are there, you settle your affair with the Oxford Group. I can't do it better than Jesus.'" Jung goes on to state that he has seen similar cures among Roman Catholics.[60])".

It is not he/she who knows that they believe that believe. We don't know until put to the test. Discernment of thought as to what or not to believe in, is natural to the human mind and human will. Jung warned against putting trust or acceptance in State nationalism. This is a point made when referring to his acceptance / non-acceptance of the Hitler Regime. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jung may or may not have had faith. That's besides the point. What we should be concerned about his questions. He is not trying to convince anybody about his faith. He is talking about the unconscious mind. Squarrels (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This point nobody disputes, and is taken. But man is one. Faith & trust; do they belong to the conscious mind or the unconscious mind? MacOfJesus

Please see the user page: Jungian interpretation of religion, and the discussion page of the same. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism???

There should be a section for criticism. There is plenty to criticize considering many of his ideas cannot be scientifically understood. --72.82.17.84 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't. Criticism sections are deprecated. Typically criticism is integrated into the article where the ideas are discussed. Criticism sections tend to attract edit wars. Yworo (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there SHOULD be a section for Criticism. He is a Kook, just like Freud. You know, the Cocain-addicted sexual deviant? And apparently Jung was just as deviant. And possibly Schizophrenic as well. Why should we consider them great? I say, let there be a Criticism section and God Bless it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.130.223 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopaedia, not a critism forum. The Article page Hitler, would be open to such. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding unreferenced opinions see - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems very weird that one cannot criticize Jung at all. It is just not allowed. Although the work of C.G Jung is tremendous, it turned out to be some type of cult more than a psychology. Jung was not always right, certainly not. His analogy between Nazism and Islam is ridiculous and wrong. Who is guarding the page? Certainly not a Freudian Jung more an absolute Jung. Carl Gustav Jung was not an absolutist, certainly not. And even if he analyzed Nazism for the Strategic Services in 1943, it came a little late. And we have no reference to that either. I am starting an edit war. Just because his remark about Islam is wrong and a comment needs to be added to relativize this misconception. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) My comment was in reference to my addition: Jung’s remark proved his serious misconceptions of the Islamic faith since Nazi ideology was driven by pre-abrahamic symbols, paganism and the extermination of monotheistic religions including Judaism and Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has said the Jung cannot be criticized. Notable, cited criticism may of course be added at an appropriate point in the article. However, it should not be put into a separate criticism section. Also, the criticism may not be your personal criticism. It must be verifiable criticism written by others. This is an encyclopedia, we don't make the news, we merely report it. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but there are other entries here that are not verifiable or lack citation including that C.G. Jung worked for the Office of Strategic Services in 1943. Even basic disagreements between Freud and Jung (e.g libido theory) lack clarification. And, as I remember, I did NOT create a new criticism section; it was already there, and I added to it. And in general, how much can a criticism be verified? I did cite a source of my critique, namely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbslFJ96iaQ&feature=related (Schwarze Sonne - Kultorte und Esoterik des III. Reichs). Ok, that might not be academic enough. I keep on looking for a better one. Essentially, we can only rewrite and add somebody else's criticism? Right now, there isn't even a section where we could add newer thoughts and interpretations about what Jung said. So, basically we need to treat the C.G. J. monograph as a static entity.

Jung's remark about Islam and Nazism is in itself contradictory. -We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammed- Why wouldn't we know if he is already on the way? Maybe I don't understand what Jung meant.

I know people again and again try to find parallels between Nazism and Islam, and it is true that Mohammed did lead a warring faction, however, the analogy seems faulty considering what an important role the children of Israel played and play in Islam. What about all the great arabic intellectual minds of late antiquity and those who closely associated with Judaism? I think what Hitler wanted had absolutely nothing to do with Islam. The few moslems in Germany at the time were also deported to KZ's by the way (citation needed)(http://www.1001-idee.eu/index.php?id=3413&L=0) Nazi spiritual ideology was rather a product of germanic mysticism, and von List's esoteric ideas. In the end, the remaining Nazi Christians wanted to eliminate Abraham from the scripture altogether. Again, that doesn't look like a new Islam to me. And please don't be so harsh on me by threatening to block me from wikipedia. Of course, other contributions of mine have been taken out before, that's OK. I admit, I prefer to contribute to the science sections. Overall, wikipedia contributions are "organisms" that survive or die out depending on their survival and selection in the "natural" environment. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.150.111 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The key point in the analogy is "The emotion in Germany...". The whole mass spectacle that was going on. Not the ideological or esoteric mental dogmas of the leadership. So I think you're intellectualizing too much from that angle. Also, the quote itself is a fascinating picture of Jung's thought. There are plenty of quotes on Wikipedia that are "incorrect". That doesn't mean they were not in fact said by the subject, and well-known enough to be notable for inclusion. Mbarbier (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone more familiar with editing and article composition guidelines than I please add to the article the following:

Jung's teachings on the "shadow" and collective unconscious have been extensively referenced in several songs from the band TOOL, most notably in the track Forty six & 2, which also incorporates Melchizedek's theories on evolution of chromozone harmony.

The book "Between the Bridge and the River" by Craig Ferguson features Jung as a mentor to one of the characters through his dreams, and is an important figure in the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.154 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation of why my edit to the article was removed. (I had added on 26 Oct a reference to the Hellboy II film.) I'm still learning the ropes, and that was very helpful. Mike-c-in-mv (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Mike-c-in-mv

Also, the Shin Megami Tensei Persona games are strongly based on his theories about the "persona" and the "shadow". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.79.106 (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for the Jung´s Influence in the Olympic Games

Hi,everyone.

Somebody wants to know where is the citation about that the Carl Gustav Jungs influenced in the Olympic Games. Well, pals the Wikipedia article about the Olympic symbols especially in the section "Olympic Rings" says the idea of the world wide famous symbol came to Pierre de Coubertin for the Jung´s conceptions of the ring besides from the USFSA emblems. Please I invite to read the link "This Great Symbol".

Good Luck to all from MX.Nekko09 (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Freud

The article has these following lines:

Jung was thirty when he sent his Studies in Word Association to Sigmund Freud in Vienna in 1906. The two men met for the first time the following year, and Jung recalled the discussion between himself and Freud as interminable. They talked, he remembered, for thirteen hours, virtually without stopping.

Is "interminable" the right word? It implies the conversation was tedious, and seemed like it would never end. One would think if these two met for the first time and talked for thirteen hours it would be because they found each other's ideas stimulating.

There is a problem with the following paragraph:

"Jung was thirty when he sent his Studies in Word Association to Sigmund Freud in Vienna in 1906. The two men met for the first time the following year [...] Six months later, the then 50-year-old Freud sent a collection of his latest published essays to Jung in Zurich, which marked the beginning of an intense correspondence and collaboration that lasted six years and ended in May 1910."

The above paragraph is internally inconsistent. He sent his studies to Freud in 1906, met him for the first time in 1907 and six months later they began a collaboration that lasted six years but ended in May 1910? Besides, Freud was born in May 1856, so would be 51 six months after their meeting, if they met in 1907 as the paragraph states. This webpage confirms that they met in 1907, and that the end of their collaboration was in 1913, which fits the six years of the article. Anybody who knows more about this, or has other sources, who can correct this paragraph? It's not my field of expertise so I won't change the page at the moment. MeDoc (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jung Based Assessments

Paragraph 3 of this article gives the wrong impression that the MBTI is the only assessment based on Jung. I tried to make a gentle change - my first as an Wikipedia editor - but it was refused twice because of a lack of proof, which I understand.

Here is some proof:

A Google search on Jung Based Personality Assessments

Some specific other assessments:

The Keirsy Temperament Sorter

The Personality Indicator

This list can be extended a lot, but I hope it is proof enough to make my point.Robert.bosman (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Quotations in Introduction

The "by nature religious" quotation seems a bit vague for the introduction paragraph, where facts should be stated simply. Could someone elaborate on that excerpt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeBananaSlug (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a quote from the introduction by Aniela Jaffe to "Memories, dreams, reflections". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Jung

Prior to World War II, Jung was the leader of a secret occult lodge that pandered anti-Semitic myths of Aryan supremacy, Thule-style, lavishly funded by Edith Rockefeller McCormick, daughter of John D. Rockefeller and heir to the International Harvester fortune. Jung, who hailed from a family of clergy and believe himself a deity, was president of the General Medical Society for Psychotherapy, an organization that promoted Nazi eugenics policy in its journal Jahrbuch für psychologische und psychopathologische Forschungen, edited by Jung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.79.25 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A Section is Missing

In a hospital in Switzerland in 1944, Jung broke his foot, had a heart attack and subsequent near-death experience, which had a profound effect on him. This article is omitting all mention of this chapter in his life. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean this article? It's pretty shaky form what I saw. By 1944 Jung had been interested in occult, mysticism et cetera for more than thirty years, and had drifted far away from being the world's most renowned psychologist. trespassers william (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
So, because he had a lifelong interest in esoteric things that had overshadowed his psychological career, it's not okay to relate his 1944 report of an NDE here? If you understand anything about Jung, you know that such occurrences and interests of Jung's are part of an overriding goal of wholeness of the Self, of which his psychological career was one facet. Jung relates the experiences in his biography Memories, Dreams, Reflections. It's not just secondhand hearsay on the internet. 74.141.69.51 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nazi fascination

The Nazi section seems heavily revised by Jung defenders without giving the reader a chance to read the original allegations. These charges of Jung's fascination with the Third REich, even if false, should be spelled out loud and clear and not just rebutted from the get-go. 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.209.78 (talk)

The focus of Jung's detractors with the false emphasis that he was a Nazi sympathizer belies and belittles much of his other work. It invariably is an attempt to discredit Jung via the tried and true method of character smear. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The line "Though he was a practising clinician and considered himself to be a scientist,[7] much of his life's work was spent exploring tangential areas such as" seems to imply that exploration of certain topics cannot, by nature, be scientific. I believe this is NPOV and largely irrelevant to the article. Discussion of these interests should in no way reflect on his status as a man of science, especially as he is still considered to be an influential contributing member to the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.161.226 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

question about research

I came to this article trying to find out which concepts and theories have been discredited. From the article it seems that basically none have! I find this hard to understand since the balance of his work appears to be untestable scientifically. This would put much of this work in the category of pseudo-science or even anti-science. Should there be some discussion on how Jung claimed to be a scientist but much of his concepts and theories are actually hard or even, in some cases, impossible to test? Yendor of yinn (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be very welcome! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the article should indeed cover this in detail. The current version makes it appear that Jung contributed his theories to the scientific world, and they were pretty much incorporated into the scientific consensus. My understanding is that contemporary psychology has rejected the great majority of Jung's thought, mainly because Jung didn't use statistics and his ideas are very hard, or even impossible in many cases, to put to any straightforward empirical test. Does anyone know of any good secondary sources that talk about this? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This is sort of true, and sort of untrue. Contemporary psychology has indeed shied away from many of these subjects, and much of the methodology has been rejected, but it is precisely for the reasons you state - this does not, in my view, make his contributions to science any less "scientific". Was Einstein considered a pseudoscientist because his theories were often, at the time, impossible to test? Certainly, by some, including his peers in the scientific community. Does Science today gain anything from making such claims? No, absolutely not. Science gains nothing from rejecting untestable ideas, only from modulating them into testable ones or developing new ways to test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.161.226 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Jung cult" of course gives insight in the reception of Jung, and his popularity in mainstream spirituality. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Jung was not a Christian

Can we remove the categories pegging him as Christian? Anybody who has studied Jung will know that, though not an atheist really, he was a syncretist who gave Christianity not a bit more credit than paganism, and sometimes less. Furthermore, he professed to detest theology and metaphysics; any time you read a Jungian writing that seems mystical and pro-religion, don't forget that what is really discussed is "archetypal" mythologies of the collective unconscious. This he reiterated time and again. He had very little use for the concept of God and religious expressions beyond their element of psychological potency. Even by the time he was a teen, he had renounced his father's Christianity. 74.133.104.185 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree! HullIntegrity (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect citation and/or assertion.

Incorrect citation and/or assertion. The following paragraph either has an incorrect citation or the assertion is flawed. A letter from a third party (Ostow) cannot be used to indicate Jung's thoughts (hearsay). The passage should be corrected or deleted (my deletion and suggestion it be moved here for discussion was reverted by the author).

The passage reads: Evidence to the contrary has, notwithstanding Jung's protests, been made available in an archive of correspondence which came to light in the 1970s. In a letter of 9 February 1934 to his former student, Wolfgang Kranefeldt of the Berlin Institute of Psychotherapy, Jung links Freud's work to "specific Jewish points of view...that have an essentially corrosive character" and speculates that "the proclamation of this Jewish gospel...would not be agreeable to the government".[80]

The citation is: Letter from Mortimer Ostow, International Review of Psycho-Analysis (1977) Vol 4, p. 377 HullIntegrity (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, here is the full text of the Ostow letter:
It has come to my attention that in catalogue No. 608 of the autograph auction house J. A. Stargardt, of Marburg, Germany, 27 holographs of C. G. Jung were offered for sale. They were letters and cards written to a former student of his, Wolfgang Kranefeldt, one of the founders of the Berlin Institute of Psychotherapy.
Among the excerpts from Jung's letters published in the catalogue, the one of 9 February 1934 impresses me as important enough to be brought to your attention. Jung wrote as follows:
... As is known, one cannot do anything against stupidity, but in this instance the Aryan people can point out that with Freud and Adler, specific Jewish points of view are publicly preached and, as can be proved likewise, points of view that have an essentially corrosive character. If the proclamation of this Jewish gospel is agreeable to the government, then so be it. Otherwise, there is also the possibility that this would not be agreeable to the government...
Ellenberger in The Discovery of the Unconscious (pp. 667, 668) describes the controversies between those who denounced Jung for his anti-Semitism, and those who defended him, accepting his claim that he used his Nazi associations to protect his Jewish colleagues. They see no anti-Semitic hostility in his differentiation between Jewish and 'Aryan' psychotherapy. Ellenberger himself, while not overtly taking sides, seems to sympathize with Jung's friends.
Despite Jung's protests, and those of his followers, this letter speaks for itself. Here Jung speaks not of a Jewish versus an ' Aryan' psychotherapy, but of' specific Jewish points of view'. The term ' Jewish gospel' is sarcastically contemptuous. The word ' corrosive ' is the most telling reflection of his prejudice of all. The letter seems to imply that Jung favoured suppression of psychoanalysis and individual psychology by the government. He seems to regret the possibility that the German government might take a tolerant attitude toward these two schools of psychology. He hopes, however, that the German government will not tolerate them. Almanacer (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
So, if I am reading correctly, the Jung quote is in a letter by Ostow to a journal that describes the contents of another letter by Jung. That seems a little iffy to me (definitely a soft source) since letters to journals are not usually peer-reviewed as are articles. They are published like "Letters to the Editor" (actually they are literally Letters to the Editor). I think another source is needed. If the original letter by Jung was published, that should be a snap. If I have time this week, I will sniff around. Antisemitism is an accusation that needs to be really backed up and I am uncomfortable with this one source, especially since it seems to have been largely ignored since 1977 (the impression I am getting). HullIntegrity (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There are other sources such as the following from the co-director of the New York Center for Jungian Studies.[2] HullIntegrity (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting link. Maidenbaum's observation that Jung chose an "inappropriate moment in history to discuss the Jewish psyche" and Jung's own statement of regret at doing so ("I have also written nonsense") correspond, it seems to me, to the point of view of the Ostow letter. Almanacer (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is appropriate to source content of this nature to a letter, regardless of who wrote it. It does not have the same kind of reliability as a published book or article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree as the paragraph is de facto interpretation. Ergo: original research. I think the paragraph should go until a secondary source is established. HullIntegrity\ talk / 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: The Kranefeldt letter is undisputed as source material and is referenced in a number of secondary sources, including this paper by Andrew Samuels who is both a Jungian analyst and a respected academic. If there are no further objections and in the interests of representing both sides of the argument I will restore the content with this reference added. Almanacer (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion - I think some sort of direct quote from the secondary source might mediate the dispute here. HullIntegrity\ talk / 15:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Clarification - The letter is a primary source. You need the ethos of a credentialed academic in a peer-reviewed journal at your back for this type of assertion. Otherwise, it looks like you are interpreting the letter. And if you are, then it is unacceptable (i.e. your credentials do not matter, nor do mine). HullIntegrity\ talk / 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If the letter is indeed used in academic articles and similar publications, then it should not be unduly difficult to obtain such articles and use them as sources, not the letter itself, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Do Not Add @Almanacer: - I would object to adding that information back yourself at this time. Repost here with secondary sources for discussion. HullIntegrity\ talk / 21:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not clear about the grounds for the ongoing objections to the removed content since I have provided a secondary source referencing verbatim the Kranefeldt letter from Jung as an example (a number of others are cited) of, according to Samuels, "the kind of antisemitism we are concerned with" in Jung's thought during the 1930s. The article appears on the University of London, Institute of Historical Research website and was also published in the Jewish Quarterly (Spring 1994). Almanacer (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New Wording/citation I appreciate the content is controversial but it represents a significant point of view in the literature which should be represented in an article which already has plenty of material challenging the charge of anti-semitism. The citation to the Ostow letter is now replaced by the Samuels article ( he is BTW Professor of Analytical Psychology at Essex University). Here is my proposed new wording (the quotations from Jung are reproduced by Samuels) :

Evidence contrary to Jung’s denials has been adduced with reference to his writings, correspondence and public utterances of the 1930s. In 1934 Jung published his paper "The State of Psychotherapy Today", advancing the view that “the 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish". The same year, in a letter of 9 February 1934 to Wolfgang Kranefeldt, of the Berlin Institute of Psychotherapy, Jung linked Freud's work to "specific Jewish points of view...that have an essentially corrosive character", suggesting that "the proclamation of this Jewish gospel...would not be agreeable to the government". [1] Almanacer (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Almanacer: - All that is original research by you--which is the one thing absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. You need reputable, preferably peer-reviewed, secondary sources, not primary. Write the article for a journal, publish it, ping me and I will back you up on this (though then you have a Conflict of Interest, which is another matter). You can't "think" or "believe" in an article, you can only report and write really well. It can be annoying to work with, especially is you feel something strongly, but it really is the only non-negotiable rule and it makes Wikipedia what it is. HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Samuels paper was originally published in the Jewish Quarterly (Spring 1994) and republished on the University of London(Institute of Historical Research) website - as a fully reference paper, not a lecture (see the link given above). He is Professor of Analytical Psychology, Essex University. Here for the avoidance of any doubt re WP:NOR is a further rewording:

Evidence contrary to Jung’s denials has been adduced with reference to his writings, correspondence and public utterances of the 1930s. According to the Jungian scholar and analyst Andrew Samuels these can be read as expressions of an anti-semitism “fundamental to the structure of Jung’s thought”. Examples he cites include Jung’s 1934 paper "The State of Psychotherapy Today", advancing the view that “the 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish" and a letter of 9 February 1934 to Wolfgang Kranefeldt, of the Berlin Institute of Psychotherapy, in which Jung links Freud's work to "specific Jewish points of view...that have an essentially corrosive character", suggesting that "the proclamation of this Jewish gospel...would not be agreeable to the government". Almanacer (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am certainly not going to fight this addition to the bitter end as I am neither a historian nor a psychologist; however, as an academic researcher and writer, the paragraph still seems to me to be speculative and, therefore, "interpretive" as written. That such a letter exists seems verifiable, but what the words mean is an act of interpretation, presented out of context, very controversial, and not easily verifiable. HullIntegrity\ talk / 17:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Duplication in lead

Lead sentences from two nearby paragraphs in lead:

  • Jung proposed and developed the concepts of the collective unconscious, archetypes, and extraversion and introversion.
  • Jung created some of the best known psychological concepts, including the archetype, the collective unconscious, the complex, and synchronicity.

— MaxEnt 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed this. Note that synchronicity is not a psychological concept. Wahrmund (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lasting Influence

The idea that Jung is only taught in intro psyc courses has no basis and is completely wrong. I will graduate in May with my MS Clinical Psychology and Jung is very much taught in both senior level undergraduate courses and at the graduate level. One can say he is "in many cases not taught" at these levels but in fact many are the professors that DO teach him at this level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.190.70 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jung's ideas are taught in some disciplines outside Psychology, for example, his ideas are taught in the Religious Studies Department at the University of Lancaster. If this article is to be fully comprehensive, this should get adequate reference in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I put in a few lines on the psychology of religion. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the most annoying lasting influence is on the pronunciation the surname Jung. You don't know how frustrating it can be to have to always tell people that my family doesn't pronounce it as Young, nor are we related to the guy. I think there are becoming more people in the world that pronounce it Jung as in Jungle without the -le. I have nothing against those of German descent that pronounce it that way, in fact as a child I had a friend that had the same full name but pronounced the Jung the German way. Over the phone, fine; I just wish people would use their brains a bit and not assume that a person in front of them whom is clearly Asian pronounces it that way too. </end rant> Skippingrock (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The Pittsburgh Pirates have a non-English-speaking (and presumably non-German-speaking) player from Korea. He just hit his first major league grand slam home run. His name? Jung Ho Kang. Nobody knows how to pronounce it. Lou Sander (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

reincarnation, cryptomnesia

AFAIK, these concepts play an important role in Jung's thinking and work, but neither is even mentioned here. Espoo (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutral language etc

Minor issue here. Previously the article read "In 1944 Jung published Psychology and Alchemy, where he analyzed the alchemical symbols and showed a direct relationship to the psychoanalytical process." An editor changed it to: "In 1944 Jung published Psychology and Alchemy, where he analyzed the alchemical symbols in an attempt to demonstrate a direct relationship to the psychoanalytical process" presumably in opposition to the implied claim that Jung "showed" any such thing. This change seems as problematic as it appears to imply that Jung failed to show this thing. I proposed the change: "In 1944 Jung published Psychology and Alchemy, where he analyzed the alchemical symbols arguing for a direct relationship to the psychoanalytical process" thinking this was more neutral prose which implied neither success or failure. Another editor felt my edit unnecessary and reverted to the "attempt to demonstrate" version which I think is still not particularly neutral.

So now as per WP:BRD, we are discussing. Are there any ideas anyone has on this? Are any of the versions better than the others? More neutral? Can a consensus form? SQGibbon (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was indeed unnecessary. "In an attempt to demonstrate" does not imply that the attempt was unsuccessful. It is entirely neutral language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
When the word "attempt" is used when talking about past events this does carry the implication that there was failure or that at the very least one is uncertain if there was success. Either way we are not in the business in saying that Jung failed in his endeavor nor should we be uncertain of his success. All we should report is that he presented a specific argument and then summarize how reliable sources reacted. SQGibbon (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not carry the implication that there was failure. Attempts can be successful attempts. The current wording is perfectly neutral and I find your reasoning bizarre. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I find your reasoning bizarre. Please stop with the implied personal attack. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere around about that. Disagree if you must but calling my reasoning "bizarre" is an insult as it is akin to questioning my understanding of my native language.
No, it does not carry the implication that there was failure Please stop your selective quoting of what I've said. I also said that "when talking about past events" (a key qualifying statement which you did not address) "or that at the very least one is uncertain if there was success" (the other part of my argument that you conveniently ignored). SQGibbon (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Calling your reasoning bizarre is equivalent to saying that I strongly disagree with you. Aren't I allowed to do that? It has nothing to do with your understanding of any language. Why you would complain about the article using language that leaves it an open question whether Jung's attempt to do something was successful or not is beyond me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Why you would complain about the article using language that leaves it an open question whether Jung's attempt to do something was successful or not is beyond me. Because I'm sure that in Jung's mind (and probably that of others) there was/is no open question of whether he was successful -- he was! I proposed language that did not make any kind of supposition of validity nor did it leave anything open (which implies that Jung et al were wrong in their conclusion that he had proved what he set out to prove!). It stated the one and only fact that we should ever state about the topic in Wikipedia: that Jung argued for a specific position. That's it. We don't say he was correct, we don't say he was wrong, we don't say his position is still an open question, nothing at all like that. He argued for a position and we make no judgements and we do no editorialize explicitly or implicitly. SQGibbon (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
To me your comments simply seem confused. There is nothing non-neutral about the current version and absolutely no reason to change it. The words "in an attempt to demonstrate" convey essentially the same meaning as "arguing for", and they convey it in a clearer and more precise way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand how you don't see that the word "attempt" doesn't carry with it the implication of failure as in a "failed attempt" when discussing past events. "He climbed Mt. Everest in an attempt to be the first Martian to climb the mountain" can reasonably read as he failed at something. Yes, you don't have to interpret the passage under consideration here in that way but that interpretation is reasonable. The "argued for" wording allows for no such possible misreading/misunderstanding.SQGibbon (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It all depends on context. In this context there is nothing implying failure. Ergo, there is no problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It all depends on context. In this context there is nothing implying failure. Ergo, there is no problem. There is a problem since two three editors have already inferred that particular problematic reading whereas it seems highly unlikely that anyone will take the same reading from my proposed change (or the newly introduced alternative "where he analyzed the alchemical symbols and comes to the conclusion that they have a direct relationship to the psychoanalytical process"). Just because you didn't get the same reading as we did does not mean that yours is the only correct reading or the only one that is likely to happen. SQGibbon (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We really need to have clear guidelines and a few examples of NPOV expressions in our MOS for these kinds of situations. It's insane how much time is wasted on countless articles on this and similar issues for which there are simple, well-established solutions used by professional copyeditors. My suggestion ("comes to the conclusion") is one of the standard expressions used when reporting the results of a scientific article in another scientific article or an encyclopedia. Stuff like "in an attempt to" is common in the media but almost never seen in encyclopedias or scientific articles, and then this specific expression most definitely means that the effort remained an attempt and was not successful. The wording "showed" is clearly not neutral either. "Arguing for" is more neutral than "in an attempt to" but not neutral enough. It's simple, just use expressions you would use as a scientist in quoting research results that you don't have reason to consider inaccurate. --Espoo (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea where you get the idea that expressions such as "in an attempt to" are never found in encyclopedias. By all means suggest a different wording if you wish, but there is no issue about the neutrality of the current wording. You and SQGibbon seem to be seeing a problem where none exists. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
They did suggest an alternative "comes to the conclusion" and it's not just the two of us but a third editor as well. Perhaps the norm here is to see a problem with the current wording and you are the one not seeing a problem where one clearly exists. SQGibbon (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
You think you're clever in regularly misquoting people, but it only shows you're in over your head and have nothing to back up your claims. I specifically said that this specific expression is used in scientific articles and encyclopedias but only rarely because it then most definitely means that the effort remained an attempt and was not successful. For example in Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Mendeleyev: "This bold (and ultimately discredited) hypothesis was part of Mendeleyev’s project of extending Newton’s mechanics to chemistry in an attempt to unify the natural sciences." --Espoo (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

For a non native english, "arguing for" is/seem more neutral.--Doltoto (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

'As a university student Jung changed the modernized spelling of his name to the original family form.'

