Talk:God complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion recently, with consensus being to keep. The archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/God complex -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] About the first external link

The link to the McLemee.com domain seems like a strange site to link to. It doesn't really describe Jung as a person with God complex as much as it just talks about how overtly obsessed he was with New Age spiritual and off-the-wall religious beliefs.

[edit] Weasel Words, Unsourced Info, Oh My!!

From the article: Some believe that 'god complexes' are "particularly common in arrogant, highly educated, worldly, or powerful people." --Whoops--forgot to sign in!! FruitMart07 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yepp, if that was the formulation, then it was Weasely and not NPOV. But the article I read now is pretty good! The article is about the term "god complex", it reflects on its validity and usage. A few more citations might be needed, but I think it's time to remove the neutrality tagging (?). I think you editors have made a very good job. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not the neutrality of the article, it is that almost nothing in the article is actually true; it is very badly written; it is not formatted properly; etc. Are "authoritarian impulses and narcissism the same thing? Not according to psychology or psychoanalysis.. Are these then the same as a "God Complex"? How could they be? What YEAR was that Richter book published that assumes that women and minorities cannot have "God Complexes"? Where is the foil to Richter's argument? Why is the ISBN information just stuck in the middle of the article and not formatted as a reference or in a Bibliography section? Is that the only "scholarly research" in the article? The whole thing is supposed to be composed of "scholarly research" not just one section. What kind of title is that for a section?! "Modernity" is not the same thing as "Modern Times". The Enlightenment might have led, in part, to the Reign of Terror, but not because all the French people had "God Complexes"! The "Reign of Terror" did not "Afflict all of Europe." "Some people" and "American grassroots political movement websites" are not adequate sources to base an analysis of the causes of the French Revolution on. Why do “modern times” need a "rationale defense from a mainstream [German] philosopher" (in German) in an article about the God Complex? Why is, again, the reference to his book just stuck in the middle of the page and not in a reference section? Then: Poor Napoleon. He is at the mercy here of "the opinion of some" who "retroactively claimed [a] god complex [sic] for him”. In fact, we learn that this "may have been in some opinions the catalyst for the twenty years of war that ensued." So is it all Napoleon's fault? No, because in the very next sentence we are told that is was the "collective god complex." You will then notice that the last sentence of this section and that of the last (modernity) are the same sentence. This is bad undergraduate writing and sourcing of references. The French Revolution comes off as a bad thing, not as though it brought people liberty, the right to divorce, freedom from religion, the middle-class, as well as all the trauma and hope of Modernity...And, what matters, is that it has almost nothing to do with the "God Complex" except in the opinions of those unnamed and unsourced "some". Finally after a list of random "See Alsos" we do get two sources, both of which are just articles, not about "God Complexes" but hey! they use the wording in their titles. That's like using an article about the Miami Dolphins as references about Sea Mammals!
This is literally the worst article I have ever seen on the Wiki. How can it NOT be NPOV ?!? - it doesn't even have an intelligible one! The article needs to be trashed completely and rewritten. Saudade7 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I added a rewrite template. With the exception of a couple lines, it has problems I cannot begin to describe (luckily that's been covered for me). Hopefully someone will be willing to take this on. I don't want to see the topic gone, but it does need a very serious cleanup. 67.42.14.57 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Messianic complex

Please merge any relevant content from Messianic complex per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messianic complex. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 08:40Z

[edit] See also linking of people

"god complex" when used as a lable is certainly pejorative, and so per WP:BIO certainly living people should not be linked to in this way and probably not any people, unless they are a well founded case with external reliable comments to that extent. Even then they should not appear in the see also section. As such I am removing this list of people as it is not helpful for readers and is against policy. |→ Spaully₪† 09:15, 10 May 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Adding the God template?

Well, I did it, considering that the article is part of the God series, and IPSOS removed it. Am I mistaken or is IPSOS? --124.168.22.223 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've realised my IP has changed. It was revision 121387972.

