Talk:Jungian interpretation of religion

Article requested for deletion
I am the original creator of this article. I pasted together an inadequate starter article, which I should have placed on a USER: page. I am unable to provide the time to develop the article to something that belongs in an encyclopedia. The article now consists only of duplicate text from other Wikipedia articles on Jungian psychology. Other writers have kindly changed spelling, but made no substantive additions or corrections to the article. Since this article concerns an inflamatory subject (psychological interpretation of religious experience) which many might find demeaning, it requrires a careful treatement. Because it was copied from other Wikipedia articles, the text is redundant, so Wiki looses nothing from removing it. Please delete; Tom Lougheed 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article retraction
I originally created this page, intending to quickly combine sections of existing articles with some excerpts from Jung's writings. I posted an incomplete hack job and did not come back to finish it. That was more than a year ago. So now I've deleted the incomplete and unsatisfactory article. Tom Lougheed 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can only do that if no one else has worked on the article, which they have. It you think it should be deleted, you need to follow WP deletion processes. See WP:AFD. Other editors may still improve the article. GlassFET 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Others' work on this article only constitutes spelling improvements and adding refs. Please delete. Tom Lougheed 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Major Update
Please look at User:Tedlau/Jungian interpretation of religion —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm making the change now.--Tedlau (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Needed: Jungian Interpretation of Eastern Religions
If you have subject matter expertise, please consider summarizing Jung's perspectives as published in the books noted in the Section. --Tedlau (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverse original research claim
Hello, ⁣

I have added literature about Jungian interpretation of Eastern Religion and have received a tag of original research. I have only used information from Jungs essays and have not done any original research myself.

Could someone please explain to me how I can reverse this tag?

VarahaDas (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "I have only used information from Jungs essays" - that's the problem. You elaborate on and make conclusions based on a primary source. You need secondary sources to support those elaborations and conclusions. Skyerise (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you are referring to the primary source tag, no? I will try to find secondary sources to support the article. But there is a difference to original research for everything I have written on is in his essays. So how can I reverse this tag? VarahaDas (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, not having secondary sources is what makes it OR - does Jung really say the things about Advaita Vedanta that you claim? or have you just inserted that material so you can promote it and link to the article? Skyerise (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He does not mention the term Advaita Vedanta but he speaks about Ramana Maharshi and his teachings in this essay and he is a teacher of the Advaita Vedanta school. Therefore I added it there.
 * As I am not following a Advaita Vedanta school, there is nothing for me to promote here :) VarahaDas (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you are engaging in synthesis which is a form of original research. If you are citing primary works, you cannot add things that are not in those works. Skyerise (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * okay, thank you for your help.
 * If I take out the vedanta term, does that suffice to remove the tag of original research, or will it stay until I add secondary sources? VarahaDas (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't worry about tags: they are not directed at you, but rather to help all editors improve the article. Skyerise (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks VarahaDas (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)