![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Just to make it clear, my 'revision' was pretty much reverting the page back to the last article form it had before the one I ended up with when I came to read the article-- that is, some really stupid vandalism. I mean, jesus fucking christ, that's lame. Yes, takes two seconds to fix, and all that, but I figured I'd leave a comment just so any REAL editors can rest assured that I'm not taking any potshots at them.
I just, y'know, would like to see a goddamn article when I click a link to a goddamn article. If I wanted vandalism, I'd go to a public bathroom-- at least THERE the one-liners are actually amusing. -- 72.224.72.24 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Everything from prior to the re-creation of myth on January 18, 2006 has been archived. See the link above. October 7, 2005 and January 9, 2006 archived discussions are also available. JHCC (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In view of the fairly clear consensus articulated above [see archive ], I moved the content of Myth/temp to myth and made Myth/temp a redirect to myth. For the edit history of Myth/temp, please see here. I also archived the old content of Talk:Myth, which is now here. I had made a couple of changes to Myth/temp earlier, so I've included the rationale for these here (lest anyone accuse me of deceptive editing practice). JHCC (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I just created Category:Mythological kings to rescue Zeus out of Category:Fictional kings. - Haukur 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since discussion of multiple senses of "myth" has moved to myth and Talk:Myth, and since the article is still locked, we need to discuss what edits are planned for once the article is unlocked.
I see three areas for immediate attention:
Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This argument is pathetic. Just write the page and get on with your lives. (usigned, but comment by User:61.72.76.213, the only edit it ever made on Wikipedia)
The current introduction has the following for the Greek derivation:
While this is all quite correct, I wonder if it might not be improved. Most dictionaries that I have seen note that "mythology" came into English by way of the French Mythologie; we may or may not want to include this fact. Also, the Greek μυϑολογία means "romance", "fiction", "legend", or "storytelling" [1]. (See also the LSJ entry for μυϑολογειν, which has some more details.) I'd suggest:
and leave it at that. JHCC (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Greek word mythos probably does mean "romance" or "to be remembered" more than story. Because the Greek word for story is actually "istoria" which gives us the term "history." The word for legend in Greek is "thrillos," as in a thrilling adventure. The term "logos" sometime can mean word but is generally used philosophically to mean "reason" or logic. "My logos" is offered as a word of honour or a promise. Because "word" in Greek is actually "lexis," as in lexicon. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Greek μυθολογια "legendary lore" is derived from μυθος "speech, thought, story, myth", itself of unknown origin. English mythology is in use since the 15th century, in the meaning "an exposition of myths". The current meaning of "body of myths" itself dates to 1781 (OED). The adjective mythical dates to 1678; English use of myth is later, first attested in 1830, in its original English meaning of "untrue story":
-- ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the universality of the supernatural element. In particular, examples given at Founding myth and National myth are exclusively secular, with no supernatural content at all. Should the definition be qualified to "that often use the supernatural"? JHCC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
(REDUCE)
DreamGuy, would you be willing to frame this in such a way that we can incorporate it into the Mythology#Related concepts section? This is some good stuff and should be included in the article. Perhaps you would be willing to do the same for some of the other Related concepts as well? Thanks. JHCC (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
A myth and a legend differ in that the legend usually involves a strong element of danger - the Greek word here is "thrillos" implying a thrilling adventure. The labours of Hercules are some examples, but Hercules' quest for immortality is more of a myth, which can be an erotic tale etc., without any sense of danger involved. The supernatural element is found in almost everything written and conducted by the ancients. Even lighting the hearth or bathing. Almost no way out of it, really. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Accidentally hit enter while typing edit comment... Academic mythology is a redundant term. Mythology studies myths per the academic definition. There is no non-academic mythology. It'd be like a non-academic biology. DreamGuy 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Using the term "myth" to mean a falsehood, is a Greek "slang" word of abusive language to make fun of something or to cause offense. Not recommended. The idea of "academic mythology" can be misleading. I guess it would mean a "scholarly study" of myths, but are there really any "studies" done to be stupid? And it could falsely suggest "a body of myths related to learning" like the wolf teach Romulus and Remus. Not recommended. Fkapnist ( talk) 10:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Phyesalis. I was refering to The English suffix "-ology," which means "study." Once you've already called it a "study," or an "-ology" there's really no further need to call it an "academic study," or a "scholarly academic study," etc. It becomes an oxymoron, because any study is the acquisition of knowledge. There isn't a chance someone will mistake it for a "study not for learning." (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true). Fkapnist ( talk) 14:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we seem to have agreed that definitions and disclaimers basically belong at the top of the article, the following bit in Mythology#Related concepts needs to be either incorporated higher up, deleted, or moved to myth:
This could be put either in the intro (to expand "In common usage, myth means a falsehood" etc) or in the Definition section (which currently only contains the academic definition). I hesitate to delete it entirely, as the "used pejoratively" bit is obviously relevant.
This brings up another issue: if we restrict this article to discussion of the academic senses of "myth" and "mythology" (as seems to be consensus), should we not make that clear in some way? We could change Definition to Academic definition or change "Myths are generally narratives..." to "In academia, myths are generally narratives..." or something like that, to avoid the misunderstanding that the article is making universal statements about all uses of "myth" and "mythology". Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the term Aetiological myths being used formally in academia? I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include this term in the types of myth section. For example, "how did the tiger get his stripes"... is that a myth? Well, that's kind of a whimsical example. What about Prometheus, and the introduction of fire to humanity? I'd call that an aetiological myth. Is that the same as an Origin myth? -- Torgo 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand how the edit summary
relates to this edit (what loser?), which I would revert in any case, already for removing the {{ fact}} templates, dumping etymological information (which is of utmost importance in any article on a polysemous term), and for reverting to the childish "Myths are not the same as" bulleted list. I have attempted to replace that list by a coherent account of how myths tie in with other genres. An account that may certainly still be improved, but not by reverting to something like
dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose a small section on myths in the world of science (such as gum taking 7 years to digest) However, I am quite aware that the type of myths may differ...but still =P -- DNA 13:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the word "myth" with yarn. Science yarns: spun threads for knitting or weaving spacesuits! Anecdotes are not the same as myths. Why is that so hard to accept? As I said elsewhere, I'd much rather see a section that describes how myths have influenced science, such as the naming of the planets or the phyla (taxonomic ranks) of biology.
Fkapnist (
talk)
10:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care to get involved in yet another histrionic, juvenile playground fight with Dreamguy, but I certainly don't think that my contributions to the Modern section were "massive fuck up" and I hope that some day you will recognize that such comments and behavior are completely unacceptable and embarassing. If you would like to discuss the content of the article I am definetly open to it. Please let me know if there is anything I could do to help create a decent adult relationship. BarkingDoc 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
where do we give the full range of meanings ""speech, thought, story, myth" for μυθος? Where do we assert that (unlike many other -logies), μυθολογια is itself attested in Ancient Greek? How is it 'pov' that the word means "legendary lore"? That's straight from a reputable dictionary. How is it pov, or where is it covered that the English word is in use since the 15th century, or since 1781 in the modern meaning? Dates directly taken from the
OED? How is it already covered, or how is it biased to say that the English term 'myth' is younger than 'mythology'? I agree we don't need stuff about Star Trek or Scientology here, but why do you keep reverting a perfectly sound discussion of the word's history? If you have other sources contradicting the OED, by all means add them. I don't understand why I even have to point this out to you, an experienced Wikipedian, in such painstaking length, as if you were a passing anonymus.
dab
(ᛏ)
10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page after stumbling across the myth disambig page. I was shocked at how the subject was beginning to disappear under a side issue of whether myth was truthful or not. strange? so I tried to clarify it without treading on too many toes - I hope it meets with approval.
Anyway. what I really couldn't understand is why there is no myth page itself - when I got here all became clear, there is a dispute...
So for what its worth I would like to offer a possible solution to the problem. As with most disputes of this type it seems to stem from valid positions being over-written by other valid positions. Here I see a lot of justification based on the terms 'academic' and 'academia' as though that somehow lends authority to the subject. Well perhaps it would if the opposed voices here just recognised that mythology isn't an academic discipline in itself. Mythology is studied from several academic perspectives, including the anthropological, literary, psychological and philosophical. not to mention the fields of political science and sociology (which actually justifies the inclusion of non-sacred, text based forms as myth). All that needs to be done here is to define and separate out the various academic claims on the subjects and compare the approaches under headings - not so tricky really, you've already managed to coexist with the definition meaning both 'the telling of' and 'the study of' myth.
Once the page was formed of a definition and headings for the various academic views and findings relating to mythology. It would probably make sense to put the list of myths on a separate page called, strangely enough myths.
So if all you supporters of 'the academic' would care to nail your colours to the mast and own up to the discipline you are supporting we will be half way to getting rid of all this one sided stuff about truth, if you are worried about your subjects golden calves being smashed, cheer up, a seperate heading for your own discipline will surely show the world how wrong everyone else is. and perhaps in the process the original scope of mythology, the poets and storytellers might get a word in sideways too.
DavidP 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you DavidP. Lets get out a solid skeleton for this page and put some life into it. Right now it's just a dirty hairball. The casual reader gets nothing more out of it but a few confusing snotty footnotes. And the editors argue about camel hairs in their clubhouse every day. It looks like some people will always want to be scornful without allowing interactivity. That's exactly why they're here. I suppose they need to identify with mythology for depth-psychology reasons. Looking for themselves. As for me, yes, I work in academia! I was part of the original team that discovered and photographed the tomb of Philip of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great! My museum photos and 4X5 slides are in REAL encyclopedias. We worked with professor Andronikus. I'm near another archaelogical dig right now, but I won't say what, because it will really surprise the world! It kinda bugs me when unqualified people jam the doorway and won't let anyone else in. But that's life. Fkapnist ( talk) 10:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Was that just a kneejerk revert on Mythology or what? You blindly reverted everything in that edit, even things that were obviously needed (we don't link to foreign language sites in External links, etc.). You say discuss sweeping changes on talk when all of the changes of any controversy were already discussed on the talk page quite extensively and were only changed back to what was decided there after much discussion. I've been editing logged out a few times here, and I see a lot of editors just blind reverting anything and everything, probably because they can't be bothered to check to see if the changes were good or not and just assume it must be if it's an anon user. Please take some time to check over what you are doing before undoing so many edits at once. 172.164.87.241 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have this page on my watchlist and read the talk page regularly. I see no consensus for these changes. I do see a few comments concerning too much focus on Truth but there is certainly no consensus, and your edits were not specifically discussed there at all. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
--
I have refactored the following, which was inserted into my numbered post, above. Do not modify my posts.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, as does dab and now Bunchofgrapes has also reverted your edits with the edit summary KC has made good detailed points about a number of these changes being bad. Stop it with the sweeping reversions. Focus on one thing at a time if you want to move forward. I strongly suggest you pick one of the items above and counter my objections, and attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes. Claiming old consensus is irrelevant. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
anon, if you mix 'good' edits with 'bad' ones, you risk getting them all reverted. it is not the job of other people to sift your edits for anything salvageable. If you think that part of your edit was rolled back accidentially, kindly make an edit consisting only of that. It is not even clear what "things" you claim have "firm consensus". this article needs a lot of work an is a long way from stability. Just because it has been quiet for a while doesn't make it any better. I do not even see any factual disagreement here. We all agree on the article scope, the 'academic' meaning of the term, etc.; since everybody fully agrees about the facts, I don't see any reason for your hostility (not that I would see such a reason if you were in factual disagreement, either) dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again! Do me a favor... please look up the word "yarn" in Wikipedia and tell me if you need a lengthy statement to explain to you that yarn in slang usage means anecdote. Better yet, look up the word "spin." Myth is commonly used in Greek slang (for more than the past decade or two) the same way we use spin today in the media. Fkapnist ( talk) 11:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
why under myth by region is there no cherokee mythology? i mean did someone not think of cherokee or is there nothing to put down? Hicups0002 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
They left a big hole in the main article, and went after some bread crumbs, Hicups0002. In fact, since this is the landing page for Mythology, it should include links to Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, Asian, and YES, North American Indian. Funny, though, they kept Star Wars and Tarzan... How scholarly. I'd be ashamed. Who can really lean anything from this dysfunctional article? Fkapnist ( talk) 11:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Campbell is a well-respected interdisciplinary scholar, he is qualified to discuss mythography, religion, psychology, history and textual criticism of religious and ficitonal literature, among other things. His contributions to the field include numerous editorial projects, including collections by Maya Deren, Carl Kerenyi, and Carl Jung. He is one of the world's foremost experts on the subject of myth. He was a member of the editorial board for the interdisciplinary Bollingen Foundation, and finished four volumes of Heinrich Zimmer's academic papers. If his work isn't scholarly, I don't know what is. I am going to change the article's mention of him to reflect his expertise and wide spread contributions to the field. Phyesalis 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (added sig)
