Talk:Carl Jung

Influences

He influenced Christopher Booker 193.1.86.99 (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Add to Infobox if you can support it. Errantius (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Booker

The Christopher Booker citation has been added to the main text. It should be in the references. 93.107.174.31 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was not the correct way to cite a source. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and examine some existing Wikipedia articles to see how other editors have cited sources.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reidster12. Peer reviewers: Jjami70.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Birth Name

Given that there is reference to his grandfather Karl and this guy is Carl, it is strange that in the righthand bio his name is
birth_name = Karl Gustav Jung
So is he Carl or Karl? (I suspect Carl based on a quick Google search, but that's not authoritative enough for me to just change it. 47.186.47.121 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a biography of Jung in which it is said he was originally called Karl. I can supply the details when I have consulted this text. YTKJ (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Biographies

There have been numerous biographies of Jung, quite apart from his autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections. It would be good if the "Further Reading" section had a sub-section which listed some of these biographies. YTKJ (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Camille Paglia as a follower?

Paglia has mentioned Jung many times in her work and declared herself a subscriber to his theory of synchronicity in her work Sexual Personae (1990). Wouldn't it be worth mentioning her in the Jung template as a follower or inspiration? Ashton 29 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Behaviour, Ethics and Reciprocity

C G Jung is credited with developing the psychological theory that what one does to others, is also what one does (unknowingly) to oneself. This may be extended and understood in all areas of human behaviour.JohnEC Jr (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Family

Is more than something to be said about his sons and daughters and their lives, mission and legacy?JohnEC Jr (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Psychoanalyst" is a wrong descripion

Almanacer, the first source I've used ([1]) states: "Between the years 1907 and 1912, when Jung was a psycho-analyst". He abandoned that technique after that, and the most neutral term to describe most of his life's practice is "psychotherapist". Also, quoting the second source ([2]): "Freud (1914/1957a) asserted bluntly, psycho-analysis is my creation"; "He emphatically made the point that Adler and Jung should stop using the term. And, indeed, they did."; and: "If Adler’s response to Freud’s declaration of ownership was defiant, he nevertheless agreed to give up the term psychoanalysis. Jung, by contrast, at first entirely withdrew from organizational life. He resigned all institutional positions after resigning as president of the IPA, including his university professorship. He also abandoned the Zurich Psychoanalytic Society and only gradually found a way back into organizational life as an “analytical psychologist.”. Their respective pages are cited in the note. As it is, it seems you didn't even read the sources. You are the one allowing historical inaccuracy here if you think that "psychoanalyst" is the best term for describing Jung's profession! I'm in close contact to the field of research of both psychoanalysis and analytical psychology (and history of psychology in general). Bafuncius (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you think the word "psychotherapist" is anachronical, search also in the first source the terms "psychotherapy" and "psychotherapist": they were already the most general terms even during Jung's time. Bafuncius (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

My contention here is not that, as you put it, "psychoanalyst" is the best term for describing Jung's profession and I accept that after breaking with Freud Jung ceased to describe himself as a psychoanalyst. I am arguing that since the article references Jung’s time as a psychoanalyst – as does the first source you cite – it is appropriate to have this in the lead where it is no more definitive of his career than the mention of him as a psychiatrist is or, to take a similar example, is mentioning in the lead on Freud that he was a neurologist. I added clarifying wording to indicate the appellation was historic in its application. I agree that further detail and clarification are needed in the article on the break with Freud but would prefer it to be in the body of the article rather than in the form of a note (unusual for substantive content) and I will propose amendments accordingly in due course.

My reference to historical inaccuracy is to the account of Jung resigning from the Zurich Society. The standard accounts are that the Zurich Society disassociated itself from the IPA after Jung resigned the presidency (Jones Vol. II, p. 170, Clark pp. 335-36). They make no reference to Jung resigning from it. Almanacer (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining now, Almanacer. Indeed, consulting the sources, now I understand that the affirmation about the Zurich Society is inaccurate, and it can be properly removed: after the Zurich Group split, it was renamed "Association for Analytical Psychology", and Jung didn't abandon it. But the main question still remains: according to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:ROLEBIO, we should prioritize the most noteworthy positions and roles. This involves proportion: the activity that characterizes Jung's fame and better represents his whole life was psychotherapy in general; his role as a psychoanalyst was "incidental" and is a subcategory of "psychotherapy", it should not appear first among the descriptive terms, as if representing the whole of his main activities and fame. While he was a psychoanalyst for 6 years, he went on to become a psychotherapist of his own for more than 40 years. Indeed, "neurologist" and "psychiatrist" are also "integral to the person's notability" (in the case, Freud's and Jung's); but psychoanalysis was secondary to Jung, when considering that the proportion of his notability was mainly derived from his independent trend and works of psychotherapy. I do not contend that there should appear somewhere in the lead section an affirmation that Jung was psychoanalyst for a limited period of time; but the most neutral and encompassing term that agrees with the criterion "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." and that should appear first is "psychoterapist". Bafuncius (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed some of the relevant sources and find that in significant reference works psychology is the favoured description for the articles on Jung eg. Britannica, Oxford Companion to the Mind, Fontana Biographical Companion to Modern Thought, the latter written by Gerald Adler a notable Jungian scholar. So I have added ‘psychologist’ into the lead sentence (it’s already in the infobox). Important because it encompasses his theoretical work in a way ‘psychotherapist’ does not. I accept that ‘psychoanalyst’ could be seen as misleading, notwithstanding my clarifying additions. I’ve added a new short sentence consistent with the text in the article and amended the note as per your remarks. Almanacer (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Almanacer! The way you wrote is excellent now. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Thanks for posting here. Almanacer (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Legacy (last paragraph)

The last paragraph of the "legacy" topic (which makes up about 1/3 of all the words in said topic), to me reads as if it's trying to imply that Jung was actually correct all along, and the scientific community just wasn't ready for his theories yet. While I don't want to neglect the contributions that Jung did make to the field of psychology, and appreciate views challenging the status quo, I don't feel like this much attention or weight should be attributed to this book. As of yet, it has no citations (as found on researchgate.net) and I cannot find it on Scopus, and its author has a h-index of 3. Neither is a reason to dismiss the findings, but it is a reason to not (yet) embrace them as facts, and especially not to treat it as the new status-quo or zeitgeist in psychology.

Personally I believe this paragraph might best be removed. At the least, how important this book and its findings are presented as should be toned back, presented as the fringe science that it currently is.

Before making these edits, I would like to know the opinions of others regarding this matter, in part because I am not an expert in the field, in part because I'm not sure how to handle this in regards to "Wikipedia etiquette". JHofma (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)