Talk:Myth of the Noble savage
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Myth of the Noble savage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Erroneous Identification of Rousseau with the Noble Savage
editOn April 15, 2012., Dwyermz changed the section about the Erroneous Indentification of Rousseau with the Noble Savage on the grounds that he personally finds Lovejoy's 1923 conclusions "controversial". This is Original Research. Dwyermz needs to find a secondary source (a reputable scholar, not a textbook that just mindlessly repeats errors), that challenges Lovejoy on the grounds that he is "controversial" - or for any other reason. and then give source and page number. Good luck with that. Virtually all scholars that I have come across accept Lovejoy's conclusions. Not only that, but Lovejoy, who was and still is the world's foremost authority on Primitivism and Related ideas, conclusively demolished the reputation of Irving Babbitt against whose attacks on Rousseau he was arguing. As far as I know, Babbitt never was able to answer Lovejoy, and he and his views have fallen into oblivion, while Lovejoy continues to be a respected figure. have restored the gist of Lovejoy's argument -- hopefully not in too much detail. Mballen (talk)
Earlier Use
editSee Marc Lescarbot (1609) for earlier reference. 2600:6C5A:87F:9698:8B37:974C:61EA:CF60 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)