To what does this refer? The article uses only the 'Jung' spelling throughout. Zacwill (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The source has his birth name (christened as) Karl Gustav II Jung, after his grandfather Carl Gustav Jung, a physician and dean at the University of Basel, but with a "modernized" first name spelling with a 'K'. He changed it to a 'C' to show an affinity for his ancestry while attending the same school.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Carl Jung himself said that the concept of (archetype) was not his invention, that among many, Nietzsche used it before him. 67.87.155.224 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

User:Primalchaos recently restored the following passage to the article, after I earlier removed it:

There are writing which indicate a possibly antisemitic attitude, where Jung spoke of Jewish weakness or their collective consciousness being undeveloped compared to German peoples. In 1918, he wrote the Jew "is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below. This chthonic quality is to be found in dangerous concentration in the German peoples.... The Jew has too little of this quality - where has he his own earth underfoot."[2] And spoke of the superior nature of the 'Aryan' consciousness in 1934, saying "the 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish," and "The Jew who is something of a nomad has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development."[3][4] Jung's ideas of consciousness tied with heritage and nationhood were similar to the German ideology of blood and soil, which heavily influenced Nazi philosophy.[5]

Primalchaos, I would strongly urge you to re-read WP:NOR. What you have presented in that passage is your opinion of Jung, based on your interpretation of certain of Jung's writings, eg, "The Role of the Unconscious". That you have a source does not mean that what you added to the article is not original research, since OR includes personal analysis of primary source material. The "possibly" part of that first sentence may have been added in the interests of neutrality, but it frankly only suggests that you aren't sure of yourself. WP:WEASEL is a relevant guideline here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a major structural and logical problem with the treatment of Jung in the section: Germany, 1933-1939 and the immediately following section: Anti-Semitism and Nazism. The first section is factual and is based on From the Life and Work of C.G. Jung by Aniela Jaffé. This is a recognized authority on Jung. However, the following section is based on Avner Falk's compendium on anti-Semitism. This work only has two pages on Jung and unfortunately gets many of its facts wrong. It characterizes the Zentralblatt under Jung as "an Anti-Jewish German Nationalist publication." This is a gross simplification if one just reads the section above. I tried correcting it by restating the material on the Zentralblatt which comes from Jaffé's work and is summarized in the section just above it. Unfortunately, it was removed as "original research." I don't understand how material summarizing a sourced paragraph immediately above this section can be regarded as unsourced. How can we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polambda (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree there are issues with the structuring of the material in the two sections with duplicated material both between sections and, within the last section. The two sections should ideally be merged with both standpoints (Jaffe and Falk) represented. The quotes Falk provides from Jung are from articles he published in the Zentralblatt in 1934 through the characterisation of it is, as you point out misguided. As an interim measure I have removed this content and reorganised the wording in the last section. Almanacer (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this is definitely better. The definitive word on Jung's ambiguous relationship with the Nazis has not yet been written. Aniela Jaffé worked closely with Jung and is somewhat defensive but the material she adduces in quite persuasive. She herself was Jewish. Jaffé describes how, after the war, Jung managed to win over both Rabbi Leo Baeck and Gershom Scholem, who had initially suspected him of Nazi leanings. These were not stupid people and they were well acquainted with what he had done or failed to do during the Nazi period. My own perspective is that Jung was attracted at some level to Nazism, but quickly realized that Hitler was a pathological type. Thereafter, he assumed a role similar to Max Planck, trying to protect his scientific discipline from the inroads of the Nazi fanatics. In doing so, he inevitably compromised himself by his involvement with Nazis such as M.H. Goring, but the uprightness of his intentions are clearly discernible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polambda (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The consensus appears to show that Carl Jung is the common name, and as such this article will not be moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Carl Jung → Carl Gustav Jung – This is a major biographical entry with interwiki links to 70 Wikipedias, almost all of which use Carl Gustav Jung as the main title header. This subject has been raised before (Talk:Carl Jung/Archive 2#Carl Gustav Jung? or #6 above: Carl Gustav Jung vs Carl Jung), but the sole discussion (Talk:Carl Jung/Archive 2#Requested move) concerned the unsuccessful proposal ten years ago [December 2006] to move Carl Jung → C. G. Jung. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Paine  u/c 00:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME in this instance is, plainly, Jung, in the same manner as Copernicus, Mozart, Garibaldi, Lincoln, Balzac, Freud and others whose resounding surnames indicate their unique place in history. However, when their full names are invoked, these should be stated in proper fashion. Franklin D[elano] Roosevelt and John F[itzgerald] Kennedy are not generally referenced as Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. John Stuart Mill would be unrecognizable as John Mill. When Mozart's full name is mentioned, it is not simply Wolfgang Mozart or Amadeus Mozart. Thus, when Jung's name is on the main title header, it should be presented in the standard full fashion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Where's this coming from?? It's just not true In ictu oculi (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
All Wikipedias, for the most part, follow the WP:COMMONNAME guideline, with the "Carl Gustav" stylization indicated to an overwhelming degree. The English Wikipedia is the only major exception. A very small handful (Tagalog Wikipedia, Vietnamese Wikipedia) follow the English Wikipedia's example. As for Google Books, there are, admittedly, two competing forms, with Carl Gustav apparently in the majority, although not overwhelmingly. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Not just in the majority, overwhelmingly: try the "is"/"was" test. In any case doesn't that just admit no case for the move? Are you going to withdraw it? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The only previous related discussion and vote was ten years ago. As a matter of historical record regarding the name form, this nomination and exchange of ideas should run its course. Is English Wikipedia more correct on this matter than nearly all other Wikipedias? Let us invite greater participation per below notices. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
English Wikipedia uses English. The others, with the exception of Simple English Wikipedia, use other languages. Language and culture are inseparable, so it is not surprising that our naming policy and theirs sometimes differ on details such as this. This doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Just different. Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
What I should have spelled out is that German Wikipedia has him as 'Carl Gustav Jung' which is how he styled himself in German. The use of initials is a modern, probably U.S. influenced, usage. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, along with German Wikipedia's main title header, main headers of Wikipedia articles in every European language [including Russian, Turkish, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian, all except English] use the form "Carl Gustav". Also, as far as n-gram results are concerned, here is an expanded version which includes "C.G." and "C. G." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Better n-gram showing, but Gustav seems to be none the better for it. Randy Kryn 19:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Carl Gustav" form presents a more positive appearance when considered on its own. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Just changed my comment to mild neutral, which is where I actually am on this. Any of the three names fits Jung, and there is a case to be made for all three. I like the Gustav inclusion better for historical reasons, but that's a personal view. Jung was quite a guy, I'm glad that he shared the best of what he did with humanity. Randy Kryn 01:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Accept - C. G. Jung lived and worked in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. As a Swiss resident with contacts to knowledgeable persons in the field I know, that, during discussions, Jung is practically always referred to as C. G. Jung. There are other notable persones with the last name Jung. For these reasons, the German WP lists him as Carl Gustav Jung.- BBCLCD (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:In ictu oculi. What other wikis do is pretty much irrelevant. StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
When a subject's heritage originates outside the English-speaking world, it is good practice to consult the Wikipedia in his native language for guidance as to how his name appears there. Moreover, for subjects (Jung, Freud, Beethoven, Dickens, van Gogh, etc) who, in a larger sense, belong to the world, it would also be helpful to consult Wikipedias around the spectrum of world languages for guidance as to naming consensus. The great majority of such names already follow a long-established consensus, but apparently that is not the case with Jung.
Also, some may feel that the English Wikipedia is its own unique entity which does not need to follow the herd of other cultures and languages, but the 295 brother/sister Wikipedias are an inter-wiki-linked community which consults with its various components and works on the basis of consensus.
Finally, are we contending that Carl Jung is a unique English-language form, while Carl Gustav Jung is a "foreign" form used by the great majority of the world's other languages and cultures? In a case such as this, should we not consult Google Books in all of the world's languages, rather than simply confining ourselves to English? While this is the English Wikipedia, Jung became, in his lifetime, a world figure, and remains one in the decades following his death. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no case made, let alone elaborated by the opposers. Jung neither 'belongs' to Wikipedia, nor is he defined by it. The usage in an encyclopaedia - and maybe it is a debate to be had how encyclopaedic Wikipedia sometimes is - is to reflect usage in the field. The field, be it professional editing or analytical psychology, plainly indicates the subject is known as Carl Gustav Jung. I shall not be participating further in this particular discussion. Good luck, --Po Kadzieli (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that even in the field this is true, but that is irrelevant anyway. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. If we were a specialised encyclopedia in the field, this argument might have some merit. But we are not. English Wikipedia caters for all English readers, and our article titles reflect general English usage. Andrewa (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Consensus, if any, is not in evidence as of this writing. There are four "Oppose" votes, three "Support" votes (including that of the nominator) and one "Mild Neutral". This will most likely close as "No consensus", rather than the suggested "WP:SNOW" against, a result which would certainly not indicate a deficiency of "knowledge of nor interest in the policies and guidelines" or a state of incorrectness so severe that it "could not be more wrong". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course it is your right and responsibility to disagree; however, may I offer a gentle reminder that consensus on Wikipedia is much less determined by !vote numbers than by the quality of the rationales that accompany the !votes. Just a thought as I relist to see if more ideas may surface.  Paine  u/c 00:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The presented arguments are, indeed, central. I appreciate the gentle reminder and can only explain that the vote count was submitted as one element in countering the suggestion that the proposed nomination is so obviously violative of Wikipedia guidelines that it could be deemed acceptable solely if WP:ALL RULES ARE IGNORED. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:RM's are not a vote - for one reason because local consensus can occur among those who are attached to one particularly article or project. There is clearly no consensus here to move against the English common name. The argument that usage in English books is wrong and in German "Carl Jung was.." is known as "Carl Gustav Jung war..." has some legs, but it isn't en.Wikipedia's job to lead English usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. To say that the English sources are wrong is advocacy. It may be a commendable thing to want to correct them, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you can appeal to WP:IAR (your link from ALL RULES ARE IGNORED), as I suggested above. We would just need a very strong consensus that the rules are wrong in this case. The affected rules include several core policies. Good luck. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Roman Spinner, before criticising my claim They just seem to think they are correct. They could not be more wrong did you follow the wikilink? It is an important part of the statement. I'm sorry it's such a harsh assessment but I stand by it so far. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Please excuse my ignorance, but what tools do you have for knowing "that in English-language sources 'Carl Jung' is the most common name"? Through statistics, polls, gsearches, the Library of Congress. Google Books, Amazon.com/co.uk/au/nz, infused knowledge, or what else? Furthermore, to which of the many English-speaking countries do you apply these tools? Thanks so much. Mauro Lanari --82.84.33.188 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious from Google Books, isn't it? I see results like Carl Jung: Wounded Healer of the Soul, Carl Jung: Darwin of the Mind, Mythos and Logos in the Thought of Carl Jung, Spiritual Pilgrims: Carl Jung and Teresa of Avila, Religion and the spiritual in Carl Jung, Carl Jung and Alcoholics Anonymous, Carl Jung and Maximus the Confessor on Psychic Development, etc. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
But with the search by author and not by subject, in English-language I count nearly 140 occurrences for Carl Gustav Jung and just 2 for Carl Jung. M.L. --82.84.31.81 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations, this is actually bordering on being relevant evidence supporting the move in terms of WP:AT. Unlike the discussion above, this is real progress.
But I'm afraid what you have done is to look at primary sources. They can be used in some instances, but what we want here is to find (reliable) secondary sources. Or in other words, you are looking at books by Jung, but what we want (and previous searches found) is books about Jung. Andrewa (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course. In effect I've also done the "is/was test" and, to be honest, the number of secondary sources in English-language is higher in favor of Carl Jung (351 vs 218). But, to be honest the same extent, I don't know any way to distinguish reliable secondary sources from unreliable ones. M.L. --82.84.19.201 (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Big topic. Start at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (or WP:RS for short). Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I meant in this case, not in general. How to evaluate all these occurrences (351+218=569)? M.L. --82.84.19.201 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's rarely necessary to look at them all individually. Just the first few is generally sufficient for the pattern to be obvious (aka the chemistry approach). Not to you in this case?
Other than that it's just a matter of hard work. I know of no other shortcut. Interested in your results. You have mine above. Andrewa (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There seems to be a lot of tension in this discussion about providing evidence and then evaluating whether that evidence is acceptable as evidence. My anecdotal opinion is that "Carl Jung" is the common name in English. Ergo, per WP:COMMONNAME, I oppose the move. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think that the discrepancy between primary and secondary sources, i.e. between all the times in which Jung signed in full and the times in which only the English language refers to him by eliminating his middle name, seems to have an encyclopaedic relevance and request an explanation, as well as here are reported the Strachey's errors in translating a set of keywords in Freudian terminology (see also subconscious vs unconscious). Moreover the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia include the template {{Globalize}}, or not? M.L. --82.84.32.126 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not. The template in question links to a WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) which is neither a policy nor a guideline. StAnselm (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This isn't the core of the problem. "Carl Jung" is not the way in which Jung signed himself, and is a way to name him exclusively in English language against the rest of the world. Does anyone know why? Does anyone really think that this information doesn't have any encyclopaedic relevance? Instead I think it should be included in the article, and you should decide if already in the title or in the lead section or wherever you think is the best place. M.L. --82.84.22.252 (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is just about the article title. The lead will have his full name ("Carl Gustav Jung") and I notice is signature ("C. G. Jung") is at the bottom of the infobox. It is possible to include the words "also known as C. G. Jung" in the lead, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no problem. Encyclopedic information belongs in the article. Established English usage belongs in the article title. Advocacy of reforming English usage to conform to that of other languages belongs somewhere I'm sure, but not here at English Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
So you'll have an article with the title inconsistent with its incipit and without a line of explanation. Well done, great job. Mauro Lanari. --82.84.28.243 (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure nobody here wants to write a second-rate encyclopedia, or to upset you. But if you want to get really upset by what you see as inconsistency between the lede (or incipit as you put it), the title and the publishers' whims, see what we've done to Dante! Seriously, if we were to compromise our principles just to avoid upsetting you, I would see that as second-rate. I'm afraid it's not a difficult choice. Best. Andrewa (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The difference is that Dante (as well as all the examples listed in WP:COMMONNAME) is shared worldwide, while Carl Jung is used only in English (and, again, it seems that no one knows why). Anyway, for your fortune I've exhausted ideas, suggestions and objections. Best to you too. M.L. --82.84.27.73 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It's an excellent point about the examples listed at WP:COMMONNAME. I think we should add this to the list of examples there, also pointing out that most other language Wikipedia use a different form of the name, but that English Wikipedia is sticking with the common English name. That is assuming this RM fails, of course. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

1) In contemplating the form of this article's main title header, a number of key considerations should be taken under advisement, primarily guidelines Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Self-identification and the meaning of WP:COMMON NAME. There is no indication of Jung ever referencing himself as simply "Carl Jung". His most frequent signature was CG Jung or C.G. Jung and his pen name was either Carl Gustav Jung or C. G. Jung, never Carl Jung. The Los Angeles organization dedicated to the study and dissemination of Jung's views is named the C. G. Jung Institute of Los Angeles. Quite tellingly, our own Wikisource titles its entry "Author:Carl Gustav Jung".

2) The most frequently mentioned argument is exemplified above by the oppose vote, "Whatever he called himself, whatever he is called in German-speaking countries, these are utterly irrelevant. All that is relevant is that in English-language sources he is commonly known as Carl Jung" or by another such vote, "My anecdotal opinion is that "Carl Jung" is the common name in English. Ergo, per WP:COMMONNAME, I oppose the move." As a first point, as has already been noted in the nomination, Jung's biographical entry appears in 71 Wikipedias.
In addition to the German Wikipedia, his name is rendered as "Carl Gustav Jung" in the main title headers of his entry in French Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, Hungarian Wikipedia, Turkish Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia and all others, except 4, with English Wikipedia being one of the 4.

3) The oppose position appears to be that even if the German-speaking world, along with the rest of the international Wikipedia community, refers to Jung as "Carl Gustav", his WP:COMMON NAME in the English-speaking world is just "Carl", per WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, and that using a main header which indicates a name other than "Carl Jung" would "compromise our principles".
In this case, the English Wikipedia does not necessarily exemplify Thoreau's Civil Disobedience quote that "any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already", since each language puts forth cultural forms in its own manner. Taking into account that various English-language reliable sources indicate both "Carl Jung" and "Carl Gustav Jung", an expansion of such sources may, nevertheless, provide a wider outlook.

4) As submitted during the above discussion, all of the English-language author works indicate "C. G. Jung" or "Carl Gustav Jung", with none showing "Carl Jung". However, when English-language books about Jung are examined, many / majority do indicate "Carl Jung".
In the wider world of the Internet, the English-language results are mixed, with numerous entries for "Carl Jung", "Carl Gustav Jung" and "C. G. Jung".
"Carl Gustav" is indicated in the title of the book-length British biography by Ann Casement, Oxford Index, the Amazon page bearing his name, Goodreads entry, Encyclopedia.com, The Free Dictionary, an entry in The New York Times, website of the International School of Analytical Psychology, website of Sonoma State University, Mythos and Logos lengthy list of writings about Jung, almost all of which refer to "Carl Gustav", Open Culture website, Mysterious Universe, VOPUS.org and even IMDb as well as the Twitter account opened to disseminate his quotations.

5) There are numerous other examples which at least indicate that "Carl Jung" is not predominant in the English-speaking world and that "Carl Gustav Jung" also has a strong acceptance among English speakers. More examples can be added in subsequent replies, but acceptance of the form used by virtually all other Wikipedias does not appear to be violative of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES or any other Wikiprinciple or guideline. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

1) No. The key considerations are what the title should be according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and what will best serve our readers. Not surprisingly, these both lead us to the same conclusion: That the common English name should be used. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
2) Yes, the argument that we should conform to other language Wikipedias has been very forcefully expressed above. This would be a major shift in policy, has no obvious benefit to readers, and again not surprisingly, not a lot of support. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
3) I feel that this misquotes me, but also that it's too vague and waffly for that to matter. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
4) Yes, other names are used elsewhere. This is again not surprising. And various sources and contributors have various opinions as to the best one to use. The best one for English Wikipedia will be decided by policies, benefit to readers, and consensus. All three indicate that the common English name should be used. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
5) No, the evidence presented to date strongly indicates that Carl Jung is the common English name. That being so and in the absence of any good reason not to use it, it would be a breach of policy to move the page. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
A) It does not appear that anyone participating in this discussion has advocated that, in Jung's case, Wikipedia should WP:Ignore all rules or abandon its principles and guidelines, particularly as far as these apply to WP:COMMON NAME. In fact, quite the opposite, adherence to WP:COMMON NAME should, indeed, be our fundamental doctrine. The key disagreement, obviously centers upon the form of such WP:COMMON NAME.
B) Regarding Wikipedias in other languages — while individuals from antiquity, medieval era and various past centuries have been known by different names in various cultures (Copernicus is known as Kopernik in Poland, which claims him as a native), that is not the case with Jung, who lived within recent memory and is referenced by the same "Carl Gustav Jung" form throughout most of the world's languages.
Some names are variously transliterated (the main title header for Tchaikovsky across Wikipedia languages is Czajkowski, Tschaikowski, Ciajkovskij, Tsjaikovski, Csajkovszkij, Chaikovski, Tjajkovskij, Tsjajkovskij, Tšaikovski, Czaikowski, Chaikovsky, Chaykovsky and some 10 others). Again, however, the name "Carl Gustav Jung" always remains the same.
C) The names of most Wikipedia biographical subjects who lived in the modern era have been indicated (in their English Wikipedia articles' main title headers) in the same manner as they referenced themselves, and the majority of Wikipedia name disputes regarding that specific aspect have been initiated by those who insist, either due to linguistic pride, nationalism or other reasons, upon the use of accents and/or diacritics even when the subject does not use them (Talk:Malin Åkerman#Proposed Move (2010) or Monica Puig#Requested move September 12, 2016).
D) In the case of Jung, however, his Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Self-identification is fully on view in the English-speaking world when the hundreds, if not thousands, of editions which present his works translated into English, depict his name on the cover as either "C. G. Jung" or "Carl Gustav Jung", but never as "Carl Jung". That fact alone may be offered as a key factor in determining what represents Jung's WP:COMMON NAME in the English-speaking world.
On the face of it, if "Carl Jung" is the putative English common name, then by what stretch of this common name principle/guideline, would English-language publishers of Jung's translated (into English) works, unvaryingly depict the author's name as "C. G. Jung" or "Carl Gustav Jung", but not as "Carl Jung" on the covers of such books?
E) Ultimately, various WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, as depicted under 4) above, use "Carl Gustav Jung" alongside other reliable sources which use "Carl Jung". Thus "Carl Jung" should be considered a WP:COMMON NAME, rather than the WP:COMMON NAME and no Wikipedia common name principles or guidelines would therefore be violated if we agreed to allow brother/sister Wikipedias in other languages to tip the scales in favor of adopting the "Carl Gustav Jung" form. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
A) Your distinction between the name and its form seems baseless. These differences of form make them different article names, in the context of Wikipedia article name discussions. But agree that nobody has appealed explicitly to WP:IAR. You and I have both referred to it, but that's all.
B) True, but this seems completely and utterly irrelevant, to me. That's unless you are going to appeal to WP:IAR or claim that this shows some reader benefit, or both.
C) also true but irrelevant. No basis in guidelines, no reader benefit.
D) is simply repeating the error of consulting primary, rather than secondary, sources... mixed in this time with yet another appeal to tertiary sources which are not even in English.
E) contains several of the errors addressed above... non-secondary sources, ignoring the guidelines, misuse of Wikipedia technical terms.
The common name is Carl Jung. There is no good reason to depart from it. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
i) Since irrelevance is frequently being mentioned, it should be noted that WP:IAR is, basically, irrelevant to this discussion because no one is advocating that it should play a role. The reason for its continued mention is due to the claim that "Carl Jung" is such an obviously irrefutable WP:COMMON NAME in the English-speaking world that the use of any other main title header (specifically, "Carl Gustav Jung") for Jung's English Wikipedia entry would constitute WP:IGNORING ALL RULES.
ii) The crux of this discussion (and vote) is, in fact, that very question, whether "Carl Jung" or "Carl Gustav Jung" is Jung's COMMON NAME in the English-speaking world. It is a question which has never been tested on English Wikipedia. The sole discussion and vote of any nature, on Jung's talk page, occurred ten years ago, in December 2006, when the proposal to move Carl Jung → C. G. Jung was discussed and voted down, 10 to 3.
iii) However, since the form "C. G. Jung", which was Jung's signature and frequent pen name, is not used as the main title header on any Wikipedia, the current discussion is not repeating many of the previous vote's arguments, but focuses directly on the contention that "Carl Gustav Jung" is, in fact, Jung's common name in English, rather than "Carl Jung".
iv) One line from above, in support of the "Carl Jung" form, may be quoted in its entirety as also representing support for the "Carl Gustav Jung" form, "Yes, other names are used elsewhere. This is again not surprising. And various sources and contributors have various opinions as to the best one to use. The best one for English Wikipedia will be decided by policies, benefit to readers, and consensus. All three indicate that the common English name should be used."
iv) As of this writing, there are 7 "Oppose" votes, 3 "Support" votes (including the nominator's) and one "Mild Neutral". However, per gentle reminder by Paine, above, "that consensus on Wikipedia is much less determined by !vote numbers than by the quality of the rationales that accompany the !votes", this subject is likely to return. Ten years passed since the sole previous vote to revise the main header and another ten years may go by until another vote. It may also happen sooner. WP:Consensus can change and English-language primary sources, which unfailingly indicate "Carl Gustav" [or "C. G."], along with fairly numerous English-language secondary sources which also indicate "Carl Gustav" [or "C. G."], may then be accorded greater weight than those which specify "Carl". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

i) Disagree... I actually think that every statement in this particular paragraph is both false and irrelevant, a rare feat (;->. And still on relevance, one of your wikilinks above is to a proposed but not accepted guideline on LGBT issues.

ii) Agree... we normally call it a !vote, but I think that's what you mean, and it's what you call it later on in the post.

iii) Agree.

iv) My statement was supporting use of the common name whatever that may be. That much is true. To claim that it's supporting the name Carl Gustav Jung is rather a stretch.

v) Agree. But we need to also bear in mind that these fairly numerous English-language secondary sources which also indicate "Carl Gustav" [or "C. G."] are vastly outnumbered by those that just say Carl Jung. And as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can't decide now what a future RM will decide. Andrewa (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carl Jung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Synchronicity is not a "psychological" concept. It is a metaphysical concept.

Genepoz (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Works published in Jung's own lifetime

Quite early on, this article says that many of Jung's works were not published until after Jung's lifetime. This is a little misleading, as the bulk of Jung's works in his Collected Works were published in Jung's own lifetime. Vorbee (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Jung. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material

The recent reverts of this referenced material: He believed it contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women, [6] but these were common in the society of his time.[7] is outrageous vandalism and these referenced edits need to be replaced back into the article...Modernist (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Outrageous vandalism? This is an encyclopedia and references have to support the text. The references do not show that Jung himself "believed it contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women." I have created a new talk section below. Please explain how either of the references show that Jung held that belief rather than reverting my edit without a single explanation nor argument. Wikipedia is an objective encyclopedia, not a guessing-game where people can write anything they please without textual evidence. There are three options to resolve this edit war:

1. Explain how the references prove the claim that Jung believed he held "sometimes patriarchal views of women" or 2. Edit the sentence to show this is not Jung's belief but a journalist's or 3. Delete the sentence, as I did before you kept reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMFante (talk • contribs) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • It sounds as though you object to a few words in the text: He believed – and according to you it should be restated as according to biographers Corbett and Wehr....so reword the text...Modernist (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No... it is not only "He believed" that is at issue, it's the fact that neither reference even mention Jung's mother, let alone her "contribution" to his alleged "patriarchal" views. So the sentence "He believed it contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women" where "it" is the behaviour of his mother, is unsubstantiated on all accounts. Hence the deletion. You added a new reference (#10) that is completely irrelevant to the sentence - it does not mention the mother's contribution nor does it mention Jung's belief of his own views. You've simply searched for a random citation that has the word "patriarchal" in it and slapped it at the end of the sentence in question. How can you reword a sentence that is utterly fictional? It must be deleted, surely. If you have an alternative solution, I'm happy to hear it. CMFante (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante

You haven't responded to anything I've said. Can you point to where in the two references Jung's mother is mentioned as contributing to his alleged patriarchal views? Can you point to where Jung himself claims this? If not, then the sentence I deleted is a) wrong and b) has not been referenced: "He believed it [his mother's behaviour] contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women". So either provide the references or the sentence gets deleted. CMFante (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante

How can I develop consensus if you refuse to reply to any points? You merely stated "We clearly do not agree..." and are being purposely evasive, blunt, and hostile. The only way to come to an agreement is by discussing the issue in a civil manner and by getting to the point. So, I repeat, can you show where in the two references Jung's mother is mentioned as contributing to his alleged patriarchal views? Can you point to where Jung himself claims this? If not, then the sentence I deleted is a) wrong and b) has not been referenced. CMFante (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante

You provided the new and irrelevant reference so I am taking it up with you. This is a Talk page, anyone can join the discussion, including the original editor. Now stop repeatedly evading the discussion and answer the question I have asked multiple times so we can fairly resolve the issue. CMFante (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)CmFante CMFante (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, you have not answered anything - where is Jung's mother mentioned in either reference? She is not, therefore the sentence is unsubstantiated. Editing is not vandalising. Clearly you are unwilling to engage in a constructive discussion, so I have added this to Third Opinion. CMFante (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante

I will also include the full quotation here from Jung's autobiography so people can see just how manipulated the paragraph is on this wiki article:

"The feeling I associated with "woman" was for a long time that of innate unreliability. "Father," on the other hand, meant reliability and powerlessness. That is the handicap I started off with. Later, these early impressions were revised: I have trusted men friends and been disappointed by them, and I have mistrusted women and was not disappointed."

Note that Jung is describing how his father is weak and powerless (not patriarchal), and is also only talking about his childhood. The previous editor mentions the "handicap" comment as if Jung is talking about his mother only, but he's talking about both parents, and the editor also decides to miss out the very next sentence: "Later, these early impressions were revised". So, once again, the claim that "He believed it contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women" is completely fabricated and unevidenced. CMFante (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante

Anti-Semitism

The section on Jung's anti-Semitism really glosses over most of his publications on the matter which comprise close to four decades of openly anti-Semitic vitriol, and even grossly maltranslates the quote from Wotan. The entire essay Wotan is written in obvious rapture preaching Nazist gospel, whereupon this "possession" and "infectedness" is exactly what Jung wants for people for it being so totally "spiritual" and "archteypical", and in the falsely translated quote, he simply warns in one single sentence that people in ectasy, no matter how positive the reason and motivation (which in the case of Nazism he praises to no end throughout the essay), can "slip" ("Rutschen"). This "slip" is maltranslated here as "perdition".

There are entire books and essays written about the issue of Jung's fervent anti-Semitism, and they're not published by some jealous or malevolent contemporaries but often written and published in unbiased hindsight decades after his death, among them being Die Archetypenlehre von C. G. Jung (1972; "C. G. Jung's Theory on Archetypes") by Heinrich Balmer, Die Hiobsbotschaft C. G. Jungs (1993; "C. G. Jung's Unfortunate Gospel") by Renate Höfer, and C. G. Jung und die faschistische "Weltanschauung" (2005; "C. G. Jung and the Fascist "World View"'). Further evidence regarding the issue is plenty (Gesammelte Werke refers to Jung's own Collected Works in German, in their 1971 edition):

  • In a 1910 letter to Freud (published in his collected letters in 1972, vol. 1, pp. 37), Jung told Freud that he found psycho-analysis to be "dead and useless for our Germanic race because Jewry lacks any connection to the living, the community, the spiritual and the mystical, to the deepest driving forces of our race", and that the Jewish religion would be "too artificial, just like your Jewish psycho-analysis".
  • While not giving a specific date (though most likely referring to a date sometime between 1910-1914), German Wikipedia literally quotes Jung as publically accusing Freud of "undermining public morale" due to his "materialist and perverted libidio theory", whereby Jung was using a certain kind of highly charged terminology ("Zersetzung") that was popular among anti-Semites for supposed crimes of Jews both in regards of public morals as well as in the political sphere. Jung would later harken back to this notion in his 1934 lecture Über Komplextheorie, where he said that he had always found the notion of psychological repression and the unconscious to be the only thing worthwhile in Freud while always having been abhorred by the "Jewish" libido theory.
  • In his 1928 book, Instinkt und Unbewusstes (Gesammelte Werke, vol. 8, pp. 151), Jung blamed the Jews for having willfully "alienated" gentiles from their true racial roots and "racial instincts" supposedly manifesting in their "Germanic" collective unconscious.
  • In his 1929 essay, Der Gegensatz Freud und Jung (Gesammelte Werke, vol. 4, pp. 383), he wrote that Jewish sexuality would "naturally" be "perverted" and "unnatural", a perverse substitute for "true religion" which Jews supposedly lack, because of which perversion and lecherousness would supposedly eternally pervade the Jewish soul. Jewish sexuality would by nature be "inferior" and equal "sadism seeking power and domination over others" because Jews supposedly lack religion and spirituality, and their supposedly frustrated need for those would result in this "perverted, sadistic sexuality" supposedly typical of Jews that they can't get enough of.
  • In a June 1933 radio interview in Switzerland (fully published in print by Tilmann Evers, Mythos und Emanzipation, in 1987), Jung publically called for people in Germany, Austria, and German-speaking Switzerland to support Nazism for "fighting degenerate Jewish intellectualism", a fight which Jung in this interview said he himself had been fighting for years at that point, praised the Nazi Party's "healthy notion of strong leadership", and he viciously attacked Freud for his "individualistic Jewish nonsense" that was opposed to the "healthy national unity" of Nazism. Only his Jungian psychology would be "Germanic" enough to raise "loyal Germanic leaders", while he called democracy, individual freedom, and universal human rights "unnatural", "un-Germanic", and "an anarchic threat to social order". Democracy would get nothing done, while the great thing about Nazism would be that it introduced "noble leadership" and "necessary faith in blood and race".
  • When following the Nazi rise to power Freud came under increasing public attack by anti-Semites in all German-speaking countries, Jung responded in late 1933 to these attacks, literally and affirmatively quoting them, with a programmatical editorial (Geleitwort, published in Gesammelte Werke, vol. 10, pp. 381) saying that the newly-formed, openly pro-Nazi Allgemeine ärztliche Gesellschaft für Psychotherapie (General German Medical Association for Psycho-Therapy), headquartered in Zurich and presided over by Jung himself, would "no longer gloss over" "the vast differences between the Aryan and the Jewish mind" and that it would be one of the key aims of the organization to make these differences publically known.
  • When a February 1934 article in Neue Zürcher Zeitung publically critizized Jung's anti-Semitic remarks and behavior, Jung responded in next week's issue (published as Zeitgenössisches in Gesammelte Werke, vol. 10, pp. 583) that "the Jewish problem" would be real and "a festering wound", while both the economic hardships of the times as well as the dire public need for rigid hierarchies and strong leadership demanded by his psychology would make him an avid supporter of Nazism. He blamed anti-Semitism upon the Jews themselves because of their supposedly on-going attempts at undermining public order with ideas of equality and human rights which would "naturally" lead to rightful hatred against them. (Jung would defend his conviction that the Jews only had themselves to blame for anti-Semitism in his private letters, see for instance vol. 1 of his published letters, pp. 209 and pp. 213).
  • In his 1934 essay, Zur gegenwärtigen Lage der Psychotherapie (Gesammelte Werke, vol. 10, pp. 181), Jung literally raved about the "anti-Jewry" and "the living, positive religion" of Nazism. According to him, Jews would be incapable of culture, creativity, and national unity, because "all their instincts and talents" would be "only fit to leech off of civilized host nations". According to Jung, "Freud had no idea whatsoever of the Germanic soul", and he called it a "grave mistake" to apply Freud's "Jewish categories" to Germanic patients. He expressed indignity that "Freud and Jews like him" "didn't even learn" from Nazism. He accused Freud of "perverted and fanatical overemphasis on sexuality", which would be "typical" of the "Jewish role in medicine", and he equalled this "Jewish role" with perverted, community-endangering selfishness. He even went so far as to call Freud's psycho-analysis a "Jewish weapon" supposedly meant "to paralyze their Aryan enemies for good".
  • In a 1934 letter to Wolfgang Kranefeldt (quoted in Ronald W. Clarke, Freud: The Man and The Cause, p. 555 of the German edition), Jung called for a public ban of Freud's psycho-analysis because of its supposedly "undermining/degenerating/corrupting [zersetzende] Jewish tenets".
  • In his 1934 essay, Vom Werden der Persönlichkeit (Gesammelte Werke, vol. 17, pp. 191), he boasted in favor of Fascist authoritarianism that his psychology would raise people as "true National Socialists" who would then truthfully "individuate" the tenets and values of Nazism. Here he defined his "individuation" as the direct opposite of individuality and individual freedom, since "individuation" according to him means to individually accept and enforce the traditional values of your community, while individuality, on the other hand, would be a form of "maladapted weakness".
  • After the mid-1930s, Jung's anti-Semitic public output slowed down while he never took any of it back in public, whereas his obsession slowly shifted to one with thinly veiled "Judeo-Bolshevism", its atheism (remember how he used to accuse the Jews of lacking any true religion), and of the "poor, white Slavic scum" that he associated with it, while remaining convinced of the sacred historical Germanic mission to smash all that. According to Jung's biographer Heinrich Balmer (Die Archetypenlehre von C.G. Jung, p. 142), in 1939 he said that "the spirit of Aryan Germanics", which he championed, called for the use of "force and steel" in military battle, and he called Hitler an "infallible" "seer" invested with "magical powers" who could do no wrong. Quoting Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlighenment, Heinz Gess (see his aforementioned essay above) interpretes this manifest shift on behalf of Jung's from the mid-1930s onwards as "changing from one plank to another while firmly remaining fully on-board on the overall plattform of Fascism".
  • In his 1945 essay, Nach der Katastrophe (Gesammelte Werke, vol. 10, pp. 219), Jung ridiculed the idea of universal, inalienable human rights and claimed they would quickly and inevitably lead to "degeneracy".
  • In his 1945 book, Die Psychotherapie in der Gegenwart (vol. 1, pp. 57), Jung still maintained that Nazism had rightfully given people strong leadership and rigid hierarchical order in accordance with Jungian psychology.
  • In his 1946 essay Der Kampf mit dem Schatten (Gesammelte Werke, vol 10, pp. 245), he still maintained that the Nazi Gleichschaltung of political and social life in 1933 was fully in accordance with his own aims in trying to "gain access to my own Germanic soul", and that Nazism had thereby removed all obstacles that kept people from "becoming one with their souls" as they should be. Even in this essay in 1946, Jung still maintained that Nazism had been absolutely necessary and worthwhile in its time, but towards the end it had failed to listen to his theory of archetypes and thus had fallen into chaos.