If God actually existed, he'd curse you far adding "Him" to this ridiculously bad page.Saudade7 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure I understand

So is this article about a specific complex, or does it refer to complexes in general? --Cronodude360 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I had clicked on a link to "Hero Complex" which had taken me here, which confused me. Now, however, that link actually goes to the page on the Hero complex. So question answered. --24.18.207.51 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Concept used to criticize modernity"

Is this really notable? It reads like a bunch of luddites self-promoting. Remove? 88.108.105.244 10:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is rotten...

"God Complex" is a colloquialism. Let's just link the term to "Faustian" shall we? I can't make heads or tails out this article. Idiosyncratic opinion.Vendrov 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. Anyone who looks at my record on the Wiki will see that I always argue to "Keep". I have defended even "minor Star Wars characters" against the axe, despite not giving a darn about such things. But as a historian of French history, and of Modernity, I can tell you there is not ONE salvageable thing on this whole damn page. It reminded me of that movie "Malice" with Alec Baldwin and Nicole Kidman...it was that BAD! Please nominate this article for deletion. Then, someone, someday can resurrect the article, beginning from scratch, untainted by the swill that I just waded through! Saudade7 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am reposting this part of my rant here, just in case people only look at the bottom of the page...
The problem is not the neutrality of the article, it is that almost nothing in the article is actually true; it is very badly written; it is not formatted properly; etc. Are "authoritarian impulses and narcissism the same thing? Not according to psychology or psychoanalysis.. Are these then the same as a "God Complex"? How could they be? What YEAR was that Richter book published that assumes that women and minorities cannot have "God Complexes"? Where is the foil to Richter's argument? Why is the ISBN information just stuck in the middle of the article and not formatted as a reference or in a Bibliography section? Is that the only "scholarly research" in the article? The whole thing is supposed to be composed of "scholarly research" not just one section. What kind of title is that for a section?! "Modernity" is not the same thing as "Modern Times". The Enlightenment might have led, in part, to the Reign of Terror, but not because all the French people had "God Complexes"! The "Reign of Terror" did not "Afflict all of Europe." "Some people" and "American grassroots political movement websites" are not adequate sources to base an analysis of the causes of the French Revolution on. Why do “modern times” need a "rationale defense from a mainstream [German] philosopher" (in German) in an article about the God Complex? Why is, again, the reference to his book just stuck in the middle of the page and not in a reference section? Then: Poor Napoleon. He is at the mercy here of "the opinion of some" who "retroactively claimed [a] god complex [sic] for him”. In fact, we learn that this "may have been in some opinions the catalyst for the twenty years of war that ensued." So is it all Napoleon's fault? No, because in the very next sentence we are told that is was the "collective god complex." You will then notice that the last sentence of this section and that of the last (modernity) are the same sentence. This is bad undergraduate writing and sourcing of references. The French Revolution comes off as a bad thing, not as though it brought people liberty, the right to divorce, freedom from religion, the middle-class, as well as all the trauma and hope of Modernity...And, what matters, is that it has almost nothing to do with the "God Complex" except in the opinions of those unnamed and unsourced "some". Finally after a list of random "See Alsos" we do get two sources, both of which are just articles, not about "God Complexes" but hey! they use the wording in their titles. That's like using an article about the Miami Dolphins as references about Sea Mammals!
This is literally the worst article I have ever seen on the Wiki. How can it NOT be NPOV ?!? - it doesn't even have an intelligible one! The article needs to be trashed completely and rewritten. Saudade7 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR in terms of synthesis of random elements, and written a bit like an essay, are the problems of this rubbish article, IMHO. Merkinsmum 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like the work of one individual suffering from some other home-made complex

This 'article' is bullshit. It has no factual value, and bases its strange claims on no worthwhile theories. Having it on Wikipedia makes me question whether or not WP is able to keep its dumbest 'contributors' from destroying what others write, as well as the overall seriousness of WP. Yautja Uzbek (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)