Talk:Ken Campbell (evangelist)

Untitled

It should be noted that this man died on 28 August 2006. Obituary in the Globe & Mail is found at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/Deaths.20060904.93060589/BDAStory/BDA/ .

• This is indeed the same person. I'll correct the page shortly. CJCurrie 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor Comments

1. I added Ken Campbell's photo --DavidSpencer.ca (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I Updated the expression "Anti-gay and anti-abortion crusader" to Pro-marriage and Pro-life Crusader --DavidSpencer.ca (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Campbell's comments at Toronto rally

I have repeatedly removed what I feel are POV pushing edits by User:AJDKS. There isn't enough room to explain in an edit summary.

This edit isn't helpful because the source doesn't explain why it's relevant in this location on Campbell's article. Campbell is mentioned twice; the first is an irrelevant discussion of Socrates, and the second is an alleged quote from Campbell, who said "I can see that someone in the Ontario government is out to deny the fundamental human rights of homosexuals and [The Body Politic's] right to publish for them." That reads like Campbell is supporting gay rights, which makes no sense.

As for this edit, it is sourced to a video of a 1979 CBC news report. The newsreader, John McQuaker, says that Campbell "lumps homosexuals into one large group and seems to treat them all as child molesters." That comes right before Campbell says "when a group advocates the molestation of children...one has to question the...social constructive nature of the whole cause they represent." (The ellipses don't censor anything but Campbell repeating things he has just said and saying "uh" a few times, typical activities for someone speaking off the cuff.) McQuaker is hedging with the word "seems" since Campbell says "advocates," not "seems to advocate" or anything like that. He is blatantly calling "a group" advocates of child molestation. What "group" is Campbell talking about if not gays? CityOfSilver 17:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AJDKS Responds: I have repeatedly needed to redo my contributions of significant historical/contextual, neutral-POV information which have been deleted by CityofSilver. The same editor appears to have deleted a pre-existing quote from David Mainse without giving a rationale for doing so (see View History Nov. 1 at 21.13). The CBC Archives support the source citation and link to the Gerald Hannon article, which is referred to both in the television news clip and in the "Did You Know?" section of the same archive link, in which the context of the rally in response to the Body Politic /Gerald Hannon article is given. Within this context, the plausible answer to the question "What 'group' is Campbell talking about if not gays?" is given: the Body Politic publishers. (News reporters are not immune to POV interpretation, so let the facts stand as they are: quote Campbell but don't import the interpretative introduction into the encyclopedia (see NPOV tutorial: Mind Your Nuances) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJDKS (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC) AJDKS (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)AJDKS

Immediately before the linked article, it reads, "Campbell protested the gay publication The Body Politic (magazine) alongside Christian television talk-show host David Mainse in response to an article it had published by Gerald Hannon in the December 1977/January 1978 issue (reprinted in March/April 1979) entitled 'Men Loving Boys Loving Men.'" Whether the article is relevant to the rally is obvious. It is, and I've never said otherwise. But it does not say why Campbell was at the rally and it includes a quote attributed to Campbell that is almost certainly not something he ever said. Thus, it neither verifies the text immediately before it nor quotes Campbell correctly. How is this a worthwhile source?

So the question remains. Why was Campbell there? "Within this context, the plausible answer to the question "What 'group' is Campbell talking about if not gays?" is given: the Body Politic publishers." I don't know how it's plausible or even possible to interpret Campbell's phrase, "whole cause," as meaning anything but homosexuality in general, especially since he specifically condemns Hannon, the publishers, and child molesters at the beginning of the quote, or at least at the beginning of the quoted part of his comment that McQuaker doesn't talk over. "[W]hen a group advocates the molestation of children" refers to Hannon and the publishers. Campbell made clear with that differentiation, "a group" vs. "whole cause," that the "group" is a subset of a "cause." If he'd meant to say that about the publishers and nobody else, or about child molesters and nobody else, he would have said so. (And McQuaker is allowed to push a biased point of view if the CBC will let him; that doesn't make him or the CBC any less of a reliable source.) CityOfSilver 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

AJDKS responds: Please see the newly added information regarding Campbell's role as organizer of the rally sourced from the CBC archive link at reference #2. The additional source from the CLGA (Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives) offers a link to the article and a significant chronology of the events in Toronto surrounding Campbell's protest rally. Your questioning of the quote in the chronology attributed to Campbell is understandable, since it may at first appear contradictory, but you have jumped to a conclusion ("almost certainly not something he ever said") which is conjecture and does not discredit the source. You are also making an assumption about what Campbell meant to say and should have said ("would have said so")in the interview, but again, these are conclusions not warranted by the evidence of the news report. Neutral reporting in this case requires offering facts gleaned from the source, not interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJDKS (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I need something better than "may at first appear contradictory" to indicate that Campbell said that, since a second, third, and fiftieth look all indicate that attributing the quote to Campbell defies logic. A few Google searches did not turn that quote up anywhere else. It's not that it's unlikely that he said that; it's that the quote espouses the exact opposite view on homosexuality than the one that Campbell espoused his entire public life.

As for what Campbell meant, I am restating a conclusion that McQuaker reached via research. McQuaker is a secondary source and secondary sources are the most valuable kinds of sources on Wikipedia per WP:PSTS. The whole point of assigning reliable source status to news outlets is because it can be taken for granted that they have enough motivation and enough resources not to make mistakes. (Had McQuaker arrived at such a conclusion without plenty of evidence, Campbell could have sued him and the CBC straight back to the Stone Age. The CBC knows that, and they never would have aired such inflammatory remarks unless they were confident that they were on solid legal ground.)

I'm just trying to find an answer to a question that nags incessantly: Why did Campbell clearly, precisely separate "a group" and "whole cause?" That entire quote is Campbell differentiating one from the other. One logical guess, backed up by the CBC report, is because he believed that gay child molesters discredit homosexuality itself. Since I truly cannot come up with another logical guess, I'm concluding that there isn't one. He wasn't clearer because he had spoken clearly enough. CityOfSilver 23:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AJDKS responds: See the archives on the Body Politic where the same quote from Campbell is given in the timeline: http://www.clga.ca/Material/Records/docs/hannon/lind/tbpcases.html. Campbell's further action of condemning the bathhouse raids in Toronto in 1981 also appears contradictory and to defy a certain logic, requiring the reader to form some different hypotheses, which might include that Campbell was not absolutely anti-gay rights: see the CBC archive of this event, under "Did you know?" pt. 6 http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/clips/3233/

As for the nagging question, Campbell made a distinction between what he calls "militant" gay activism and homosexuality, a distinction that gay activist and associate of the Body PoliticRick Bebout also makes when he uses the term "gay militants" in his memoir Promiscuous Appetites: A Life in the The Bar, 1969-2000: 1979http://www.rbebout.com/bar/1979.htm . I'm not denying that the CBC is a reliable source; in fact, I too am relying on the CBC for archive material. I'm just saying, don't unnecessarily import the interpretation of the reporter, who may be as baffled as you are (thus using the term "seems") about the distinctions that Campbell, along with gay activists like Bebout, make between the particular activist group/cause and other homosexuals not associated with their activity or perspectives. Further, you're again assuming that Campbell would sue the CBC for the reporter's comments; that is conjecture. We could also assume that he did write a letter or make a phone call to the CBC, but then again, that, also, would only be conjecture.AJDKS (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)AJDKSAJDKS (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)AJDKS