Talk:Joseph Campbell

message: I checked the archive.org link above and modified it to a working one with a previous date in the URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20100527062921/http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/07-02.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eldritch (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction on modified link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Campbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227072637/http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Campbellchronology to http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Campbellchronology
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107075423/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=766 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=766
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dkudler, in regards to this edit, I have to say that you seem confused. Your edit summary was, "If you insist. I've added NPOV tags. By quoting Dr. Buchen incompletely, that final sentence is misleading and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. The first sentence in the paragraph refers to Masson; obfuscating that is also non-neu". In the first place, it is obviously acceptable for Wikipedia to quote people "incompletely", if what that means is that we do not automatically quote everything and anything that people say. In the second place, the article mentions that, "However, Buchen adds that Campbell worked closely with three scholars who did translate Sanskrit well." So where exactly is the problem? You earlier complained that it was misleading to leave that out; it has now been added (which you could have done yourself), so on what grounds do you see a continuing problem? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt that it was not helpful to revert a tag in the heat of discussion.  It seems petty.  It would have been best to bring it up on talk rather than revert.  All in all the article is now improved thanks to your questioning and the changes that were made.  I can't see the need for the tag either and I agree that IMO Dkudler needs to help us to understand his position. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Gandydancer, Dkudler has had several days now to respond and to explain his reasons for adding NPOV tags here. He has not done so. I am being patient, but it is not clear to me why the tags should be indefinitely left in the article with no explanation why they are necessary. The original complaint was that certain material was excluded from the article, but that material has now been added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he should have commented here.  I will revert my edit.  Will that be all that is needed?  Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Robert Bly - very directly
Jordan Peterson - less directly but still quite significantly 24.13.83.67 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced