User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Vidhu Vinod Chopra

Hi, the expansion was great! However, pl. be careful abt the existing material - His oscar nomination is highly important and it got removed, probably inadvertently, during your edits. Such deletions are almost never noted on RC patrol because your edits were improving the article. btw, you may want to sign-up with the Indian cinema project. --Gurubrahma 17:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gurubrahma - Many, many thanks for pointing this out - yes it was removed inadvertently. I went ahead and created a page for An Encounter with Faces and also added the oscar information to his credits. Thanks again for the feedback. -Classicfilms 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vidhu Vinod Chopra

Hi... I really enjoyed your work on Vidhu Vinod Chopra. I was thinking about doing a major write up on his two early films Sazaye-Maut and Khamosh. I would really love it if you could help out on those films (provided you've seen them). Thanks. --Antorjal 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Antorjal - Glad to help out! I haven't seen his early films, but I would be happy to review your articles once you have finished them. -Classicfilms 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your message earlier. I'm thinking about writing up Khamosh pretty soon. Would love all the help I can get, especially reviewing/copyediting etc. Thanks. Rock on. --Antorjal 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I would be happy to take a look once you are finished. -Classicfilms 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the list in Hidden Ivies really omit Rutgers?

In Public Ivies, you quoted a list from an appendix to Hidden Ivies. As quoted, the list does not included Rutgers, a surprising omission given that they had included it in their book on "public ivies." Would you mind double-checking and seeing whether they really left out Rutgers in their list in "Hidden Ivies?" Dpbsmith (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dpbsmith (talk) - Sure, I'm happy to check. Appendix II, page 303, titled "Other Colleges and Universities of Excellence", is divided into three parts. The first is "Middle Size Private Universities" which does not (and would not) include Rutgers since Rutgers is a state school. The second part is titled "State Universities" and lists the schools I placed on the Public Ivies page - Rutgers is not included. The third part on page 304 is "Scientific and Technical Universities" which does not list Rutgers. There is another section on page 304, "Additional Colleges of Note", but this also does not list Rutgers. I checked in the index and Rutgers is not listed. -Classicfilms 14:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Additional note. I restored the list on the Public Ivies page - which I had originally placed - and left your note that this list omits Rutgers. -Classicfilms 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai

Hi! I saw your recent edits in the article. Thank you for the nice work, especially for all the citations. Just keep an eye so that citations are placed immediately after the punctuation mark, not before. I have done a bit of copyediting. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. -Classicfilms 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gandhi

Hi - my removal of data from the "legacy" section reflects 4 main concerns (a) this article is too long, (b) no need to list so many statues of Gandhi and (c) the films/video games etc. is all too new and overplayed in importance. "Gandhigiri" deserves one sentence - the rest belongs to the article on the film itself. Also (d) the film poster and postage stamps are to be used to describe the stamps/film in question, not Gandhi - this is a "fair use" issue. Rama's arrow 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rama's arrow - Thanks for the clarification. I think it is fair to want to trim the article down since it is long and if fair use is an issue with images, the images should be removed. However, the points in the section are legitimate, and deserve reference on the main page. I will cut the film section down since a new section was created and move the material there, but we need to link to the daughter page since the films on Gandhi are relevant to his legacy. -Classicfilms 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"Lage Raho Munnabhai" is a recent film - you include reviews and accounts of interpretation of that film. This stuff is irrelevant to Gandhi's biography. Bineg a recent film, the "Gandhigiri" stuff might just be hype. Its fair to give it a sentence but I'm definitely opposed to anything more. Discussions of the film's attributes must be reserved for the film article. Rama's arrow 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't create the paragraph but I did edit what was already there. It is fair to want to move the information to the film page and give a redirect so I will do that. I also placed legacy above criticism. -Classicfilms 23:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I apologize for having removed this data without commenting on the talkpage first. Rama's arrow 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem at all - I appreciate the way in which you reworked the article - it really looks great! I will start editing the film section in a moment. -Classicfilms 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Rhythm and Hues Studios

Your recent edit to Rhythm and Hues Studios (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 06:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This was not an act of vandalism but an attempt to comply with the tag on the page by reverting to a former, clean version of the article. -Classicfilms 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, false positive, sorry 'bout that mate, I've reverted -- Tawker 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the correction. -Classicfilms 06:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add actor templates

Per a discussion at the Indian cinema project (WP:INCINE) and communication from the larger Wikipedia film project, we are not using actor templates. Project members are removing templates when they see them, though we haven't gotten round to deleting the templates -- which seems to have been a mistake.

Please don't re-add them. If the actor/actress has an article, that is linked to the article for his/her films; the article has a filmography. That's all that's needed! Otherwise we're going to see the bottom of articles bulk up with multiple templates, if every actor who appears in the film gets one. Zora 14:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -Classicfilms 15:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Diwali greetings

A belated Happy Diwali!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayan - Thanks for the greeting - A Happy Diwali to you too!! --Classicfilms 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Uruguay-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining the Uruguay WikiProject? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Uruguay-related articles.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Uruguay project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Wesborland 20:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to. -Classicfilms 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Casapueblo

Gracias por mejorar el artículo de Casapueblo que increiblemente no estaba en wikipedia. Yo que no soy uruguayo, creo que este lugar es uno de los más mágicos en el mundo!. Próximamente subiré algunas fotos tomadas por mí, pero por favor avisale al WikiProject de Uruguay que no olviden pegarse una pasada y mejorarlo aun más.

Tambien me di cuenta que no existe artículo sobre Paez Vilaró, para que lo incluyan el la lista "por hacer". En cuanto pueda subiré más fotos de Casapueblo y de Uruguay. Gusto conocerlo .... Alex Pascaweb 09:48, 02 Noviembre 2006

Hola Pascaweb! Thank you for your nice note. I regret to say that I do not read Spanish so I had a friend translate your note for me... I think that you raise many good points - why don't you join the Uruguay WikiProject? Perhaps then you could create the article on Paez Vilaró? Also, don't forget to review these guidelines: Wikipedia:Image use policy - before uploading images to the pages. I look forward to reading your future contributions to the Casapueblo page ... Adiós! -Classicfilms 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Lage Raho Munna Bhai

Yes you're right, it is a surprise cameo appearance, no need to spoil the surprise. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work on the cast list! -Classicfilms 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood Barnstar

An Award
The Bollywood Barnstar for Classicfilms for her contributions to Indian Cinema, particularly for her contributions to Lage Raho Munnabhai. Thanks a ton, mate! -- Awarded by Plumcouch Talk2Me and thunderboltz(Deepu) 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Plumcouch Talk2Me - What an honor - thanks so much! It's a great film - let's make this a good article...-Classicfilms 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I find myself screaming NOT FAIR!! I wanted to do this yesterday, but fell short of time. I come here today, and see myself preempted. I hope Plumcouch doesn't mind me sharing the honour of awarding you this barnstar. You deserve it, Classicfilms. Great job! All the best for your future contributions.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi thunderboltz(Deepu) - Thank you so much!! I really appreciate the feedback and am glad to help out! -Classicfilms 14:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Erm, just a small note ... I kinda *assumed* that you are a *she*, Classicfilms - if not, please accept my apologies and feel free to change the text of the award. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 19:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Plumcouch Talk2Me - Thanks for asking - the text originally used "his" which I changed it to "her" - it is now correct. Not a problem at all! Again, many thanks for the barnstar... -Classicfilms 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Classicfilm, you really deserve this award. And the way Lage Raho Munna Bhai is going, it should turn out to be a Good Article soon. Then we can even think about FA!! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate the feedback - many thanks! Looking forward to seeing edits from others in the Bollywood wikiproject as well...so that the article can continue to grow and improve -Classicfilms 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho... further

I was going through the article. What is lacking (in "Reaction" section or as an independent section) is Criticism, which would contain negative criticism about the film also. If this can be incorporated (and red links turned blue - which should not be a major problem), the article should be ready for being nominated as a GA. What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's tough to get negative words about the film, let alone a wholly negative review! A few words in the IndiaFM review about one or two minor flaws, and this is what I got trying to search for some not-so-praising words for the movie. Also I remember watching a Gandhi-specialist in TV telling about some flaws in the film. But cannot remember which channel. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dwaipayan - Fair enough, though it says something about the film if criticism is hard to find. I have not, to date, come across articles which critique the film on an aesthetic level. I have, however, come across two particular criticisms of the content: a)articles about Jahnu Barua (such as the one you offer from The Telegraph, and b) articles such as this one which argue that Lage Raho "dumbs down" issues related to Gandhi and Gandhism. I would suggest that a subsection under the "Reaction" section is made called "Criticism" which states the above (ie. while there has been little in the way of aesthetic criticism from reviewers, there were two recurring critiques concerning content etc.). -Classicfilms 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I agree with your comments about the red links being turned to blue - I'd also like to add that if there is time, it might be nice to add a few more actor names in order to develop the fact that Vidhu Vinod Chopra uses many of the same actors for small roles --much of the cast of Lage Raho is either from Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. or from Parineeta. -Classicfilms 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho... in Portal:India/Selected article candidates

I've nominated Lage Raho Munna Bhai in Portal:India/Selected article candidates. Hope to get some comments that will help improve the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayan - Great news, thanks for doing that. I'll be looking forward to the feedback. -Classicfilms 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One more point - I do hope that as feedback comes in, other members of the Bollywood wikiproject will also contribute to the article (though I do appreciate being given credit as a contributor). -Classicfilms 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema, in order to notify people in the project. However, usually response is lukewarm in Portal:India selected article candidates. We may soon have to go for a peer review and/or GA nomination.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! - Sounds like a good plan... -Classicfilms 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How modify TV show box?

How do I add composer to show template?: How do I add the composer to the Mod Squad show template?Dogru144 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You should probably ask over at the Wikipedia:Help_desk. -Classicfilms 02:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho... even more

Please have a look at other film articles which are FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media. 'Lage Raho... needs a section on Production. FAs on recent films like V for Vendetta also have this section, rather elaborately. This section should be incorporated before going for a GA nom. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines also lists this. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, this is a good start. Could you post this comment on the Lage Raho talk page as well? Thanks -Classicfilms 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment - perhaps you could also research and start the production section? -Classicfilms 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I started to do some search, but soon left the process! Am a bit impatient at times :( Anyway, I shall try again. It's tough.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Bengal Renaissance and Brahmo Samaj

Please see the Bengal Renaissance talk page. I am looking forward to a positive response from you. With regards. -- Seejee 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Seejee - Thanks for responding to Talk:Bengal_Renaissance#Merge_request. Both articles have developed considerably since that time. However, if you would like to start the article I would be happy to look at it. -Classicfilms 04:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU violation

Your recent edit to Aishwarya Rai has been reverted. We are not permitted to use fair-use images to depict living people. Additionally, you did not add the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying the use of that image. Please see WP:FU which explains this policy. Thanks. --Yamla 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - since the image was used on the film page for Bride and Prejudice, I thought it was within fair use. Thanks for the information - -Classicfilms 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Also please note that it was the original poster of the image who did not add the "mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying the use of that image." -Classicfilms 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the fair-use rationale must be added for each use of the image, so given that you were adding it to a new article, you would have to add it. But that's not particularly important here, as the image was unusable. Please don't think that I'm coming down hard on you, though. Most people are not aware that only freely-licensed images can be used to depict living people and every editor runs foul of some of the policies from time to time. Have a good day! --Yamla 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your good words here - I do appreciate the feedback, particularly the clarification about fair use as I wasn't aware of what you wrote above - I certainly will follow these proceedures in the future. Please always feel free to contribute this kind of advice to my talk page in the future since mistakes can sometimes be the path to learning...-Classicfilms 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lage Raho Classicfilms!

Hey, well done on your great work on Lage Raho Munna Bhai. The production section is very important though and needs to be made soon before we can take it to GAC. It's looking good though. Also, don't worry about the article if it starts becoming a little too long, please do not delete any content to trim the article, lots of FAs are 50kb and above. Regards. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. In terms of length, I am following the recommendations found on this page -Wikipedia:Article size - which suggest that when an article becomes too long, "readability" becomes an issue. I've been editing the article for style and flow, reducing repetitions and fixing awkward sentences - which can mean that information is condensed. However, if you would like to restore a point and can make a good argument for doing so, then by all means do it. And certainly if you want to add a production section, then by all means, research and write it. Thanks for your contributions to the article. -Classicfilms 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I was impressed by your contributions to Lage Raho Munna Bhai. This is one film article which can be cited as model for other film articles and covers all aspects of film comprehensively.Keep up your good work. I was happy to know that you are interested in depictions of Mahatma Gandhi in films.--Indianstar 13:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Indianstar - thanks for the feedback and glad you like the article (though many people from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema have been working on it).-Classicfilms 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your FAC contributions, the new synopsis doesn't even mention the fact that Lucky Singh took over the house. The deletion of all the text from the songlist wasn't mandated, the FAC said don't get listy, not that delete all the text. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In following the FAC recommendations, I shortened the synopsis (which I agree was too long). If there are important plot points that need to be restored, go ahead and restore them. Perhaps you could also rewrite the CD section, restoring deleted material as prose, paying attention to style and form. -Classicfilms 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Making of the Mahatma

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The Making of the Mahatma, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain I understand why you are requesting deletion. Could you please explain your reasoning? - Classicfilms 03:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i dreproded it sorryOo7565 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

West Bengal Portal

Portal:West Bengal has been vastly improved by riana_dzasta and S.D. ¿п?, with automated selection of articles. It is now a Featured portal candidate. Please have a look. Regards -- P.K.Niyogi 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be delighted to. Thanks for letting me know. - Classicfilms 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gore page

I agree about the VP section. Just trying to organize the page better. Your input is definitely appreciated. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jiffypopmetaltop - thanks! I appreciate the feedback on the Al Gore page. You've also done impressive work on the page. -Classicfilms 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get the tobacco farm thing? Cite a source if you are going to revert my edit.

[1]"Steve Armistead, one of Gore's friends from Carthage, remembers working alongside Gore on the farm. "One year we did the tobacco, one year it looked like the hay was the emphasis and the next year it looked like the cows was the emphasis, that sort of thing," Armistead remembers."Jiffypopmetaltop 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jiffypopmetaltop - I did add the citation but it is further down on the page attached to section about his sister - he talks about the family tobacco farm in An Inconvenient Truth - this review references it:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/film-reviews/an-inconvenient-truth/2006/09/15/1157827139680.html

-Classicfilms 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a better source than a movie review. Wp:Bio Jiffypopmetaltop 05:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another source from The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,386168,00.html

-Classicfilms 05:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the transcript.[2] Your first source is wrong. Your second source isn't primary either and may be from an editorial. Has Gore or his father ever referred to their farm that way? I think your second source is an example of sloppy reporting from Salon or paraphrasing by the author. I have a reliable source in the Washington Post (Gore's childhood friend/co-worker on the farm)article that contradicts your semi-reliable source.Jiffypopmetaltop 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This section in your reference does discuss it: "The Tobacco Industry".[3] -Classicfilms 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Really it doesnt. Please quote the text where Al Gore says "tobacco farm" Jiffypopmetaltop 05:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Novels project tags

I notice that in few cases you have replaced NovelsWikiProject tags with {{WP India|literature=yes}}. Please when you add the new tag could you leave to Novels one. Unless of course the article is obviously out of scope and should not have been tagged in the first place. If th India project is working on prose literare as such tagging seems to suggest we should be developing a closer working relationship on these areas of common interest. thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevinalewis - that sounds reasonable enough. I had assumed that the wikiprojects were roughly the same as cats (ie that subprojects should replace larger more general projects) which is why I made the replacements. I appreciate, however, the clarification above and would be delighted to leave both tags as the articles I think you are referring to (ie, Parineeta, Devdas, Nashtanir) could all use some more work and attention. Thanks for writing. -Classicfilms 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Classicfilms

Hello Classicfilms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tojagi (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

HelloClassicfilms

Hello Classicfilms Tojagi 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tojagi. -Classicfilms 12:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell

Hello Classicfilms,

You can tell I’m struggling with just navigating Wikipedia and its coding and editing process. I’m new to Wiki, but I am not new to Joseph Campbell. And you seem to be the self-appointed editor – and a rather tenacious one I might add – editing my edits on the Joseph Campbell Bibliography before I even finished editing. You’re a good watchdog. So I figure if I can enlist you to my way of thinking, you could ‘protect’ my edits against others.

Of course, there’s no guarantee my edits will warrant protection, but my revamping of the books, audio, and video of Joseph Campbell seemed to pass your inspection without too much trouble. I’m not angry with you. I’m just frustrated with the fact that the ‘General References’ have remained the way they are.

Let me tell you what the problem is with General References.

Since when do scholars and commentators neatly ‘line up’ for or against another scholar’s work? When you look up Carl Jung in Wikipedia you don’t find books and articles listed ‘for’ or ‘against’ Carl Jung! Nor would you see it at articles on Karl Marx, Franz Boas, Friedrich Nietzsche, James Hillman, Alan Watts, Huston Smith, or Mircea Eliade… It just doesn’t happen – ever.

And even if you were going to make an exception in this particular case, I’m not sure how it would be done. In Kenneth L. Golden’s book Uses of Comparative Mythology: Essays on the Work of Joseph Campbell. (1992) there is an essay by Robert A. Segal who is one of Campbell’s most outspoken critics. And it is negative. But most of the essays are ‘pro-Campbell’ so to speak - or else neutral. Are you going to pick and choose essays out of books and magazines at random to accentuate a polarity? Most critiques are just that; critiques. They aren’t wholly negative or wholly positive.

You have a category titled “Books and Articles critical of Campbell”.

And then only two ‘articles’ are listed by a man who wasn’t even a scholar of myth. He was a friend of Joseph Campbell’s. The Brendan Gill articles are a very general attack and they are not terribly scholarly, and the second one is not completely negative since it includes three authors who are answering charges made in the first article.

Then, under the heading Defense of Campbell you have a single piece of a blog by Maggie Macary who is investigating one particular aspect of Joseph Campbell’s personality; his alleged anti-Semitism.

The concept of a ‘for’ and ‘against’ Campbell listing doesn’t make sense. Some books or articles are critical of his ‘theory of myth’ or his ‘hero cycle’ or some other aspect of his scholarship. Are you going to list them right along with articles that argue about Campbell's alleged anti-Semitism?

Of course, we’d like to point people toward negative criticism as efficiently as possible. But the place to do that, if it is done, would be under the section, “Criticism of Joseph Campbell” not under ‘General References’

Furthermore, under the heading Books and articles critical of Joseph Campbell you have a sub-title “general” for general references. Only one of the articles, the last one, written by Robert A. Segal is ‘critical’ of Joseph Campbell. Some people might construe the Ellwood book as negative of Campbell. I didn’t think it was – though I didn’t really think it was positive. It seems odd to me that while people have tinkered with other parts of the article no one has changed this obvious flaw of listing general references under “Books and articles Critical of Campbell”.

But really, the whole concept of having books and articles for and against a thinker seems weird to me to begin with.

I suppose, if anti-Semitism is the issue, and if that’s what people are really interested in, you could have separate section listing of articles that address this particular issue. But even then, I don’t see why they should be divided up into ‘for’ or ‘against’ articles.

The next problem I have with ‘General references’ is some of the books listed.

Harris and Platzner. Classical Mythology: Images and Insights is a fine overveiw of Classical Mythology. But why would it be listed in general references for a Joseph Campbell article? This book is over 1000 pages. There are two references to Joseph Campbell, on page 48 and on page 304. Sure, it’s related to Campbell’s work. But I could easily list a hundred books on mythology that might mention Campbell’s name.

What’s needed, after listing the work that Campbell had a hand in creating, is a category that lists books and articles that deal directly and primarily with Campbell, his life, his work, or both. Not spin-offs. There are tons of spin-offs. I just read a book titled A Myth in Action: The Heroic Life of Audie Murphy In it, the author compares a ‘real life’ hero to the ‘Hero cycle’ as put forth by Campbell. But I wouldn’t list it as a primary source for Campbell. It’s a spin-off - or more precisely a work that uses Campbell's theories for a specific purpose. Building on his work and perhaps taking it in a new direction. And that’s how I see The Hero with an African Face and The Fairy Tale: The Magic Mirror of Imagination and Pearson & Pope’s The Female Hero in American and British Literature

These ten books deal directly and primarily with the life or work of Joseph Campbell.


1.) *Segal, Robert. Joseph Campbell an Introduction, (1987) 2.) *Larsen, Stephen and Larsen, Robin. Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind. (1991) 3.) *Golden, Kenneth L. Uses of Comparative Mythology: Essays on the Work of Joseph Campbell (1992) 4.) *Manganaro, Marc. Myth, Rhetoric, and the Voice of Authority: A Critique of Frazer, Eliot, Frye, and Campbell. (1992) 5.) *Madden, Lawrence, Editor. The Joseph Campbell Phenomenon: Implications for the Contemporary Church (1992) 6.) *Noel, Daniel C., Editor. Paths to the Power of Myth (1994) 7.) *Snyder, Tom. Myth Conceptions: Joseph Campbell and the New Age (1995) 8.) *Henderson, Mary. Star Wars: The Magic of Myth (1997) 9.) *Vogler, Christopher. The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure For Writers. (1998) 10.) *Ellwood, Robert. The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell (1999)


The only book in this list that could possibly be debated about is Mary Henderson’s ‘Star Wars: The Magic of Myth”. But after I went to my local library and read this book I had to admit that every chapter follows right through Campbell’s ‘Hero Cycle’ with Campbell quotes and explanations. There’s just too much Campbell to leave it off the list - imho.

So my proposition is to have a title ‘Books and articles about Joseph Campbell’ – or about the ‘Life and Work of Joseph Campbell’ and then a category for ‘spin-offs’ or ‘secondary sources’ or whatever you might call them to list those books that use Campbell but are not primarily about Campbell. That way people have a place to put their favorite Campbell inspired book. But that list, by the examples I’ve seen, could grow to be very, very long.

I think the ‘external links’ needs to be revamped as well – but I’d better get your feedback on this first for fear I’m wasting my time.

Thx Tojagi 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tojagi and welcome to the Wikipedia. Thank you for your long and very interesting post, though I'm thinking that it might be better placed on the talk page for Joseph Campbell since a number of editors have worked on the page. Of the books and references you list above, I added some and some were contributed by other editors - as many editors have worked on the page.
Generally, when radical changes are made to a section, reasons are listed at the time. And I believe that you offer very valid reasons above. I believe that your ideas for re-organization are great and it sounds as if you would like to add some valuable sources. My previous objection lay in the fact that existing material was removed without offering a reason why. You have done so above and, as I said, you have made some very valid points.
In order to present a balanced point of view, many articles in the Wikipedia offer a controversies section if a controversy was associated with the topic. Because of the controversy that followed upon its publication, the Gill article and the references to it should probably remain. The texts by Erickson, Jones, Manganaro, Larsen, and Pearson are all valuable (and scholarly) general additions. In general, it's a good idea when editing a page in the Wikipedia to justify removing existing information. If you can provide solid justification on the talk page for the article, then it is usually fine. As for external links, the Wikipedia offers very useful guidelines located here: Wikipedia:External links. You might want to review this page before adding links.
Other than that, you might want to review the general guidelines for the Wikipedia which are located on the page Wikipedia:Five pillars. Of these, it might be useful to pay attention to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Consensus though these are not the only useful pages.
Good luck with your future edits and I look forward to reading your contributions. -Classicfilms 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More Campbell

Thankyou ClassicFilms for your welcome and general suggestions. But I'd like you to address one specific question for me please. If you want to move this discussion to the Campbell discussion page that's fine - but I am asking you - since you are the one who seems interested in the section of which we speak.

Why would you have a 'for' and 'against' listing of books and articles? Why would you have it for this scholar and no other?

It looks like this:

  • Books and articles Critical of Campbell
  • 1.)Brendan Gill
  • 2.)General
  • Defense of Campbell
  • 1.)Maggie Macary

And then, explain to me why the general references you added would be listed under the books and articles Critical of Campbell? Why weren't they put above under general references?

Tojagi 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I mentioned above, your suggestion for re-organization of this section - which you discuss above - sounds fine to me. I never had a problem with getting rid of this way of organizing the texts. My argument lay with the removal of texts - unless there is a very good reason to do so, or group consensus, I don't believe that texts should be removed from the bibliography. However, I don't see a problem with getting rid of these headers and simply creating a long general list which does not qualify the texts. This is just my opinion, however. You probably want to move this discussion to the general talk page for the article and put your suggestions to all of the people who edit the page. -Classicfilms 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/a/User_talk%7EClassicfilms_Archive_2_5abe.html"