Talk:C. E. M. Joad

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

University of Oxford B‑class

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Ethics / Contemporary C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Ethics
	Contemporary philosophy

Ignored Schopenhauer

Joad's opinions on clear writing and on aesthetics were the same as Schopenhauer's. Joad, however, didn't mention Schopenhauer. Fashionably, he wrote, instead, explanations of Hegel's philosophy. If he did that in order to endear himself to the philosophic community, he failed. By the professors, Joad was considered to be a bad philosopher, possibly because of his stubborn insistence on writing very clearly and succinctly.Lestrade (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Sources?

This is an interesting article, but there are no sources for the information it contains. Is there a biography of Joad? Peter Ells (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a biography of Joad, it isn't in print at the moment. I checked Amazon and AbeBooks. Whoever wrote this article really should provide sources. It reads like original research, which would be a shame because I agree it's an interesting article and if it's original research, it can't stay up there. The revision history shows that the bulk of the article was by anonymous user 195.93.21.69, so there's no way of asking he or she what the sources were. The only thing I have been able to determine is that 195.93.21.69 probably lives in London. Lexo (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information and quotes tie with an independent article at [1] but the tone from start to finish is pretty condemnatory. I'd like to see some balance injected if possible. I'm only passing through but I might come back at some stage. There's more to be said about the chap than the article currently contains. JohnHarris (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent influence

Joad was credited by the writer Stephen Potter as having provided the initial inspiration for the theory of gamesmanship, which Potter made famous. The original story may be apocryphal, but according to Potter the two men were playing doubles tennis against two younger students (and losing) when Joad, having hit the ball square into the back netting, asked the students after a carefully timed pause to tell him clearly whether it was in or out. Embarrassed by the implied suggestion that their sportsmanship was in question, the students' game collapsed and they lost the match. Joad would also seem to be the inspiration for the character of Sticking in Potter's later book Supermanship. Joad and Sticking share a fondness for scruffy clothes, country walks, socialism, opera and common sense, and Frank Wilson's illustration of Sticking (short stiff black hair, rotund figure) resembles the description of Joad (although without Joad's beard). The Sticking/Joad thing may be original research on my part, but the Joad-gamesmanship connection is well-documented and ought to be in here. Lexo (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waugh and Joad

Evelyn Waugh and his biographer Christopher Sykes both considered Joad a palpable fraud, though without giving concrete evidence. Waugh describes his experience as a guest on the Brains Trust in his diary entry for 1 - 11 April 1942: 'Joad goat-like, libidinous, garrulous... I was delighted to observe the derision in which he was held by all the BBC staff'. Sykes, Evelyn Waugh p. 219: 'Joad... whose right to an academic title was frequently and damagingly disputed.' Waugh reports that Joad later reneged on a pledge made by all the Brains Trust participants to donate their fee for that broadcast to a war fund. Waugh also describes the incident in a letter to his agent, A. D. Peters, asking Peters to ascertain whether or not the others, Joad included, did back out of their commitment. They did. Bluedawe 21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist or agnostic

Was Joad an atheist or an agnostic? Rise and fall said he was an agnostic while Death said he was an atheist. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to agnostic in both sections because the Encyclopedia Britannica says so. [2] In the UK at Joad's time agnostic could mean agnosticism as Thomas Huxley understood the term or what Americans call Weak atheism. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent several hours researching and have found no evidence that Joad was beginning to renounce his agnosticism before the train ticket scandal. I'll take it out. If anyone knows that Joad began to renounce agnosticism earlier than the train ticket scandal please put it back and give citation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Class Socrates

After his train ticket incident, did he not used to be referred to as "a third class Socrates" (presumably he had been caught travelling first class with a third class ticket, and at a rough guess might have encountered a guard who was not impressed by his status as a gentleman or a celebrity)? Might make a nice addition if somebody has a source. Joad and Randolph Churchill, who I think said it, formed a double act who used to turn up to the Oxford Union to debate one another for many years (they had taken opposite sides on the "King and Country" motion in 1933, but not in the same debate. IIRC Robin Day mentioned it in his memoirs.Paulturtle (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of C. E. M. Joad

Please someone upload an authentic photograph of C. E. M. Joad. The caricature is demeaning.

I don't find it demeaning. Wayne Jayes (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to see what Joad actually looked like, and looked up the article partly for that reason. Caricatures make little sense, when you don't know what someone looked like.