Talk:Joseph Campbell/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Polyglot?

A polyglot is defined as: someone with a high degree of proficiency in several languages. In Campbell's case it's three, one of them being English. I would hardly consider this polyglot. I hope Wikipedia editors can go through all the purported polyglot entires and delete the designation wherever appropriate.71.247.42.134 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Well, he was fluent in English, French, German and Provencal, and could speak, read and write in Sanskrit, Japanese and Latin, in addition to having a familiarity with a number of other languages. That strikes me as a pretty good example of a polyglot! (He was a polymath as well--but that's a subject for a whole other conversation.) Dkudler (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Image

This new image is terrible. Please replace. --1000Faces (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. (Mind meal (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Controversy section

Just a quick comment that I had difficulty understanding why anyone accused Joseph Campbell of being anti-Semetic. The section says that he was accused of this, but it doesn't explain why. It's very vaguely worded. Maybe someone could edit it for clarity. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


I wanted to add that the Brendan Gill article, which is even more vague, and uncited, goes on to claim that there were "more accusers" and that "it is now widely accepted that Campbell was, in politics, an extreme reactionary". I find this fundmentally confusing, since I've never heard of anything political being attributed to Joseph Campbell. Please, anyone with more indepth knowledge, improve this section so that it is more comprehensive (and cited). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.148.222 (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Campbell does seem to have been politically conservative--he was not, philosophically speaking, a big believer in progressivism. In looking at his writing and lectures, the only clear political stance that I've come across is his support of the war in Vietnam. Calling him "reactionary" was another of Gill's attempts at being iconoclastic and at creating controversy for controversy's sake, just like call him "anti-Semitic."

In any case, in terms of his work, Campbell was assiduously careful to keep his personal views of politics out of the mix, as he did with religion.Dkudler (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It would good to add information on Campbell's enthusiasm for the Vietnam War to the main article and to add the quotes from his boring and drawn-out interview, the power of myth, which support anti-semitism. With the correct quotes (in the right context) we should be able to label him correctly as an anti-semite in the main article and get rid of the "controversy". Teetotaler 17 August, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As someone who's read just about everything the man wrote and heard much of what he had to say (including a lot of unreleased material), and as a Jew, I have to say my experience of Mr. Campbell and my interpretation of his public discourse are quite different. I'd love to know which quotes and context made you reach those conclusions.
Mr. Campbell was hardly "enthusiastic" about the Vietnam War; in reading thousands of hours of his lecture transcripts, however, I did find one from 1968 in which he spoke less than patiently about war protesters. This was hardly a controversial position at the time for a man of his age and station. He also spoke on a number of occasions with some amusement and exasperation about what he felt to be the lack of intellectual rigor among his hippie students. Again, he was hardly alone in those views, and he always made them in the context of whatever subject he was addressing.Dkudler (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the following line needs to be removed or changed from the controversy section as it is inserting a point of view: "This despite the fact that Campbell did belong to at least one organization, the New York Athletic Club, that used subterfuge to reject Jewish applicants. Gill relates that Campbell often described the "tricky means by which Jews were prevented from becoming members".[49] Really it is the word despite that implies the article supports Gill's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • "Unsigned", please see more on controversy at the bottom of this talk page. And please join in the discussion! While I agree that the section should be included, I do not like the present inclusion. Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, however, that our anonymous friend has a good point: the article should make it clear that that assertion was Gill's. I'm going to take a whack at a gentle edit to address this. Anyone who's following this, please take a look and see if I've managed to make the section more neutral. David Kudler (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The B-52s

Does anyone think it worthwhile to add a reference to the track "Follow Your Bliss" from the album "Cosmic Thing" by the band The B-52s?

I know it's a pretty lighweight side-issue, but many Wikipedia pages have references to "influence in popular culture" - and the fact is that there are many of us who only know about Campbell because of that track!

Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.111.66 (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Well, we have a section on Campbell's influence in film, and there have been a number of songwriters (and novelists and computer-game designers and...) over the years who have mentioned Campbell's influence on their work. Heck, the current President of the US mentioned that The Power of Myth had a profound impact on his agnostic mother, and therefore on his own spiritual path. Should we rehead the section, or add a new header with separate subheads for various media? Any thoughts?David Kudler (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How can we improve this article?

I'm a relative Wikipedia neophyte—I've mostly been here over the past couple of years because, as the publishing director of the Joseph Campbell Foundation, I wanted to make sure that the Campbell-related entries here remain accurate and useful.

Looking at the ratings given by a number of the WikiProjects :points up:, there would seem to be a consensus that there is room for improvement with regards to the information and layout of this page. There is always a fine balance, I know, between factual information and opinion, as there is between having just enough information and far too much. To my eye, the layout of the article is a bit obscure, but I haven't been able to find any similar articles on which to base a reorganization. I would like everyone's serious suggestions for making this a model Wikipedia entry.

Any thoughts?David Kudler (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done some moving around and cleaning up; I'd love any feedback that anyone might have. There are still some things that obviously need to be looked at. Here are a couple of questions that I have:
  • Should we separate the bibliography into its own article? It could supercede the Collected Works of Joseph Campbell article, which I've folded into this main article already. I've seen separate bibliographic entries for a number of authors; I can't decide whether this would improve the main article by streamlining it, or lessen its effectiveness by removing important information. As is, we have a "select works" section, as well as the bibliography.
  • What makes a book noteworthy? I'm obviously biased—I think that each of Campbell's works deserves its own article. The article for Thou Art That (book), however, was tagged as possible not noteworthy. Any suggestions for guidelines?
I haven't read this book, but I suspect that the noteworthiness tag could be deleted if more information were placed in the article about the book and its background—perhaps even by its editor (writing under his actual name or under a pseudonym). Nihil novi (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I really would love any bright ideas for additional information that might be posted, redundancies or POV problems that might be eliminated, or any reorganization that might serve the article's effectiveness.David Kudler (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

BA from Columbia in "English Lit"?

Having read his biography "Fire in the Mind", my memory indicates that his BA was in Biology.

This is why the idea of "the EVOLUTION of myth through time" came naturaly to JC.

But my memory could be off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.58.113 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Joseph Campbell Foundation's bio (http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php?categoryid=11), Campbell majored in Biology at Dartmouth, but transfered to Columbia, where he completed his BA in Medieval Literature; he went on to get his MA from Columbia in the same subject, but decided not to complete his doctorate when the dissertation committee refused to allow him to expand his thesis. So "English Lit" is not strictly correct—but neither is "Biology"! David Kudler (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

POSTHOMOUROUS CONTROVERSY ERASED -

There was an astonishing section tha i have erased, which was a libellum against mr. campbell, make 'after his death', when he COULDNT respond by a guy who wrote an article accusing him of hating jews Mr. Campbell made a critical assesment of the arrival of warrior gods like yvwh and zeus that killed the goddess, which is historical fact. If for that reason some fundamentalist believer gets angry, he should dish it out NOT in an encyclopedia with 'pesonal attacks', based in 'things he heard saying him' in 'private conversations' that nobody else ever backed and he 'pretends' to reveal for the enlightment of all of us, after his death. Further on, to disguise this, he completes the task 'insinuating' that he also hated other races. Regarding the athletic club of which i happen to have been a member, the censorship was against women, not against jewish, many of which were members, and has nothing to do in any case with campbell but the athletic club. So to pretend that mr. campbell was racist because he belonged to that club is bogus. And certainly whatever the club did, mr. campbell is known for his feminism, as he backed the age of fertility goddesses. Further on, if we think this kind of bull sh** is proper of an article, we should try to find 150 different cultural guys to give us the opinion of mr. campbell about every culture of the world. Because why his opinions of an specific culture, even if they were truth, have to be highlighted? but it seems to happen in many articles, we dedicate entire sections to this kind of themes. It is in fact a shame that this libellum has been here for so long. i propose for each section of this type to create another 150 sections about the antifrenchism, antirussianism antiamericanism anticanadianism antichinisim etc. etc. etc. of every human being (-; would be ridiculous

erased again, as per my previous text, mr. gill a jewish, non-entity writer insulting post-mortem a person who he claimed against all evidence to be 'his friend' on account of personal jealousy or cannot be the closing statement of an article on probably the most important american writer on comparative religions. This is an encyclopedia. we do not need the inquisition here. It is a shame that this kind of statements are in this encyclopedia. Before mr. skomorokh reposes i expect you to explain why you repose a libellum and what is your cultural identity. Mr. Campbell study comparative religions if you are a fundamentalist zealot dish it out in other places of this web for racial and cultural bigotry.

Hem, now i am accused of vandalism. Obviously this franchise owned by people of this culture pretends to be 'impartial' and it is just another vehicle for cultural propaganda and racial bias. it is just more subtle. There are patrollers, editors, and people 'with special rights' who mold the text to please the point of view of the owners after naive individuals do all the work for free. The idea is simple, you can insult all cultures, except that of the owners, whenever anyoen criticize the owners, you will be accused, all articles about the owners are sanitized, etc. etc. very kafkian.

And at the end they put a message in your box: you are 'banned' from editing this encyclopedia, hem, Stalin also reinvented history and erased trostky but at the end all is known, truth always resurfaces. ive been reading articles, all have teh same system. And all are immediatly sanitized. For example, all the articles about middle ages in which the jewish people ran the biggest slave market trade system till the liverpool slavers, from europe to islam as per maccormick, harvard scholar 'the economy of the middle ages', is sanitized. This was the cause of antisemitism, as the network of slaving lasted from 500 to 1100 when the venetians took over. Not a single mention. An add on in articles on slavery on the middle ages was immediatly sanitized. The idea is obvious. everybody is eviL except the righteous culture. Same for all the articles on the 5 million victims of nazi genocide. 20 million russians were also killed. 3 million russian women exploited as workers and sex slaves. All texts in german nazi called the slavs 'slaves' again, a word introduced by the jewish radanite traders who exported them to baghdad. And yet, it seems that the 5 million were more victims than the rest of europeans? Again here the righteous imply that because they were 'special victims' they must not be ever criticized for any future sin.. Thus we must by the same reason forget the crimes of stalin because he was nazi victim. etc. etc. truly an inquisition of thought has been established. it happens cyclically in history in many differnet cultures and the results is invariablly a huge backlash against the inquisitors. 'those who try to impose truth with power, will be the laugh of the gods' Albert Einstein 'you can cheat most people all the time, you can cheat all the people most of the time, but you cant cheat all the people all the time' abraham lincoln the inquisition will only end the day there is a balanced account of both the crimes and victims of this culture, as it happens with all the cultures of the world that have both criminals and victims mr, campbell has texts in favor and against all cultures and religions as it must be in an author of comparative religious studies, based in the natural laws of ethics, which we all know and establish both in constitutions and biology, the equality of all the members of a single species. He did criticize the 'tribalism' and racial bias of certain cultures and religions as well as celebrate the ethic prophets of judaism. In any case if this was not a libellum A) Mr. Gill would have brought his insults during Mr. Campbell's life B)ADL would have undoubtedly sued mr. Campbell So i ask someone not banned to erase this libellum, if this encyclopedia truly is the 'free encyclopedia', and not a vehicle of cultural propaganda, to imply that some are more 'chosen' than others, LOL 'all men are born equal' US constitution


I am sorry but this is not the way wikipedia works. You're deleting the mention of the fact that someone accused Campbell of being an antisemite doesn't make that fact go away. It is clearly reliably sourced that Gill made these accusations and that a number of scholars have responded to them by stating that Gill is wrong in his characterization. These are fact. and these are what wikipedia brings. If you think that the section about posthumous controversies is biased towards Gill's viewpoint then take issue with this. I don't think it is I think it is very neutral and that if anything the reader will get the impression that the accusations of antisemitism are unfounded. Anyway you cannot simply remove sourced content because you don't like it. You would have to take part in a discussion to get consensus for such a change and you would have to present many more and much better arguments than you have up untill now.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Magnus you dont get it. There are things that 'matter' and things that 'dont'. Censorship and bias is today much more sophisticated. It consist in hiding information that matters and creating a lot of information about things that do not matter, which is called 'creating noise' in rhetoric and the military. This is 'noise'. It doesnt matter. It gives zero important information about mr. campbell's life and real work. Instead i propose, if that is necessary to explain his 'criticism' of the Jewish religion, whcih exists and explains it in terms of tribalism as the first horizon of evolution fo religions from an age of tribal gods, assur the god of th assyrians, yuvwh the god of the hjews etc, to an age in which all humans were considered members of a religion, christianity, budhism and islam. This is what he rightly explained and was already during his life crucified by the 'inquisition' of religious thought. But why this is not in the encyclopedia? because if it were it would obviously explain objectively some problems with the jewish/rptestant 'elect' religion. For example, in slavery the fundamental ideology was that the 'elect' could enslave negros cause they were sons of ham, inferior races. The jewish Middle age massive slave traffic of 'slav(e)s' to arab land in the middle ages or the sephardim, dutch and english protestant slaving of negros was based in that racist doctrine, which obviously must be denounced regardless of whose culture uttered it. Mr. Campbell was however far less critical of this than mr. sombart, for example, another guy who has disappared of encyclopedias. Instead we have his 'student' mr. weber feinstein, a jewish guy accusing of all the errors of capitalism ONLY to protestants. Mr. sombart of course pointed out that both have the same 'book' and so both cultures had the same behavior with go(l)d. At the time mr. weber was just his student. Mr. Sombart was considered the most important historian of socialism. Today Mr. Sombart is not - i just checked - in any library of california. Mr. feinstein is in all of them. why? another clear example of what we choose to talk and we dont. SELECTION of information my friend. And chooses what it TALKS ABOUT and doesnt. as our industry of misinformation So. We DO NOT TALK of 1 billion people undernoursihed. we do NOT TALK of Africa, No news. Nobody cares. that is how you censor. Choosing the themes you talk and the ones you DONT. This is an obvious case of a matter that DOESNT MATTER in a biography of a person, as it DOESNT MATTER what this man thought of french, pools, the unicorn and his neighbor. Jewish people are jsut another culture, not a special culture, this 'elect' concept is the ideology of the bigots of this culture, which exist as in an other culture. obviously there are many peopel in that culture who are beyond such muths. Mr. Gill was not. But in the same manner we do not quote what mr. ameheyad has to say about anything becdause he is a bigot, we do not care about mr. gill because he is a bigot. I googled him to see what he is about and found that he also thought people who criticized FREUD was doing so because they were antisemite... lol. Freud has been criticized because his work was 'ascientific' as Popper criticized marxism and marx capitalism. All this is nonsense. Mr. Campbell in fact acknowledge the enormous ethical content of jewish prophets who reformed those ideas and ushered mankind into an ecumenical age of religions. To put at the end this libellum as if it were FUNDAMENTAL, being besides totally OBVIOUS that it is a libellum becdause it was made after his death, it is a PERSONAL opinion of a guy, that doesnt the other to defend hiself, etc. etc. by MAKING THISa the end of this article and to such extent, it only shows that this culture controls the information of this encyclopedia. It is like in a dicatorshiup. Stalin was everywhere in every corner of russia. as if it was the most important thing. Power rewrites history. I was just eliminating trash. And i dont have special problems with this culture. i even have blood of this (and many other cultures). i just consider truth/history 'sacred'. And this is just too obvious. Simply speaking i dont like ANY inqusition of thought or censorship of truth or rewriting of history as per stalin in russia, this culture now it seems in america, islamic ayatollahs it seems now in iran, chinese police in tibet, etc. etc. etc. to me what was really insulting because i have read the guy, was to add at the end that he was also a bigot against hispanic and blacks, that my friend is really over the top. The guy was in awe of nature related cultures like the old mexican cultures and the nature cults of africa. UNLIKE everybody else in the scholar world thought at the time those to be 'inferior religions'. This is what brought my red flag to reseaarch mr. gill and find all his bigot nonsense. And to clarify further, natural cults are NOT INFERIOR. i mean to think we humans are 'chosen' in the Universe is subjective anthropomorphism - the belief that a goatkeeper 3000 years ago because he saw a brush burning and came to the conclusion god has talked to him, is a 'superior way of thinking' to any animist belief is a 'judgment' which objectively in comparative religions doesnt stand. Adn this guy had the courage to revive and value again natural, amerindian and black cults to nature in an age of blatant racism against them. This man was far too evolved as a thinker for his age, had the courage to say truths and suffered consequently bigots like mr gill and keeps suffering bigots. as an expert in mexican culture you should know better.

> This is too much now someone is editing my comments on the talk page? rewriting my comments? this is getting too kafkian... i cant edit the main page but to edit my comments on why i want to edit the page. lol the spanish inquisition, the stalinist inquisition didnt go so far... And obviously nobody explains why they repost. Sorry guys, you can keep banning my IP, i just get another one or a friend to do this for me. so i woudl apreciate that instead of censoring you keep arguing why mr. Gil's opinions are so important . and why we can do criticism of any culture except this one.

ok i just read 'antisemitism'... now is obvious to me. Not a single fact of the 2 negative factual reasons of massive antisemitism in the middle ages: massive slave traffic from europe to islam from the V to the XI century. And 86% of annual usury to peasants that were obliged to pay taxes in money, borrow, and when they couldnt pay were converted into slaves. There is a huge literature on this in the old socialist world and im not exactly a marxist. but facts are facts. There is a direct correlation between ages of pogroms and ages of economical crisis and slave traffic. At the height of an economical crisis, peasants and aristocrats were burning synagogues to burn the 'books of deeds' and not paing the usury taxes. All this obviously doesnt justify the murder of jews. but you cant massively rewrite history. Here is the deal, i wont edit anything in this wikipedia, who cares. Just leave this talk page intact. Dont edit my comments. You can put's gil bullsh**, just leave my disagreement. Campbell was not antisemite, never defended the holocaust, never entered into arguments about money, economics, slave traffic. EWhat he didnt do is reinvent history of religions. Moreoever when talking of judaism he basically followed Jung, a jewish writer with an encyclopedia called Judaism which is obvioulsy totally in favor of his religion as a superior, moral religion. shalom and good bye, just dont edit my talk. That is over the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.189.253 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Campbell wasn't an antisemite. The article doesn't say that he was. The article says that Gill accused him of being one and that a whole bunch of scholars doing a whole bunch of analysis have concluded that he wasn't. I don't see what it is you want. Mr. Gil's opinions are notable because they have attracted a number of comments from reputable scholars who have refuted his claims. It is in the best interest of the public that if they stumble on Gil's criticism elsewhere they can come to wikipedia and read the other side of the argument as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

AFTER a research now this seems clear to me. Mr. Campbell is a scholar of compartive religions. But a scientist of them. So it has pissed off many fundamentalist religious bigots through his life. It seems those more attached to fundamentalist old testament sects are the most pissed off. So they added this libellum. Now a jehova witness fundamentalist seems on charge of maintaining it. It is a sad situation that SCHOLARS CANNOT DO OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF RELIGIONS WITHOUT BEING INSULTED, DIFAMATED AND FOR WHAT I READ IN AMERICAN NEWS EVEN KILLED. Religion is NOT untouchable. It is part of the humane xperience and can be studied, compared, analyzed and objectively criticized by scholars without having to be insulted in the way this paragraphs does with Mr. Joseph campbell. There are more people erasing it agreeing mr. campbell is not antisemite and complaining about this paragraph. But zealots are BVERY INSISTENT. Mr. Magnus seems wakes up every 2 hours to do his zealot job, maybe to win his paradise? RELAX MAGNUS, go to bed, enjoy life. take it easy pal, cause this will go, im gonna enrol people from universities to do the job if that is what requires to clean up this pathetic series of slurs with no witnesses, made after his death, by a bigot. Do we have to publish all the insults of bigots against the great scholars of our community of human braisn? For example magnus, why dont you give us your opinion about whoever you want, for example, mr. obama and then publish it in Obama's article saying he told you that in hawai, where you met him as a kid? Because that is what this nobody-knows Gill is doing here after his death. Lol we are no stupid. 'you cant cheat all people all the time' lincoln

The Gil section stays. It is a valid part of the historiography of Campbell's life. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I must admit that I am somewhat offended by your gratuituous characterizations of my person. For the record I am not a Jehovah's Witness, nor a fundamentalist, nor christian or even a religious person. My interest in Jehovah's Witnesses is proffessional as I am a social Scientist studying religion - just like Joseph Campbell. Apparently you have no problem publishing flawed characterizations about living people - but for some reason you do have a problem that well publicized debates pertaining to the biographies of defunct scholars be published here. I think that is a little more than a double standard. Anyway you have not shown any understanding of any of the basic principles of wikipedia - read the policies about verifiability, notability and Consensus before continuing your crusade to defend the honor of Joseph Campbell.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

LEGAL DEFINITION OF LIBEL

You see you get angry if i say something about you, but you dont care that this gill difamates Campbel after his death and you defend that. Nobody anywhere in the world knows this gill, and this encyclopedia goes aroudn the world. This gil is part of the 'local inquisition' and it is put in wikipedia by people like you who publish on jehova witnesses and mr. binkster who is jewish - to start with is obvious for objective fairness that we should be suspicious of a jewish critique that calls someone antisemite of a french critique that calls antifrench of a russianthat calls antirussian other person - this is called in legal terms libellum.

This is embodied in one of the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness: the rule against bias (nemo debet esse judex in propria sua cause - "no one to be a judge in their own cause") A further rule of natural justice is expressed in the latin maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard".

GILL after his death and you people accusng this man of not liking your specific branch of religion break both rules and in court if this had been taken to court it would have been considered a libellum. And there are POLICIES here against libellum.

The catholic inquisition had its index librorum, the communist inqusition had pravda, the biblical inqusition has people like mr. gil that accuses yo of antisemite and invent its slurs nobody KNOWS. They die away those slurs, as nobody knows who a very respected critique of pravda said of shakarov or who was the censor of the Index Librorum in rome who put galileo. But those were old inquisitions. The inquisition of thought in which you live is done by 'respected critiques' and of course it is only heard here. I've been testing the strength of it and really is huge. As soon as you put some 'real' info in this wikipedia in any of all those themes, the erasing becomes massive. When you eliminate a libellum like this one, you get the police watch dogs. deja vu my friend. And of course people like mr. sombart become erased and put in the Index Librorum. I respect campbell though it is not a crusade. But all Index Librorum and Gills regarldess of how many of you defend him will pass and go the way pravda and the index librorum went. And i dont care if now the inquisition is called wikipedia New Yorker or the Jerusalem or the Teheran daily. But dont call this the 'free encyclopedia' with all this policial state kind of control and slurrs. Now of course, inquisitions go ahead because they have power. my ip address is recorded and if i would insist the inquisition would find my name and write to my university. The inqusition already tried to tumble campbell and chomsky - to put two examples of people that criticized it - in certain points of their career. Mr. chomsky was slapped on tv and never appeared on main stream tv. The inquistion ended his career on american scholarship. His books are not distributed. And yet he recently resurrected. It is what they did to galileo and shakarov in previous inquisitions. And yet they are now resurrected. Of course, when they die the inqusitiion keeps insulting them. But in 100 years Campbell will be on top and gill will NOT EVEN BE in this policed wikipedia. WHAT I ASK HERE, IS PEOPLE NOT BELONGING TO THIS INQUISITION, without badges and rights to ban me, to defend campbell and erase this slurr. He is dead. He cannot longer defend himself as he had to do all his life. Certainly a 'free encyclopedia' is a nice dream. But this, as you have it! my friend. we are NOT stupid. Only inside the inquwsition territory - america in this case, russia with pravda, spain with the catholic inquistion, those censors are heard, believed and respected. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ALWAYS WINS. Understand though that im not defending the honor of mr. Campbell, this is obviously defended by its own work. Nobody except the retarded, tamed neotenia 'slaves' of the inqusistion, who never knew what freedom of mind was, can even doubt that this is a libellum. IM DEFENDING FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, against bigots who ruin the life of those who speak LOUD the truth of the wor(l)d.

You are confusing some different discourses there. You are the one attempting to censor information that you don't like away from wikipedia and I am the one defending free thought and free speech by telling you that that is against wikipedias policies since wikipedia is not censored. Also there is no english word "Libellum" (Libellum is the diminutive accusative form of the latin word for book) you mean Libel. And it is not Libel to reproduce a previously published opinion and counter it with arguments published against it. If the discussion was at one point funny, it is certainly entering its post-humourous period around now. Please read and understand the policies and then use discussion and argumentation to convince other editors that your ideas of imporovments should be used in the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

you are right magnus, the Libel of this guy must be informed. So i will reform the article to show there was a libel, because there is no controversy here, everybody seems to agree he wasnt an antisemite, but the article is written from the perspective of those who think to criticize any of hte many racist elements of the tribal religions of the bronze age is wrong. So if we criticize the Ham theory origin of slaving trade for millenia - that 1/3rd of the human race according to Judaism and Protestant sects is na inferior race of slaves, we are being antisemite, etc. etc. If we explain that the height of slave trade occured during the V and XI centuries when the radanites established a global network fo slave trade we are antisemite. So they erase that information. Every author that explains the 'historical facts' as they were is in the index librorum. All the scholars of socialism, all the scholars of the historicist school, all the scholars of comparative religions, etc. etc. I dont care how you censor the facts of history if labelling with the name antisemitism, or confabulation theory or vandalism. The facts of history dont go away, they always resurface. So i will rewrite properly that part, because now is rewritten from the point of view of the censor, not the 'victim' of the libel which is campbell. Of course you are yehova witness, danish guy, aryan, and wikipedia police, so you are just doing your ideology. Thats ok. i believe int eh equality of all human beings like campbell did, so i do my job denouncing those who dont. There is an entire 'Police of thought' here who dedicates like you his unending efforts to censore in the name of his tribal Inquisition, exactly as the communist or catholic or nazi inquisition will do any real information about the economical, historic role of the Am Segullah, 'the People of the Treasure', the go(l)d religion, the Biblical religion, his historic role, and of course any economical reason of antisemitism, all the ugly racist slurs of the bible, etc. etc. And of course you collaborate with 'subterfuges' and pretension of information. There is zero information in this article about what mr. joseph campbell said of the jewish religion. That would be to INFORM. Not the opinions he never expressed to a member of the inquisition but his REAL OPINIONS, because indeed he judged harshly the tribal, racial bias of the Book. The tide is changing though. The inquisition will be gone in a couple of decades, precisely thanks to the net, but NOT THE WIKIPEDIA. Of course believers like you will go till the end, because that is your job as a censor. im sure you did also defend the racist slurr of the danish cartoons about islam as freedom of expression. So WHY THEY ERASE ALL FACTS ABOUT THE ECONOMICAL causes of the holocaust? it is not that freedom of expression. Instead you ahve the fairy tale that in the Middle ages peasants were not burning synagogues to get rid of debts, were not storming gettos to get back their sons sold as slaves for debts of usury, were not demanding in all the european parlaments to lower the usury taxes of 86%. As always in history the moneyed people and the weapons people exploited the amss. The king and his bankers exploited the mass, and then the bankers when the mass rebelled were offered by the kings as sacrificial lambs. This is the real history. and all that is censored. If you are so worried about freedom of expression why dont you prevent them fron censor that. Instead they write that the 'brutish, stupid middle age peasants were burning synagoges because brutish stupid catholic priests told them that jewish were drinking the blood of chidlren. Sure LOL. People in all ages of history act in the same manner. The people who stormed the getto knew perfectly their children were there because of usury laws. They had been 'legally' taken to pay a debt. A child as per Mac Cormick, harvard scholar, costed 30 grams of gold in europe and was then, castrated, andre exported and sold for 360 gramms in baghdad to become a eunuch. That is a 1200% of profits. If, you could give it to the 'long haul trader' before the father mounted a 'rescue operation'. There are hundreds of Middle Ages documents available in European Universities with both the details of the trade and the massive protests of citizens against it. But the king defended the trade because he taxed it. Try to put that in Antisemitism in the middle ages. The wikipedia police takes less than 5 minutes to erase it. That is the 'core article'. It is like attacking an article on Marxism in pravda or the belief in the trinity in catholic spain. Because the belief defended here is that 'humans are na inferior, morally debased stupid species' and the 'elect' are superior morally, more intelligent victims of the brutish people. Ergo we can abuse with capitalist policies and our armies all those inferior people. Sure LOL. Fact is those who believe in 'love religions' like the chinese, born in the same age as a culture than germans and jewish have now over a billion people. they survive cause they dont cheat, they get the same reaction to their actions. Love creates love. Look then at the germans, a shi**y nation in the middle of nowhere, cause everybody reacted against their murder. Look at isra, a piece of desert nowhere, cause everybody reacts to slave made directly or through 'white slave' labor in companies. Weho is smarter, the 1 billion plus chinese or the 18 mill. the 70 mill. germ(ans) of history with their weapons? LOL. One thing is to be 'smart' and other 'intelligent'. Good luck with your work of censorship and your attempts to convert the Mayans to jehova hell. The mayans eat Jehova food and then they go back to their shammans, like they did with the spanish inqusitiion. They know better. They tell you 'mande' and then they go theirway.

Don't change the title of this thread. It makes it difficult to sort out who said what in the history of the talk page. Original title restored. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now we shall see if this is NOT censored as you say guys, cause ccertainly it is. Now you have the real facts that mr. campbell said in his work about judaism, because WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT HE SAID, HOW CAN YOU EVER ASSERT HIS antisemitism? Then you have the opinion of the inquisitor. And now people CAN decide, what they believe THE VISION OF CAMPBELL or the VISION OF GILL. If you erase THE VISION OF CAMPBELL, you are CENSORING. AS every police watchdog censors here everything of this culture, because i guess given the fact that the owners belong to that inqusition and money talks you dont get your badge of police if you dont censor. deja vu... And i have only tried to introduce a couple of facts about the economy in the middle ages and campbell, i just can imagine if you wer eto say the truth about modern day facts what kind of reaction you would get! and now LOLs if you forgive me i have a few assesinated kids in my kitchen to drink their blood in my kitchen IMAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.189.253 (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, having been called a Jehovah's witness missionary to the maya (being in fact areligious), an Aryan (being in fact of Romani descent), a defender of the muhammad cartoons (which i am also not) and a censor, I will congratulate you with chosing a new approach. You are doing the right thing now, trying to write your point of view into the existing material. But I can see from your contribution that you haven't read most of the policies about Neutral Point of View, verifiability or Encyclopedic style. Also, frankly speaking you will need to spend more efforts writing grammatically and idiomatically correct English if you want your edits to be considered for inclusion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to weigh in well after the fact: calumny though the charges of racism against Campbell may have been, the fact is that they were charges that were made publicly, and that many remember. I'm in charge of publications for the Joseph Campbell Foundation—I've worked there for a decade. I also happen to be Jewish. Every year at Passover, my uncle (who is a tease) asks me if I still work "for that anti-Semitic organization." He means it as a joke—but it's what he would remember about Campbell if I weren't there to tell him otherwise. If we don't include this section in the article then we are censoring—and doing both Campbell and the readers a disservice, since they may have come, having been told that Campbell was a racist, looking for the very kind of information that is posted here. This section has been edited by many hands over many years; we have always attempted to hew to the Wikipedia ideal of a neutral point of view, believing that the truth is always the best defense. It is, however, continually in the process of improvement, and so if you see any information here that is on its face untrue—or any essential piece that has been left out—please feel free to edit, with due consideration for the work that has come before you.David Kudler (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I see this article as a complete whitewash. The allegations of anti-Semitism and racism have basically been laughed away. They should be given more space, and the respondents given less, for a neutral point of view. We are not supposed to be giving Campbell the benefit of the doubt because that is not neutral. This is monstrous. --NellieBly (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, no one is laughing. No one is giving Campbell the benefit of the doubt; the attempt here--by many editors on all sides of the issue over many years--has been to lay out the public allegations and their public responses, and to let the reader make up his or her own mind with all of the information at hand.
The allegations are all there and fully credited and linked to. They all come from one article written by Brendan Gill after Campbell's death, and the follow-up to that brouhaha. If you feel that Gill's portrayal of Campbell (which was far from universally accepted) is not adequately represented, please feel free to edit the section; likewise, if you know of other primary sources that in some way cast a light on Campbell's alleged racism, please add them.
However, maintaining neutrality on a controversial subject requires that all sides be represented. Many people (whose letters and articles are referenced in the article) felt that Gill's representation of Campbell was anywhere from inaccurate to out-and-out falsehood. Including all sides of the argument is not a whitewash (see the conversation above in which an outraged Campbell supporter wished the whole section cut—THAT would be a whitewash). Likewise, including only the damning accusation and not any of the responses would not be neutrality—it would be character assassination. The challenge of keeping a highly controversial section of an article neutral is an on-going one. If you see any way to improve that section or any other part of the article without imposing one side's view of the issue, please help us continue to improve it. David Kudler (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

While I agree that an analysis of his private journals probably doesn't show that he was overtly racist, we need to have a source that says so. The source noted doesn't say who is making that claim, and where to find information regarding this claim, in fact, it points to the person putting the reference down as making the claim. Hires an editor (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Self-evident, even. Unless someone can come up with a better plan, it seems as if the last paragraph of the section should simply be cut. Anyone?David Kudler (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to see all of the following deleted:

This despite the fact that Campbell did belong to at least one organization, the New York Athletic Club, that used subterfuge to reject Jewish applicants. Gill relates that Campbell often described the "tricky means by which Jews were prevented from becoming members".[49]

Gill contended in the same essay that Campbell was also deeply bigoted toward blacks and Hispanics.[50] Gill wrote: "Having dinner one evening with Harold Taylor, the former president of Sarah Lawrence, Campbell spent much of his time arguing that it was of no use to admit blacks because they were 'unable to retain information'."[51]

Many have questioned this assertion, since Sarah Lawrence, a progressive liberal arts college, had through most of its history not only had a relatively high percentage of Jewish students, but had always admitted black students;[52] that Campbell would have argued this would seem to indicate not secret bigotry but activist racism.

As Campbell's private journals reflect political and racial views typical of a man of his age, race and education—views that a twenty-first century reader might consider less than entirely progressive— at no point do they reflect overt signs of racism.[53][neutrality disputed][original research?]

  • I feel that the article has given too much attention to this posthumous charge. It is quite common to find negative artlcles about famous people. I don't feel that it is necessary to go into such great detail here in this wikipedia article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten it and feel it is much better. There is a problem with most of the references, don't work, etc. I have tried to google for info but there's nothing on the web. I will work some more on the references ASAP. Gandydancer (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

More about the posthumous controversy section

So I'm wondering why we would include what others have written about this person in a biography/profile of him. Doesn't seem to make sense. Any thoughts? Hires an editor (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi there, Yes I put quite a bit of thought into this. When I first read this article I felt most of this section should be deleted. But with more thought I decided that since these rumors are still flying around out there and Campbell is not here to defend himself, it was important information. But I did rewrite the section because I felt it jumped around too much. I put all the Gill info in the first paragraph and then followed it up with the feedback (of that time). Feeling that the info could stand by itself, I left the last sentence out. I felt my rewrite was better, however it was immediatedly reverted without explanation.

But just now I note that this section has been debated extensively (see above). When I have time I will read it. I'd appreciate it you'd read my rewrite and give feedback. Do you think it was an improvement? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I did have a chance to read the debate on this section, so I now see that others have expressed opinions also. And I did find this which includes his reply:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3846 So now I have a little better idea of the article by Gill. I note that his misunderstanding of Campbell's "Follow your bliss" played a big part in the exchange as well. It sure would be good to be able to read the article. I have a question: Is it "legal" to pay for the NYR and print it...somewhere? Is it possible to post it here in the discussion section? Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal—probably not. One could ask the Times, but I doubt they'd give permission to allow their IP to be shared—assuming that Gill himself didn't retain the copyright for the article(s). Part of what's frustrating about this whole controversy to me is that so little of it springs from fact. Peoples' opinions tend to be swayed either by Gill's initial, inflammatory accusations and by his misunderstanding and misrepresentations of Campbell's position—which have taken on a life of their own—or by peoples' sense of Campbell as a bodhisattva of sorts. Projection all of the way around. So it would be useful to have the primary sources immediately available.
I will point out that getting an account on NYTimes.com is free; I think you can access the articles without having to pay for them—but unless there's some sort of license to reproduce them elsewhere, no, you can't do that.David Kudler (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Posthumous Controversy--an alternative plan

I have another thought regarding the proper disposition of this section: should we move it to its own article and have a short reference to it here, in Campbell's bio, with a link? That might cover a number of the issues that have been raised.David Kudler (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, interesting...I was thinking the same thing. Gandydancer (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've reduced the space given to Gill; there's no reason to return to him every paragraph. He had his say and others should have theirs. (See WP:UNDUE) hgilbert (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another modest proposal: dump the bibliography?

The Joseph Campbell template (which appears at the bottom of the page) seems to list all of his work quite nicely; is it necessary to have both the Works section and the template, or does that strike anyone else as redundant?

Most of the works that he published in his lifetime are listed in the article proper; the Posthuma/Collected Works section lists most of the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.214.191 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oy. That was me. 67.101.214.191 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Signing in after switching computers would be good. :-pDavid Kudler (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Campbell Was Pro-War

Hey folks, while of course JC was an outright orientalist (check out Edward Said's study on this Western prejudice of 'mythologizing' and primitivizing (my neologism?) and basically institutionalizing and subrogating an array of archeological and anthropological stereotypes gathered and reconfigured and forcefully reinterpreted by white Christias like JC, in Said's masterful work, Orientalism), what I find missing in the main article on JC is his enthusiasm for war (Matthew 24:6), particularly the Vietnam War.

While its great that the biographical controversy over JC's "alleged" anti-Semitism are still in the main article, I feel the article needs to deal with these other forms of racism and imperialism, like JC's support for the Vietnam War. In fact, in one of his mediocre books, "the [disem]power[ment] of myth", he talks as though he believed his fellow Christians had been successful in eradicating Hebrews (a la Revelations 7:3). JC writes in retrospect: "The Hebrews were absolutely ruthless with respect to their neighbors." (p171) As though Hebrews don't exist to this day! What a schmuck!

On another note, the historian Thomas Cahill offers a criticism of JC in his study on, The Gifts of The Jews. He says that JC is guilty of "forcing the evidince" (i.e., orientalism), and that his reasoning is fallacious, commited to the fallacy of Begging the question. (Cahill, p247) Cahill later says that "The attitude of Joseph Campbell toward Judaism may be found throughout his work." (Cahill, p264)

I will begin changing the main article asap to include JC's advocacy for war and Cahill's logical criticism of JC's fallacious reasoning. Thanks for your time. Be sure to tip your waitress.

Teetotaler 23 September, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

I think that a discussion of perceived flaws in Campbell's methods and conclusions is a perfectly reasonable section of the article; do recognize that you'll need to maintain a neutral point of view in these as in any edits of any sections that you add to any Wikipedia article. Though I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of Professor Cahill's work to judge its soundness, perhaps others can speak to the thoroughness of his scholarship.
As for his being pro-War... It's funny: his opposition to America's entry into the Second World War is often held up as an indication of his purported Nazi sympathies (that argument holds no water, by the way—the huge majority of Americans of all stripes opposed American participation in what was perceived as a local conflict among participants who were sure to be ungrateful for America's sacrifice—as they had been in 1918). I've been rereading Myths to Live By, written in 1973, during the Vietnam War. In it there is a very interesting article entitled "Mythologies of War and Peace." It discusses a range of religious/mythological attitudes toward both war and peace, from Jainism's ideal of ahimsa to the Gospels advocacy of turning the other cheek on the one hand to the long, long history of warrior mythologies stretching back to prehistory. Here is the concluding paragraph of that article (after discussing militant and pacifist traditions in preliterate cultures, in the Biblical traditions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam—and in all of the great Asian religions):
As far as I know, there is, in addition to these, only one more thought about war and peace to be found among the great traditions, and that is the one first announced by the eminent seventeenth-century Dutch legal philosopher Grotius, in 1625, in his epochal treatise on The Rights of War and Peace. Here, for the first time in the history of mankind, the proposal is offered of a law of nations based on ethical, not jungle principles. In India the governing law of international relations has for centuries been known as the matsya nyaya, “law of the fish,” which is, to wit, that the big ones eat the little ones and the little ones have to be smart. War is the natural duty of princes, and periods of peace are merely interludes, like periods of rest between boxing rounds. Whereas war in Grotius’s view is a breach of the proper civilized norm, which is peace; and its aim should be to produce peace, a peace not enforced by might of arms, but of rational mutual interest. This, in turn, was the ideal that Woodrow Wilson represented when he spoke, at the end of the First World War, of “peace without victory.” And we have the ideal symbolized also in the figure of our American eagle, which is pictured with a cluster of arrows in the talons of its left foot, an olive branch in its right, and its head—in the spirit of Grotius—turned rightward, facing the olive branch. Let us hope, however, in the name of peace, that he keeps those arrowheads over there sharp until neither asceticism nor the power of arms, but an understanding of mutual advantage, will have become for all mankind the guarantee, at long last, of a knowledge of the reign of peace.
That doesn't sound pro-war to me. Rather, it sounds like the statement of thoughtful scholar writing at the height of the Cold War about the history of myths on the subject of war and peace.
He goes on, in the last essay of the book, "No Horizons," to discuss the fact that in an era when the earth can be seen as the small borderless island that it is, distinguishing between us and them and drawing artificial lines—horizons—between the two is no longer possible. He suggests that the great challenge for mythologies of the new millennium—our millennium—are going to be reconciling humanity to this new fact.
Having read just about everything the man wrote and listened to hours of his lectures, I can't think of a time when Campbell advocated warfare. He was certainly avidly anti-Communist—his most passionate statements that I can remember were condemnations of the Chinese invasion of Tibet. And based on clues that he drops—jokes about hippies' academic laziness, for instance—I believe that his personal politics were probably somewhat on the conservative side for his time (though they would be rather centrist by today's standards). I know that he did support the Vietnam War during the late 1960s—though it wasn't a topic about which he spoke or wrote a great deal publicly, and he was once again siding with the majority of American voters at the time in doing so. Campbell was skeptical of progressivism as a religious stance, as of a political one; he advocated his reading of the Buddha's first noble truth in suggesting that we embrace the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be, and since the world of human cultures has, to this date, always included conflict, he felt that there needed to be a place for that truth in any working mythology: denying it would be like insisting that the earth was created in eight literal days in spite of mountains of science that suggests the contrary. I would therefore be very interested to see what you have seen or read that suggests that he was, in fact, in favor of war.David Kudler (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, I will say that, as a Jew myself, I've always found the brutal militarism of the post-Torah sections of the Tanach more than a little off-putting, and so that Professor Campbell makes a distinction between the battle-hungry Hebrews of scripture and the Jews of today really doesn't bother me much. It's the same distinction that makes me prefer the Odyssey to the Iliad--a matter of personal preference, definitely, but one I will admit I strongly hold.David Kudler (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
[QUOTE] "I will begin changing the main article asap to include JC's advocacy for war and Cahill's logical criticism of JC's fallacious reasoning."
Perhaps it would help if you would put any proposed changes with their refs here on the talk page for discussion before you change the article. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David and Gandydancer for your very reasonable comments. At the moment I don't have the source handy which accounts for JC's support for the Vietnam War but I will be sure to dig it up and make sure it is a reliable source before changing anything. I am inclined to think however that the reference from his interview/book, "The Power of Myth", is anti-Semitic. He is not referring to the Tanach, which is many many books, but the last book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy. While there are wars in the Torah, saying that "the Hebrews" were/are this or that type of people is an (arche)typical example of racism. In so far as all racism is based upon generalization and stereotype, JC's comment is commited to the informal Fallacy of composition, or perhaps the fallacy of Hasty generalization. JC's comment is certainly racialist. But it goes further than that. If someone said that all Irish are (or were) x, then this is a racist/racialist statement. The qualifier here is the totalizing summation: "absolutely ruthless", which is negative. This is racism. As for Cahill's critique of JC, it is not extensive, yet I feel the source is reliable and the criticism is accurate (i.e., its not arbitrary), as Cahill does spend a good amount of the book rebutting the predisposition for mythologistic ontology, which is JC's wont. Teetotaler 23 September, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Restructuring the article

I though it was worth restructuring parts of the article to promote some of Campbell's original ideas on mythology. I will be summarising more in the future so let me know about your ideas... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmick66 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your note here and added a section below. Yes, I do have some problems with your edits. For instance, you say "and a big part of their religion focused on atoning themselves from the brutality of the kill". Certainly atonement was part of their religion, but can you source the fact that it was a "big part"?
I am not a Campbell expert, but I don't recall reading the terms Mother/Father Right in his books. I'm well aware of the concept of Mother/Father religions, but the terms are not familiar to me. Could you please discuss? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I am not at all happy with your recent edits! You have added this with the heading Primitive religion:
These where the belief systems of hunting and gathering societies with no permanent settlements or writing. Their religion was animistic, with all of nature seen as being infused with a spirit or divine presence. This included the animals they had to hunt for sustenance, so a big part of their religion focused on atoning themselves from the brutality of this necessary kill. This was done by presenting the animal as a willing participant who gives himself as a sacrifice to the human race in order for them to survive. Stories would sometimes describe how certain rituals such as the buffalo dance would guarantee the animal's rebirth into the world.
If you are going to start doing edits such as this you are going to have to give references because this does not at all match my impression of primitive religion. If you have a reference to show that Campbell believed that atonement was a big part of early religion, it MAY fit into the Campbell article, but my impression of his work is that it was not, in his opinion. Please provide a reference or I will begin to delete some of your edits. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I will add, how can you possibly speak of the buffalo dance as part of primitive religion? The buffalo dance has been preceded by thousands of years of "religion". Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello and sorry for the late reply. Campbell has explicitly said that the prime focus of primitive religions is to atone themselves from the kill (although I am not 100% confident on the use of the word 'atone'). I will find the relevant reference shortly and write it. One of the stories he has recited often is The Buffalo's Wife which has exactly that meaning. Relating to the Buffalo dance, Campbell has showed in many of his books that the rituals of animal dancing are the earliest forms of religion though that is known to us and is in deed primitive, not in any derogatory sense of course, but as defining its birth in a particular point in human evolution, that is primitive times (pre-historic). The use of the word is his as he classified these rites in the first book of The Masks of God entitled Primitive Mythology. They have been, like you say, preceded by (tens) of thousands of years of religion, a religion however that, as we can know it by the little cave paintings that are left, seems to have been carried relatively intact. All that relates mainly to Native American and Native Australians mainly. Once again, sorry for not referencing straight away. I will do so within the next few days. Thank you. mmick66 —Preceding undated comment added 12:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Ok, I 've added the references and made some more changes. I just want to mention that in the Moyers Interview Campbell replies to a question on whether the early hunters where troubled by the necessity of the kill and he replies by saying "yes... this is why you have the rites" (which he then explains to be the rites we are talking about here). So that much is clear I guess. I am sure it is mentioned in The Masks of God as well and I might look for a second reference. As to Mother and Father Right, I think you are in the right. I have changed these titles into more generic ones, referring to the historical periods more. As for the consideration of the BUffalo dance in Primitive Mythology, Campbell talks about how these rites (Animal Powers) evolved from Neolithic cave paintings and survived till when he was a child, where Native Americans would still carve poles. So it refers to the time the specific mythology was born and not to any ranking of importance Mmick66 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your extensive edits, usually without any comments what so ever and seemingly the use of edits rather than using a "sandbox" to make edits, and other problems, have made it difficult for me to do my own edits. I am well-aware of the early hunter's rituals related to the killing of game, my problem was calling it atonement and leaving it at that. I had hoped for a discussion, but once again you did not respond. I am satisfied with your new additions about "atonement" since you now explain Campbell's viewpoint very well. The problem that I now see is the fact that you have placed the more ancient Mother Goddess second to the Father God section. Also, I feel that your Mother Goddess section needs extensive editing - it is jumbled, it is too detailed, and I'm not even certain it is factual. However, with no references, I have no way of figuring it all out. You may argue that the old article as it appeared before your extensive edits did not contain many references either. However, I would argue that the fact that it has stood the test of time with many editors looking at it without argument tends to suggest that it was acceptable, but to make the drastic edits as you have done does require some documentation. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example of the difficulties I am finding that make it hard to me to do edits I feel to be needed. You say:
As societies evolve so do their mythological systems change, while maintaining traces of their older forms. In his life time Campbell tried to create a survey of world mythology and many of his books, The Masks of God [1959–1968], Atlas of Mythology and The Power of Myth are structured in a way similar to the historical evolution of mythology. In his work he identified various stages of religious and mythical expression, and although they were presented with a different focus each time, some basic recurring elements are:
How do you figure that The Power of Myth (for instance) is "structured in a way similar to the historical evolution of mythology"? Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, we are having a discussion. I replied to all your questions above and will do so for the rest. I always wanted this to be a discussion ;-) As to your worries. The Power of Myth follows the pattern of:
  • An introduction to the concepts of mythology according to Campbell in 1.Myth and the Modern World and 2.The Journey Inward,
  • The hunting societies' mythologies and animal rites in: 3.The First Storytellers 4.Sacrifice and Bliss which is the same material as the "Primitive Mythology" (Part 1 from Masks of God) and "The way of Animal Powers" in the Atlas of World Mythology. These are earlier than the planting cultures' myths chronologically and they are presented in this way in all of Campbells books. One dates from 200.000 BC the other from 7 - 5.000 BC with the advent of agriculture and should be presented in this order in the article.
  • Then we have 6. The Gift of the Goddess which is the found to "Occidental Mythology"'s first part (Part 2 from Masks of God) and in "The Way of Seeded Earth".
  • Then 7.Tales of Love and Marriage which talks about the Amor during the Middle Ages concept and how it relates to the matriarchal religions which is the latter part of Occidental Mythology
  • Then Powers of Myth goes into Eastern Mythology which I did not cover and we can discuss how. As to the word 'atonement' it is removed after your suggestion.
  • Finally we have the Masks of Eternity with the "spiritual potential in all of us" (book editor's comment) which is the Creative Mythology part.
So the structure is there in the books I quoted and has a chronological basis
As for the references. I think my part has many more references than parts like influence where it is said that "Campbell's thinking on universal symbols and stories was deeply influenced by James Frazer (The Golden Bough), Adolf Bastian, and Otto Rank (The Myth of the Birth of the Hero), among others. Anthropologist Leo Frobenius was important to Campbell’s view of cultural history." with no references whatsoever. Please let me know of any further worries Mmick66 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As for comments I started various chapters below to discuss the edits I made. Sorry if I did not include more comments on the actual edits, will do so in the future. Mmick66 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
If you "always wanted a discussion" you have a strange way of showing it - wait almost 3 weeks, make more extensive edits, and then "discuss". As for the Power of Myth book, yes I know the names of the chapters, what I don't get is how you suggest that the book is "structured in a way similar to the historical evolution of mythology". If that were true the book would start with the ancient cave paintings and the fact that of the oldest art objects that have been found, only the Mother Goddess is represented rather than the first storytellers. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologised for my 3 week absence. The changes I made after that where following your suggestions (all of them I would say) and is by no means indicating that I do not want to discuss since I wrote in the discussion forum. As to the Power of Myth. It does start with the cave paintings, after an introduction to general mythological thinking is made that is. The First Storytellers chapter contains the Hunting Cultures Mythology. Campbell discusses about the Lascaux paintings in the same chapter which are predominantly hunting rituals and date 15.000 BC. Then he goes into Mother Godess stuff 5.000 BC and, then Medieval, Eastern, Contemporary. I know that Female (mother like) figures have also been found in these sites but this is not what Campbell refers as the Goddess which is born in Mesopotamia. Mmick66 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at your article statement and your above post and am unable to grasp just what you are getting at. If I, with a fair amount of knowledge about Campbell, don't get it I can't imagine that a person not familiar with Campbell's work would. It sound's like original research to me. It is my opinion that in your introduction of the thinking of Campbell you have entered a dangerous area in that you are presenting information to readers that may have never read any of Campbell's works and that you may be distorting his outlook. Take for instance your above statement that the cave painting largely represent a "hunting ritual". This is similar to your statement that (for instance) the Buffalo Dance was for atonement. While your editing suggests to me that you know better, I feel that your presentation of Campbell's thinking in this article may create a false impression of what Campbell tried to get across: The "atonement" ritual was much more than just tit for tat, Jesus died for our sins, etc (and I feel that you later did some great editing to show that). The cave paintings, while perhaps used to introduce boys into the world of The Men, was much more than that. Campbell called the cave a "landscape of the soul". Please be careful and remember the power of what you write here. I regret that others have not joined in this discussion. I realize that you are attempting to present a good article for Campbell, as am I. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you are saying so please suggest a way to fix the inconsistencies you mentioned. If on the other hand you believe that we should revert the article to its older form please say so and I might agree with that as well. What I think we should keep the functions of mythology since he explicitly stated these in more than one occasion, in always the same format. I also believe that removing mentions to Neil Geiman (who read half a Campbell book!) and Dan Brown where correct and should be kept. I also think there should be something on the evolution of myth from hunting to planting cultures. Maybe we should remove what I wrote for the moment and try and come up with a better way of writing it. Mmick66 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what we can do. When you did your first edits I assumed that David Kudler, who has watched this article for some time, would make suggestions but he has not and I can't understand why because he has kept pretty tight reins on this article. I even put a note on his talk page but he never responded. Your idea was to add some of Campbell's contributions to our understanding of mythology, and I think it's an excellent idea. Should we both take a little time thinking about how to best go about it? I'd like to read some other articles, read this one as it was before your edits and how it now reads, and then maybe have some thoughts on changes. Gandydancer (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I remember which edits I made. I will take out the more controversial "Taxonomy of Myth" and cleanup the Functions of Myth section. I will also leave the removal of Neil Geiman's and Dan Brown references which I think you will agree are unsubstantiated. My initial motive was to add some of the great scientific research material that Campbell uncovered instead of just focusing on the "follow your bliss" concept which is he ended up being known for (that and star wars that is). I think that one of the best approaches to religion is to see it through the scope of evolutionary history, the "why" and "how" the specific forms that thousands consider sacred had evolved. Campbell follows a common pattern in presenting this evolution and I think we can talk about finding an acceptable summary of this work and present it to Wikipedia. Mmick66 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK Mmick. Do what seems right. This is actually the last article that I am thinking about right now. Like the rest of us, I have a life going on, and like some wikipedia editors, I am following an article that is moving along much faster than this article. I do agree with what seems to me to be your basic thoughts of presenting Campbell's contributions to the understanding of mythology. As time permits I will comment and I pray for the comments of others. Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you did delete some material. It seems that we still have the functions of myth that you added. IMO it is an excellent addition and important to the article. And you have expanded the hero's journey section as well, is that correct? What are your thoughts on the segment you deleted? Would you like to bring it back in different form? Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The segment I deleted was the one I had written a few weeks ago, the one which spurred the controversy. It is the historical evolution of Myth (taxonomy as I called it) and I suggest we take some time rewriting. The one I left in is the Functions of Myth which are the four points that Campbell has expressed in this exact form in a few places in his work and I have practically summed what he said. Another section I had deleted was references to Neil Geiman and Dan Brown. Please see below for the separate chapters on this issue. Mmick66 (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the courage to post the part of the article as worked by me and Gandydancer. I incorporated nearly all of his suggestions and made sure to enhance the point of the subjugation of the Earth Godess to the Father God of the Indo European conquerors. Please let me know of your opinion.Mmick66 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job Mmick66! You have made an important contribution to this article. You have a good mind and a good heart and I'd say your own Hero's Journey was a great success! Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Mmick66 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits on Works

