Talk:Carl Jung/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Personally painful"

The lede mention that the schism with Freud was "personally painful". The article makes it clear that it was personally painful for Jung, but the article is not clear on whether or not it was so for Freud (though it makes clear that Freud was fond one Jung before the schism). Should the lede read something like the schism was "personally painful for Jung"? Attic Salt (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added "for Jung" to "personally painful". I think this is acceptable. Attic Salt (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

House at Bollingen

This article mentions that Jung was a builder in the fifth paragraph - here, it could mention that he built a house at Bollingen. Vorbee (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Which language did Carl Jung grow up with?

Ass Switzerland is a trilingual (quadrilingual, with Romansch?) country, I think it might be interesting to know which language he grew up with, wouldn't it? I didn't see any mention of this in the article.

Xfbs (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Xfbs: German. It's not explicitly stated but it is reasonably implied considering his German ancestry is discussed. If you can find a source explicitly stating it, adding it may help others out. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Astrologer

Jung is categorized in Category:Swiss astrologers. But I don't think the sentence

"much of his life's work was spent exploring related areas such as physics, vitalism, Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology"

is enough to justify that. Any thoughts? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Based on what I know about him there is actually a halfway decent argument to be made that he was into astrology and likely believed it. But I've never seen anything reliable that calls him an astrologer. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to be an archaeologist

This article should point out that Carl Gustav Jung initially wanted to be an archaeologist, but his family could not afford to send him further than his native Basel and at the University of Basel, they did not teach archaeology. Therefore, Jung studied medicine instead. Vorbee (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) All right - as no one seems to have altered this article, I have put this information in in the section "University studies and early career". Please let me know if there are any problems with the way I have inserted this information. Vorbee (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Section on Donald Winnicott

Po Mieczu is edit warring to try to add a section to the article titled, "Donald Winnicott on Jung". The article does not need a section about Donald Winnicott's opinions about Jung and his work. As I said when I first removed that section, Jung is a famous figure whose work has attracted comment from many different people. There is nothing whatever about Donald Winnicott that justifies devoting an entire section of the article to his opinions about its subject. Objectively speaking, Freud is far more important and more influential than Donald Winnicott, but there is no section of the article titled, "Sigmund Freud on Jung" - a section devoted to the opinions of the much less influential Winnicott is utterly disproportional. Po Mieczu, if the material you want to add merits inclusion in the article at all, then please place it somewhere in an existing section, thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I do apologize for the harsh language I used here (one becomes irritated at times) but I otherwise stand by the revert. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

police under music?

The Police rather pervasively referenced Jung. I was surprised to see no mention under Music, although admittedly I don't know enough about the subject to go adding it. Gjxj (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

More attention to collective unconscious needed

This article could do with more attention to the collective unconscious. The section on "Thought" has a number of sub-headings, but does not have a sub-heading entitled "Collective unconscious". The collective unconscious is described in this section in the sub-section entitled "key concepts", but only briefly, and examples of archetypes of the collective unconscious are not given. Vorbee (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The article now has a subsection under Thought for "Collective unconscious and archetype". I saw your mention here on the talk page and was reading CW9.1 at this time so put in a bit of effort. Hope the citations and elaborations sound good to people. Tomacpace (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort on the subsection. Unfortunately, it has needed much more effort to trim it as it was largely not encyclopaedic in style, inaccurate in substance and lacked in line links to other relevant articles and still lacks in line references. It also unbalanced the content and style of the whole section. Please bear these aspects in mind when you do future edits. Some editors would simply have reverted your entire contribution for the reasons outlined.--Po Mieczu (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am disappointed in the singular vision edit approach that you have demonstrated. My particular critique against your revisions is the preference to reduction. I have not yet audited every word of your edits, however, as I wanted to return to the talk page here to apply a new section related to over-all quality of the page. I note your reply here. "Inaccurate in substance" doesn't fit, regarding lack of references, there were plenty enough (in my humble opinion). Everything I wrote was substantiated, I would propose your criticisms are unmerited. If another editor had reverted, I would have undone that reversion, due to lack of merit. The quality of the section was lacking and I improved it. Your critical and reduction/reversion edits come many weeks later after my contribution; after several months of unanswered presence of this question on the collective unconscious here. Tomacpace (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

updated the bit above; I'm requesting some good reason for the claims you make (ie, 'Unfortunately, it has needed much more effort', 'it was largely not encyclopaedic in style', 'still lacks in line references'), as they seem lacking merit; I will continue to contribute to the article according to previous schedule and interests.Tomacpace (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Section on paranormal beliefs

The second paragraph in the sub-section entitled "Paranormal beliefs" has poor sentence structure. It says "What he termed an acausal connecting principle" as if this is a complete sentence, which it is not. Vorbee (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I improved it a tiny bit, but could still benefit from further work. See revision 1005362152 Tomacpace (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My minor improvement was undone without any justification or alternative improvement. The changes I made from 8 February are being restored, with insignificant update, and any further improvements are welcome. Tomacpace (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Carl Jung referred in Soul (2020 film)

Please mention that Carl Jung referred in Soul (2020 film) Source Rizosome (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is fun to see. I added a different reference; the entry is now added in Theatre, film and television.Tomacpace (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting find. Tomacpace How is there mention of Jung in the film Soul?

Scanning "one-tenth of a millimeter at a time"

I don't really know how the scan was conducted, but think this description is overly dramatic and not helpful. (Aside: I read the original NYT article on the subject, hoping to find more information there--the same phrase is used there.)

Presumably the reference is to one of two things:

• (most likely) to scanning one page at a time, with each page maybe being approximately one-tenth of a millimeter thick
• (unlikely, imho), maybe the scanner is a progressive line scanner (not sure of the right description) that scans 10,200 pixels per line, and scans a new line every one-tenth of a millimeter. If it is, it is unlikely to have required the operators to do anything "painstaking" like manually advance the line scanner one-tenth of a millimeter between line scans, it is more likely the scanner automatically advanced down the page.

The phrase is not informative, and an effort should be made in an encyclopedia to provide a more accurate, informative, and simple description of the scanning process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhkramer (talk • contribs) 19:04, 07 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality improvement in general objectives for bio page

I have a lot of thoughts with regard to this page's quality, and am interested in contributing more. There are plenty of examples of great edits (both quality and volume), good-faith short edits, and reversions, and poor-quality updates, in the edit history. The concern I have is the distribution of content across the particular related pages and the value of inclusion of summary content on Jung's bio page here. I will add more to this talk page, following my previous minor additions in the talk here. But need to start this volley. Tomacpace (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A first example, which is also the trigger for creating this section (albeit a minor edit). "Childhood" contained a sentence, itself containing "..born in Kesswil, in the Swiss canton of Thurgau, on 26 July 1875 as the second and first surviving son, following two stillbirths, of Paul Achilles Jung (1842–1896) and Emilie Preiswerk (1848–1923)." The two stillbirths are not cited after the comma; but the phrase and the previous phrase clash in phrasing. I can go into longer analysis of this particular bit, bit suffice that I deleted "following two stillbirths". This was reverted (maybe fair) but the reason and the content of the reversion is unsubstantial; rather than undo, it would be better to reword the sentence. The particular editor who reverted has appeared keen on auditing and overhauling my own particular writing (again maybe fair, but maybe not, being explicitly ambivalent, leaving my specific judgement out of this comment), and yet the reversion in this case did not receive any such treatment for sake of quality to general reader.

I am in a focussed study on the nature of Good articles here on Wikipedia; so it behooves me to push for such a vision as "quality improvement", rather than mere word-publishing.Tomacpace (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Key Thoughts section was repositioned previously in a way that did not make sense; looked like half an edit, so the benefit of a previous edit (as far as I can see) was retained while moving the bulk of bullet points back into Key Thoughts section. Removed Ego bullet point. Conceptually: some are archetypes, and archetype is within collective unconscious, some nesting, hierarchy of relationship so in a single list, alphabetizing seems best, also update the section description to be open-ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomacpace (talk • contribs) 06:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A review of Good articles - Social sciences, society, EDUCATION (emphasis added) and linked shows typical depth of Table of Contents as being almost universally 3. It looks a bit tidier, the horizontal stretch and vertical reach of the Contents box. I like it both ways but trying to key in on Good Article trends. Likewise, a common pattern is more regular images to break the walls of text up. So, the image of C. G. Jung Institute, Küsnacht, and childhood home were juggled.Tomacpace (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Introduction Revisions

The introductory remarks do an adequate job, however, perhaps it fails to capture the essence of the article. For example, it says “Jung's work has been influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, philosophy and religious studies.” This does introduce several of the fields in which his work has been influential however, it fails to mention, as inconsequential as it may seem, psychology as a separate entity from psychiatry. They both are interrelated however, his works are read and used in both fields. Should there be a revision made to include this distinctive detail? Andrew H. Woltjen (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)A. Woltjen

    I've proceeded with the small edit. It now reads: Jung's work has been influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, 
    philosophy,psychology and religious studies.
    I've continued the sentence structure and left psychiatry as the most important mentioned item in the list. Prior to the edit an oxford comma was left out, I've 
    also left it out due to APA's view of it's inclusion.  Andrew H. Woltjen (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC) A. Woltjen