--2003:71:4F05:5033:A4A3:3953:1B8:CA1 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

2003:71:4F05:5033:A4A3:3953:1B8:CA1, I haven't checked it myself, but it sounds like you've found some excellent material. Would you like to add a new section to the article, "Antisemitism", that summarizes the main facts in the secondary sources you mentioned, with references? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an actual bibliography of Jung's published works?

Great detail is gone into in dissecting and even criticizing the man, how about letting his works have a bit of attention?--APDEF (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

APDEF, currently there is a section Carl_Jung#Bibliography, which contains only a link to a chronological list of Jung's works at Carl Jung publications. Both could be improved. If you'd like to work on them, please don't hold back. If you're looking for a model to start from, the one on Sigmund Freud's page might serve well. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"He believed it [his mother's unreliability] contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women"

Neither of the provided references show that Jung himself believed his views were patriarchal, nor that his unreliable mother contributed to the alleged belief - in fact, neither reference even mentions the mother! How can two references be acceptable when they don't mention Jung's mother and are supposed to be supporting a sentence about Jung's mother's effect on Jung? The first reference by Corbett states:

"his sometimes patriarchal views of women have caused some to distance themselves"[8]

That is Corbett's belief, not Jung's. The wiki editor has taken "sometimes patriarchal views" and added it to the sentence ""He believed it contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women" without any textual support.

The second reference by Wehr also does not show that Jung believed his own views to be patriarchal. In fact, it says the opposite:

"Without a recognition of patriarchy's role in creating this pathology, however, Jung's diagnosis lacks a dimension..."[9]

If you're going to claim that a subject holds a certain belief, the reference has to show the subject stating that belief - not a journalist's belief, not a scholar's belief, but Jung's belief - this can be a primary source from Jung himself or a secondary source that points to where Jung himself states the belief. CMFante (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante

  • It sounds as though you object to a few words in the text: He believed – and according to you it should be restated as according to biographers Corbett and Wehr....so reword the text...Modernist (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
CMFante and Modernist, I checked both references, Corbett and Wehr. Neither supports the claim that Jung believed that his mother's unreliability contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women. Corbett says that Jung's "sometimes patriarchal views of women" have led some Jungians to think of Jung as less than a sage. Wehr opines that Jung was limited in his ability to offer constructive advice by his lack of recognition of patriarchal society's role in creating "feminine indefiniteness"—somewhat contradicting the sentence in question. The references aren't about Jung's mother or her influence on him. Since the sentence in question occurs in the section on Jung's early childhood, I recommend removing it completely. At best, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. Perhaps the topic could be covered from scratch in a new section that would survey scholarly criticism of Jung. Wehr might be a good source for that. Corbett probably wouldn't be a good source for a cleaned-up version of the claim in question, since she makes it only tangentially in an article mainly about the Red Book. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that excellent summary, Ben Kovitz. Before removal of the sentence I will wait one week from your comment as per WP:DISCUSSFAIL to ensure Modernist has seen your Third Opinion. It's also worth stating the following:
•"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue" - As of yet no argument in support of the unsubstantiated sentence has been given, so the issue here concerns both quality and quantity.
•"Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." - If anyone objects to the recommendation of removal then please provide a high quality argument against the reasons for removal outlined above. The two main points are: 1) the references are irrelevant to the sentence - neither mention Jung's mother while the sentence directly concerns the mother's influence on Jung and neither mention Jung's own belief while the sentence directly concerns Jung's own belief; and 2) the sentence occurs in the section on Jung's early childhood, specifically his childhood relationship with his unreliable mother, and not a section on Jungian criticism, which makes removal the still clearer solution. If it occurred in the latter, the sentence could be removed but replaced with a new line of scholarly argument on Jung's views on women. But in the former, such topics are irrelevant.
•"The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." - Consensus is not impeded by objections that simply state "I disagree" - this is stonewalling and a low quality argument. All claims must have textual support. CMFante (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante
It looks like this has been given a third opinion already, but I agree that the sentence "He believed it contributed to his sometimes patriarchal views of women, [10] but these were common in the society of his time.[11]" is unsupported and needs to be removed.Basilosauridae (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Basilosauridae for the Fourth Opinion. I have given @Modernist almost two weeks to respond as per WP:DISCUSSFAIL which recommends just one, but he or she has not done so. I have now deleted the sentence as consensus has been achieved via assumption due to no objections as per WP:CONS. Thanks again for the opinions. CMFante (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)CMFante
  1. ^ “Jung And Antisemitism” by Andrew Samuels (1997), Institute of Historical Research, University of London e-seminar, p. 1.
  2. ^ "The Role of the Unconscious", vol. 10 (1918).
  3. ^ C.G. Jung, "The State of Psychotherapy Today", Collected Works (Routledge), vol. so 1934)
  4. ^ http://www.history.ac.uk/resources/e-seminars/samuels-paper
  5. ^ Gods and Beasts, Nazis and the Occult, by Dusty Sklar. New York, Dorset Press, 1977
  6. ^ Jung and Feminism, Demaris S. Wehr
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Corbett was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Corbett, Sara (16 September 2009). "The Holy Grail of the Unconscious". The New York Times.
  9. ^ Jung and Feminism, Demaris S. Wehr

Original wish was to study archeology

This article mentions that Jung began studying medicine at the University of Basel, but does not point out that his original wish was to study archeology, but his parents could not afford to send him further afield than Basel and Basel did not teach archeology. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert and a question about it

@User:Mikeblas I did mess that up but I have a question about it. It should be a reference to the same work but the first one ought to page 6 and the second one correctly referred to page 7. Is there a way we prefer same references with different page numbers on this page because I've seen it done a couple of different ways and I think that the citations should be pretty specific as to where the material is gleaned from. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 

: For reference here is  the diff  --  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Jung&type=revision&diff=854038105&oldid=854031055  Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Jung/Archive_3&oldid=1241394305"