I recently merged the section "Work" with "Works" since it was practically identical in content and contained many duplicates. I kept the longer format of the first where present but I think we can consider shortening it since all the books discussed more extensively have their own link. I suggest we move the content there.Mmick66 (talk)

Edits on Lasting Influence

As I was reading this section I realised that some references are very speculative and are closer to what should be considered original research. I do not think that Gaiman's statement of reading half of a Campbell book deserves to be mentioned, especially after the author said that he stopped so that he is not influenced. Same for J. K. Rowling who has not confirmed the influence at all and only speculation exists. The fact that some critics saw a monomyth structure is not a real proof since by its very definition, monomyth is inherent to all stories and so the statement becomes tautological. Dan Brown, in the interview referenced in the article, only said that he was inspired by on Campbell's open mindedness for his main character in The Da Vinci Code, not the structure of the book. He does not make any statement on being influenced from Campbell's monomyth concept ideas and in all honesty he is the most "anti-Campbell" author out there since he interprets myths as literary as possible, actually resisting Cambell's theories. Mmick66 (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Relation of Literary texts to the Monomyth concept

By its very definition by Campbell, Monomyth is ever present in stories without that being a conscious effort from the part of the creator. It is a structure that pre exists stories. In that respect I do not think that a speculative connection that has not been confirmed by the author is worth mentioning. In fact, due to its very nature, we could fill the whole of Wikipedia with references to Monomyth since (if Campbell is correct) it will exists everywhere ;-) I believe that only a direct quote or extensive research by a third party should be mentioned Mmick66 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Segal on purported antisemitism

The section on "Posthumous controversy" says that Robert Segal rebutted the charges of antisemitism in an article titled "Joseph Campbell on Jews and Judaism". I don't have access to that article, so I can't judge whether the characterization of it is correct. However, I am aware of another article by Segal ("Joseph Campbell as Antisemite and Theorist of Myth", Journal of the American Academy of Religion 67.2, pp. 461-67) in which he writes, "I am no defender of Campbell and have myself attacked both his theory of myth and his antisemitism. But I think that these matters are separable and that Friedman is wrong to attribute Campbell's incontestable indifference to the Holocaust primarily to Campbell's theory of myth rather than to Campbell's sheer antisemitism" (p. 461). Looks like Segal sees a bit of antisemitism in Campbell after all.

I'm aware that I'm perfectly free to add the above quote to the article. However, before (or instead of) doing that, I'd really like to get the article's existing statement about Segal cleared up. Can anyone quote for me what exactly Segal said in "Joseph Campbell on Jews and Judaism" and explain how it opposed the charge of antisemitism? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm aware of your post. I do remember quite some time ago trying to find info since I found the accusations hard to believe and the follow-up letters seemed pretty convincing to me. On the other hand, after reading your post I did find this [1] when I googled it. But right now, other Wikipedia articles take my time, even more so than I wish... Gandydancer (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I would have to say that it is interesting to note that the "Jews and Judaism" article cited on the wikipage is from 1992 and the one Phatius McBluff lists above is from 1999. The difference in time and research may account for a change in opinion for Segal, however, I don't really think that happened here. While I, too, do not have access to the full text of the Religion journal article either, I ran across this abstract of it which makes me wonder if the Segal article really does not counter but might actually support the charge of antisemitism. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed from Serpent (Bible)

this was moved over here in view of the content being way beyond WP:fringe in terms of ANE scholarship, and also no source. If it's relevant to his bio article then someone by all means recycle it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He compares Egyptian worship of Set with Yahwism (the academic term for the religion of Judah prior to the Exilic period), adducing as a parallel as the sacrifice of the red heifer (detailed in Plutarch's Isis and Osiris), as well a parallel between Yahweh and the snake-legged Greek Typhon, whose image appears with the name "Ia", "Iah" or "Yah" on many amulets and charms found among the graves of the Maccabees.[clarification needed]!--what are Campbell's sources for this?--

