This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a
WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of
folklore and
folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to
discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing
the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Adolf Bastian#The Psychic Unity of Mankind|psychic unity of mankind]] The anchor (#The Psychic Unity of Mankind) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
It's unfortunate that an unsubstantiated smear lives on.
Duckduckgeese (
talk) 05:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Influenced
Robert Bly - very directly
Jordan Peterson - less directly but still quite significantly
24.13.83.67 (
talk) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply