Talk:Joseph Campbell

Criticism of Campbell

Duckduckgeese, you need to immediately stop making edits such as this. There is no policy on Wikipedia that Joseph Campbell is above criticism. Including criticism about controversial figures is perfectly appropriate, per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". That includes critical views. The fact of the matter is that many scholars have criticized Campbell and have problems with his work for one reason or another. You have no valid reason at all to be removing their views from this article, and in fact are doing readers a terrible disservice by doing so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with their being criticism. However, unsubstantiated accusations of antisemitism are not okay. I also initially removed the quote about Masson and Campbell "hating each other on sight" because it's ludicrous.Duckduckgeese (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about a living person. It is about a man who has been dead for some time. Is it acceptable for an article about someone who is long dead to mention that some people have accused him of being anti-semitic? Yes, it is; in fact it would be outrageous not to do so if the criticism has attracted significant attention. It would be impossible to write proper articles about several significant historical figures if it were otherwise. Like I said, "speak no ill of Joseph Campbell" is not the rule here. Jeffrey Masson's opinions about Campbell are worth including because Masson happens to be both a famous, notable individual and a Sanskrit scholar (and therefore in a position to judge that Campbell didn't know what he was talking about). Mentioning Masson's and Campbell's negative reactions to each other gives Masson's views their proper context. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, not the issue. The issue is whether or not the claim was substantiated. Is proof not needed?Duckduckgeese (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a specious argument. When there is a controversy about whether someone was anti-semitic, it is appropriate to mention the controversy. See, for example, the article on Carl Jung, which discusses the controversies over his alleged anti-semitism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the controversy is Gill made a posthumous accusation of Campbell's anti-semitism and used two secondhand stories as evidence. I would think the bar for inclusion on Wikipedia would be a little higher.Duckduckgeese (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, your response is beside the point. The issue isn't what you personally think of the accusation. The question is, rather, did it attract sufficient attention to be worth mentioning in Campbell's biography? I think the article makes it quite clear that it did. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you link the article? Duckduckgeese (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Read Joseph Campbell, the article you have been edit warring over. There is enough material about the controversy over Campbell's alleged anti-semitism to make it quite clear the material is worth including. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Gill's article resulted in a series of letters to the editor, some supporting the charge of antisemitism or accusing Campbell of having various other right-wing biases, others defending him." This needs to be sourced. Duckduckgeese (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced - as I already explained. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that an unsubstantiated smear lives on. Duckduckgeese (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. The purpose of this page isn't to provide a forum for people to express their personal views about Joseph Campbell. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There shall not be any edit warring. Please refrain from this. Duckduckgeese, please discuss this issue here and others will discuss the issue as well. For now, the page stands as is. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Gill's article resulted in a series of letters to the editor, some supporting the charge of antisemitism or accusing Campbell of having various other right-wing biases, others defending him." Does this not require a citation?Duckduckgeese (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is properly cited, to a book by Robert S. Ellwood. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

Regarding "did it attract sufficient attention to be worth mentioning in Campbell's biography?" No, it didn't, and that's the thing. These accusations are completely fringe. (They aren't shared by the larger international body of scholars of comparative religion.) If Campbell was an antisemite, for example, where's the proof? Where's a single quote? Where's an account of something that actually occurred? Fact is, no such accounts have come to light because there aren't any. I've read most of his books, and the concept, even the implication, never comes up once. It just isn't there folks. It, and accusations like it, are put out there by a scant handful of people likely threatened in some way by Campbell's interpretations. 50.54.225.180 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a personal attack by Brendan Gill by reading the original article. The article from September 1989 gives zero clues for supporting this accusation. Following articles are on the same low level and the only hint at anti-semitism is an alleged bad joke by Campbell about the moon: a single anecdote with no follow-ups. It's gossip and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eldritch (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction on modified link

I checked the archive.org link above and modified it to a working one with a previous date in the URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20100527062921/http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/07-02.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eldritch (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Campbell. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227072637/http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Campbellchronology to http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Campbellchronology
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107075423/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=766 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=766

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) 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dkudler, in regards to this edit, I have to say that you seem confused. Your edit summary was, "If you insist. I've added NPOV tags. By quoting Dr. Buchen incompletely, that final sentence is misleading and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. The first sentence in the paragraph refers to Masson; obfuscating that is also non-neu". In the first place, it is obviously acceptable for Wikipedia to quote people "incompletely", if what that means is that we do not automatically quote everything and anything that people say. In the second place, the article mentions that, "However, Buchen adds that Campbell worked closely with three scholars who did translate Sanskrit well." So where exactly is the problem? You earlier complained that it was misleading to leave that out; it has now been added (which you could have done yourself), so on what grounds do you see a continuing problem? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you wrote, "FKC, please try to work with other WP editors". I am. That is why I wrote the comment above, explaining to Dkudler that I had good reasons for reverting his edit, and that the reasons he gave for it were mistaken. Perhaps you would like to join the conversation instead of reverting me without proper explanation? Simply telling me to "work with other editors" is not a justification for a revert and does nothing to explain why you consider the content of my edit wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I felt that it was not helpful to revert a tag in the heat of discussion. It seems petty. It would have been best to bring it up on talk rather than revert. All in all the article is now improved thanks to your questioning and the changes that were made. I can't see the need for the tag either and I agree that IMO Dkudler needs to help us to understand his position. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer, Dkudler has had several days now to respond and to explain his reasons for adding NPOV tags here. He has not done so. I am being patient, but it is not clear to me why the tags should be indefinitely left in the article with no explanation why they are necessary. The original complaint was that certain material was excluded from the article, but that material has now been added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes he should have commented here. I will revert my edit. Will that be all that is needed? Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Influenced

Robert Bly - very directly Jordan Peterson - less directly but still quite significantly 24.13.83.67 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Barbara McClintock who ran the CJ Jung institute in San Francisco is not the Nobel prize winning geneticist, who lived and worked near Cold harbor in New York. The link needs to be disambiguated. 50.71.252.205 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)