Rationale for images

Please read and understand Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free images. Non-free images are required to have a rationale for every article where they are used. The images I've removed have none for this article. Nor is slapping a tag on them going to help, because nonfree images are also required by policy to be "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In other words, the mere fact that the subject of the image is mentioned in this article is not good enough. The photo of Campbell himself is acceptable, as it significantly increases readers' understanding of this article; but the photos of his friends and his books are not (though they are acceptable in the articles specifically on those friends and books). —Angr (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy, so I have no idea whether or not you are just splitting hairs here or have voiced a legitimate concern. At any rate, I do feel that sometimes a person can be right, and yet wrong. Unless there is some sort of serious problem, I very much hope that the images remain in the article.Gandydancer (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added rationale statements on the File: pages of the non-free images used in this article. As for using images of subjects other than the main subject of the article... The images add to the identification of the secondary subjects. Many people have seen the book covers and logos without having had the chance to identify them; since this is an article about Joseph Campbell, omission of images of his most influential work and of the logo of the organization set up in his name would seem to be "detrimental... to the readers' understanding of the topic." But that's just me.David Kudler (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said, adding rationale statements to the file pages doesn't change the fact that the images have no business in this article. "Adding to the identification of the secondary subjects" does not significantly increase readers' understanding of this article. The image of Ed Ricketts adds nothing to the understanding of this article, and that image still has no rationale for this article (nor could it ever). This article is in violation of Wikipedia policy in its current form. —Angr (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Angr is quite correct. Those images are appropriate on the pages about the specific subjects (the book cover on an article about the book, etc.), but use here is quite clearly outside of both #3 and #8 of the nonfree content requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of policies, there are too many photographs of famous figures decorating the edges of this article. It gives the impression that Campbell lives in an art gallery. Did Campbell synthesize the work of Krishnamurthi, Spengler, Nietszche and Bill Moyers? 146.115.145.237 (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not gainsaying your esthetics, though I actually like seeing the images, but yeah, he synthesized Krishnamurti, Spengler, and Nietsche (and Jung and Freud and Joyce and Frazier and Rank and...), and Moyers was his collaborator. Of the folks whose images appear, it seems to me they're among the most important in terms of understanding Campbell's work. But that's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.140.97 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for images

Please read and understand Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free images. Non-free images are required to have a rationale for every article where they are used. The images I've removed have none for this article. Nor is slapping a tag on them going to help, because nonfree images are also required by policy to be "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In other words, the mere fact that the subject of the image is mentioned in this article is not good enough. The photo of Campbell himself is acceptable, as it significantly increases readers' understanding of this article; but the photos of his friends and his books are not (though they are acceptable in the articles specifically on those friends and books). —Angr (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy, so I have no idea whether or not you are just splitting hairs here or have voiced a legitimate concern. At any rate, I do feel that sometimes a person can be right, and yet wrong. Unless there is some sort of serious problem, I very much hope that the images remain in the article.Gandydancer (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added rationale statements on the File: pages of the non-free images used in this article. As for using images of subjects other than the main subject of the article... The images add to the identification of the secondary subjects. Many people have seen the book covers and logos without having had the chance to identify them; since this is an article about Joseph Campbell, omission of images of his most influential work and of the logo of the organization set up in his name would seem to be "detrimental... to the readers' understanding of the topic." But that's just me.David Kudler (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said, adding rationale statements to the file pages doesn't change the fact that the images have no business in this article. "Adding to the identification of the secondary subjects" does not significantly increase readers' understanding of this article. The image of Ed Ricketts adds nothing to the understanding of this article, and that image still has no rationale for this article (nor could it ever). This article is in violation of Wikipedia policy in its current form. —Angr (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Angr is quite correct. Those images are appropriate on the pages about the specific subjects (the book cover on an article about the book, etc.), but use here is quite clearly outside of both #3 and #8 of the nonfree content requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of policies, there are too many photographs of famous figures decorating the edges of this article. It gives the impression that Campbell lives in an art gallery. Did Campbell synthesize the work of Krishnamurthi, Spengler, Nietszche and Bill Moyers? 146.115.145.237 (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not gainsaying your esthetics, though I actually like seeing the images, but yeah, he synthesized Krishnamurti, Spengler, and Nietsche (and Jung and Freud and Joyce and Frazier and Rank and...), and Moyers was his collaborator. Of the folks whose images appear, it seems to me they're among the most important in terms of understanding Campbell's work. But that's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.140.97 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Outdated citations

I have attempted to find replacements for citations that are dead, but had no luck. I have therefore inserted Citation messages.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Soulparadox. I think it would be better to use the [dead link] tag. According to WP: Link rot you should not delete even dead ones because, A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead... The site also suggests several different methods to try to reincarnate the dead link. Gandydancer (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is part of Joseph Campbell's education missing from the article?

The article only mentions that Campbell earned B.A. and M.A. degrees, but later it says "he was very insistent that he be addressed as Mr. Campbell, not Dr. Campbell." The latter quote would imply that he also earned a Ph.D., which however is not mentioned in the article. If he did earn a Ph.D., it should be mentioned and documented. If he did not earn a Ph.D., then the quotation should prompt further discussion about why people were calling him "Dr. Campbell". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.33.216 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question, but nope, he never earned a full doctorate (though he was granted at least one honorary PhD). As the article says at the beginning of the Great Depression section, "On his return to Columbia in 1929, Campbell expressed his desire to pursue the study of Sanskrit and Modern Art in addition to Medieval literature. Lacking faculty approval, Campbell withdrew from graduate studies."David Kudler (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Influence section placement

I found myself looking at the article again, and thinking that the Influence section (which perhaps ought to be titled Legacy to clarify that it discusses Campbell's impact rather than those who had an impact on him?) should be placed below the Works section--since the work did come before the legacy. Any thoughts?David Kudler (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see! Good to see you around again. As usual, your thoughts seem reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Um...

So why is there a picture of Oswald Spengler accompanying the article? It simply exists in space with no reference in the piece. (Why not a picture of my cat?)

And most Wiki articles on prominent thinkers would include a "criticism" section. For this piece, I don't mean Campbell's alleged anti-semitism. But rather, where is any mention made of criticisms of Campbell's actual work? He always seemed intellectually derivative to me, and as a philosopher friend put it, his TV lectures were "incredibly cloying."

There has to be some distinguished Campbell nay-sayers. Why not include a brief paragraph?Isoruku (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Posthumous controversy

This article certainly contains some bias regarding the subject of claims of anti-Semitism towards Joseph Campbell. It creates the impression that this subject and the accusations have been dismissed by the majority of scholars and former peers, while a search of the literature appears to yield comparable numbers of papers and accounts arguing in favor and against the claims. I have made some changes to the Posthumous controversy section aiming for a more balanced discussion of this sensitive subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.2.229 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Many of us who have worked on this page over the years have seen this section rewritten so often that we can't see it any more, if that makes sense. I did move a couple of things around--the date added to the Larsens' biography was for the second edition, not the first, and edits over the years had left two separate references to articles and letters from Campbell's supporters (one of which was unreferenced), so I combined them.
I read the Friedman article years ago, and came away with the impression that it was a willful misreading of Campbell's work--but I don't currently have access to JSTOR, so I can't re-check that impression.David Kudler (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Posthumous, indeed. It is telling that this type of criticism didn't exist until after Campbell's death. 50.54.231.182 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is this on here? What is the justification for this "controversy" being noted here? The fact that someone made an unsubstantiated claim is noteworthy?Duckduckgeese (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Campbell's enthusiastic support of the War on Vietnam

I havn't visited this article in a while but I remember a while back that there was some important criticism of this orientialist "thinker" JC. There should be discussion of his pro-war stance -his support of the US's murder of Vietnamese people, and of course his racism and anti-Semitism. Lets start a nice criticism section on JC which gives a more encylopedic look at this dilatant and hodgepodger. Teetotaler 9 March, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.159.118 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncited material

Uncited/challenged/deleted material has been restored here -- some was restored without citations, as required by wp:burden. It requires citations (within the same paragraph at the very least) in order to restore it. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I added citations as needed to all restored material — in one case, it was cited already at the end of the (short) paragraph as minimally required. Am I overlooking further documentation that needs to be provided? David Kudler (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Look at all the uncited material you restored -- without the required inline cites -- in the above diff. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Over-long quotes

The quotes in the article are often overly long. This not only raises readability questions, but quotes of such length raise copyvio questions. Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

His own religion

He's in the categories "American Roman Catholics" and "Roman Catholic writers", but the citation in the "Monomyth" section indicates that he was an atheist, and apparently a one who thought that believers are intellectually worse off (consider the difference between "people who think that their metaphors are facts" and "people who know that the metaphors are not facts". 46.186.35.242 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Making info conform to source

I deleted the part about what he asked to be called because (A) it's not covered in the cited source and (B) it seems somewhat irrelevant since in fact he did NOT have a doctoral degree; such it would be expected that he would not ask to be addressed with a title he did not possess EVEN IF the cited source did in fact say it. I added a related statement that IS covered by the cited source material. But it too seems trivial, so no objection if another editor would like to delete it. Paavo273 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joseph Campbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Public Outreach" section is an embarrassment to Wikipedia

If I knew enough about Campbell's history and legacy I would rewrite it myself. The grammar is horrendous and it is purely POV, written in a very belligerent tone. 2601:645:4100:BED2:811E:3DDA:C0B:9EA9 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)