The line "Not every religious narrative is a myth however; unless it is deeply rooted in tradition, it may also be trivial pious anecdote or legend." is problematic at best. I think, at the very least, it needs a citation and have noted it within the article. I also think the wording is far from optimal. First, many discourses acknowledge all religious narratives as myth. Also, the term "pious" is questionable. The issue is and should be addressed under "Related Concepts". I suggest removing the line. Any objections or alternate suggestions? Phyesalis 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I also removed the words "deeply" and "trivial", as they imply unsubstantiated determinations. Phyesalis 10:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The wording in the line "This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history which may, or may not, exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story" (Preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes "the story" and the literate become "the authority")." is unclear. To what does the "This broader truth" refer? As this is the first phrase in the paragraph, I suggest a rewording which explicitly states what is being refered to and avoids use of the phrase "broader truth". It is the first use of the word "truth" in the section and has no correlative antecedent. Phyesalis 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That "primitive" quote is kind of problematic, in the context of the paragraph it imples that Greeks and Romans were primative, along with all other religions, like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Can we do something about that? Thanks. Phyesalis 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I can make neither heads nor tails of this "sentence", hence I removed it. "This broader definition runs deeper than the advent of critical history which may, or may not, exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story"." •Jim62sch• 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Jim62sch completely blind revert a badly needed edit to this article with the edit comment: "revert - dreamguy, take your complaints to talk" -- This is simply nonsense. The things that my edit changed to the article were for problems EXTENSIVELY discussed on these talk pages OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
We do not link to Encyclopedia Mythica, as it is horribly unreliable.
We have a definition of mythology that was thoroughly discussed and backed up by cites, but some people want to change it to whatever nonsense either comes off the top of their heads or to support some religious definitions (as the "Codex" guy and others were continuously doing despite that they did not have consensus to do so.
For the love of god, if a bunch of people new to the article who didn;t bother to read the prior thorough discussions -- or any reliable book on the topic as far as I can see -- feel like they can change it to whatever they want, I certainly have the right to change it back to a better prior version that was hammered out through long discussion here. DreamGuy 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
DAVID SUNG quit vandalizing! some of us have reports to do on mythology by next week!!! im going to go to ask.com or a better search engine that does not have vandalizers! speaking of my report i should get working on that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.9.70 ( talk • contribs)
The article has the "please restructure" message, but as a lay person, I cannot see what needs to be restructured. Restructuring is little discussed on the talk page; the content as a whole is discussed, but there is no consensus. I suggest that the "restructure" tag be replaced with an "expert" tag or something like that. - Pgan002 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting (what might be) a major restructuring of this article, namely to better represent the study the meanings of myths. See User:Ephilei/Mythology for version under construction and the talk page there. -- Ephilei 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I tagged two paragraphs as OR in the myth nad history section. They seem to be the two major paragraphs, describing all the means and methods for the examination given, but only specific examples are given any citation; this leaves the major paragraphs to read as if they were OR or synthesis shoehorned around the examples. Please fix with citation or a rewrite, thank you. ThuranX 14:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think going to WP:ANI is a bit excessive, and I'd suggest going to WP:3O instead. DreamGuy, discussion does not mean resolution. I do not see a consensus or agreement of any kind. You did not respond to the latest comments, so it is still being disputed. You shouldn't revert the edits. - Zero1328 Talk? 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, I note that you have reverted my edit for the third time,
[5], without commenting on my suggestions above,
[6], and contrary to advice.
[7]. In addition to your incivility towards me,
[8] which notes your intent to "reverted on sight", I felt I had no choice but to make a comment on the Administrators' noticeboard,
here --
84.9.191.165
13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
User:DLX recently reverted an edit I made to the "religion and mythology" section. I accidentally reintroduced the reverted material due to an edit conflict. Sorry for the confusion there, DLX. You can revert my edit again if you want to, but before you do, I'd like to ask a few questions.
It's not at all clear to me why the stuff I added was "unsourced, OR" while the stuff that was already in the "religion and mythology" section wasn't. Let me first quote, in full, what was originally in the "religion and mythology" section:
Myth is not intimately connected with religion. Myth in this sense does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions. Literalism refers to the attitude of some adherents of modern dominant religions that regards the traditions surrounding the origin and development of their faith as literal historic accounts. Such a position has only become possible with the advent of the critical method that counters mythos with logos. Literalists often object to the classification of their traditions as myths because of the connotations of "falsehood" mentioned above, while the mythologist's classification is not a statement on historical truth or falsehood, but refers to the subjective importance of the theme within the community in question. Thus, one can speak of a Hindu mythology, a Christian mythology, or an Islamic mythology, in which one describes the mythic elements within these faiths, without implying any statement as to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history.
Now, let me quote, again in full, what I replaced that with:
Significantly, none of the scholarly definitions of "myth" imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, many scholars call the sacred stories of Christianity and Islam "myths" without intending to insult those religions. However, this application of the word "myth" may cause confusion and offense, due to the popular usage of the word.
I can't see how what I put is substantially different from what was already there. (Granted, I afterward added some more info to the "religion and mythology" section, some of which I think I may get hammered for; but that's not what I'm talking about right now.) I can see only two differences between what I put and what was already there:
I'm not trying to be billigerent or pick a fight with anyone. However, I can't see what's wrong with my addition to the "religion and mythology" section.
Forgot to sign; sorry. -- Phatius McBluff 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think providing an external link that's really linking to another section on the same page is just clumsy. There should be a way to write that so you don't have to do that at all. I don't particularly like some of the changes -- for example there's now a long list of "most important" people in the field, which is surely POV, especially as the source is just one source and not speaking authoritatively for the field (if such a thing were even possible). I also think some of the sections were people decide they want to using myth to mean something other than what other people think is pretty odd too, as the evolution page doesn't just quote random people who decide they want to use evolution to mean something else. That whole beginning section is just too long now. If some people prefer to include religion in a different sense, or argue against the definition, that should be handled separately and with plenty of context. See the NPOV policy on "undue weight" -- merely mentioning minotiry views can give the idea that they are widely accepted and slant people's perception. There must be a better way to handle that. DreamGuy 11:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that linking back to another part of the article is a bit awkward. However, aside from that, don't you think that what I put is an improvement over what was already there? My idea was just to make what I felt to be necessary substantive changes, and then leave the aesthetics to others: if others want to rephrase the section so it doesn't have to link to another part of the article, then they can be my guest.
As for your dissatisfaction with the numerous different definitions of "myth" being used in this article, that's an unfortunate consequence of the actual usage of the term. As pointed out in the "Term" section, there's simply no consensus about the proper use of the word "myth" in a scholarly context. Folklorists, in particular, have their own definition of the word that's no necessary recognized by other scholars. I realize that, outside of the "Term" section, editors have been using the term haphazardly, with inconsistent meanings, throughout the article; and I'm not defending that. I'm just pointing out that the situation is a bit complex. Maybe we could correct the problem by specifying, at the beginning of each section, how the word is being used within that section? -- Phatius McBluff 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
At the bottom of the "characteristics" section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Characteristics), the article lists a number of different kinds of myths. Included are "ritual myths" and "cult myths". Could someone please explain to me why these must be listed separately? A cult is "the totality of external religious practice and observance". That includes ritual, doesn't it? Or if we go with this article's definition of cult, as "elaborate festivals that magnify the power of the deity", then cult should be one kind of ritual. Shouldn't cult myths be one kind of ritual myth or vice versa? -- Phatius McBluff 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
A cult is a system or a sect. A ritual is the prescribed order of a ceremony. For example, water immersion is a ritual. The Catholic system is a cult. In common modern usage, cult has also come to mean a splinter group of unorthodox beliefs. Fkapnist ( talk) 12:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
For the not uncommon interpretation, I've created the section on "Cosmic interpretation", and a subsection on the less common catastrophic interpretation, of which I have given a couple of sentences to the older "cometary" catastrophists (there's perhaps a dozen more writers that could be included), and finally qualified the single sentence on the "planetary" catastrophists. -- 67.136.238.48 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, it is absolutely deceptive and bad faith to revert to a disputed version of the article over the long-standing, consensus-approved version just because one editor didn't bother to respond to some anon editor on the talk page. Don't tell me it's not courteous to discuss it on the talk page before removing it when you didn't discuss it on the talk page before tossing it all in there. Pretty much everything you are trying to do in that section is wholly unacceptable by multiple Wikipedia policies. If you would like to try to come up with some addition that fits policies, please make suggestions here, and if you can get a version that is acceptable as following policies by others here, then you can add it. Until then if you try to put anything like that back it will be reverted on sight. DreamGuy 00:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding
84.9.191.165 (
talk ·
contribs) ("84.*") and
DreamGuy (
talk ·
contribs), lemme see if I understand the problem:
Just because someone is editing without an account does not mean you should assume bad faith. This appears to be what DreamGuy is doing. If no one is participating in a proposed edit made on the talk page, especially for a week, I would say it is safe to assume that there are no objections. I see DreamGuy as acting fairly uncivil at the moment, as he did not make any objections prior to 84.*'s edits. -
Zero1328
Talk?
01:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
guys, elaborate discussions of policy and courtesy aside, the fact remains that the anon editor has added a bunch of fringe authors to the article, and reverting him was the right thing to do. Ideally, the reverting should be done courteously, but the important point is that the revert is made. This article should mention catastrophism, but any further discussion of this fringy topic should go to the main article. This is covered by WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with slakr in that putting a rather large paragraph on the mythology article would be quite the case of undue weight. However, given the amount of sources, it most definitely can qualify for its own article (remember that notability =/= correctness). I would suggest the IP pursue that course. I also agree with the above editors that DreamGuy was a bit too harsh in this case and should definitely apply WP:AGF in the future when dealing with any editor, registered or not. Sasquatch t| c 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the catastrophic interpretation of mythology is not as fringe as DreamGuy wants us to think. If we consider the vivid Deluge (Latin diluvium) or Flood myths that appear in numerous records in almost all parts of the world, we do have a strong case for catastrophe mythology. In fact, like Plato's Atlantis, it represents a mainstream and oft-repeated story element, rather than just an obscure fringe. DreamGuy calls it "unscholarly, not taken seriously." But I strongly disagree with that and think I can produce enough manuscripts to prove it. Where is your proof of its insignificance, DreamGuy? Perhaps you've seen some of those rather kitschy websites on "vortex" subjects and it has clouded your Platonic memories? I've seen them too, ugh, but no matter. Catastrophe is a valid point here, I think. Thumbs up. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What this? What that? Am I to blame if your "Fringe" is becoming mainstream? Reliable Sources: Start with these manuscripts DreamGuy. Google it.This is all new reseach, less than a few years old:
Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? - … for mixing of Neanderthal and modern human populations and "this doesn't add any," said Potts, who was not part of the research team. Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2007 (AP)
(Reuters) Could our big brains come from Neanderthals? - … proof that a Neanderthal was the source of the original copy of the D allele. However, our evidence shows that it is one of the best candidates," Lahn said. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/08/neanderthals.brains.reut/index.html
Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred - … be a little Neanderthal in all of us. That's the conclusion of anthropologists who have re-examined 30000-year-old fossilized bones from a Romanian cave -- bones that … By E.J. Mundell HealthDay ReporterMon Oct 30, 5:03 PM ET
IT LOOKS LIKE Neanderthal had a "culture" that involved ship-building, and song-making (the first myths were sung out loud)...
Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers - Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 Guardian Spanish investigators believe they may have … Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 EducationGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
The Singing Neanderthal - … features The Singing Neanderthal Music moves the human body (our feet tap, our bodies sway) and the human heart (our emotions beat in time to a song's pulse). Every …
-- Barbara J. King is an anthropologist and author at the College of William
and Mary.
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2005_10_006832.php
The myth-making catastrophic "fact" you don't want to hear about was the last ice age:
Freeze 'condemned Neanderthals' - … with calendar dates. Neanderthal bones have also been excavated from these sediment units, including a male skull fragment which could potentially be very recent. (BBC) A sharp freeze could have dealt the killer blow that finished off our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals, according to a new study. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6341987.stm Published: 2007/02/20 23:06:06 GMT
Fkapnist ( talk) 10:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the recent discussion, and would welcome discussion from DreamGuy too. I acknowledge that the catastrophic interpretation of myth is a minority subject, and the one sentence we have is sufficient. However, there is also the cosmic interpretation of myth, which is a larger minority subject. I had suggested:
what is it with all these fruity claims that "myth is 'really' this or that"? Such an approach can only ever yield fringy pseudoscholarship. What do we even mean by "cosmic events/catastrophes"? A catastrophe of order? Sure, we can link geomythology and what not, but leave it at the linking, please. dab (𒁳) 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL gives us a few hits, but nothing coherent at first glance. I have no doubt the idea is floating around, especially in 19th century literature, but it is your task to establish that this is in any way a coherent hypothesis that has been discussed in academia. If you're going to discuss comets, you are back to catastrophism, and to lunatic stuff like Comets and the swastika motif. Incidentially, it would be nice if you could take the latter article and incorporate it into a larger discussion of "comets in mythology" or what. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Velikovsky does not belong on this page as this he represents a tiny minority view regarding mythology. See WP:UNDUE. -- Velikovsky 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote in my above post, the catastrophic interpretation of mythology is not fringe. "If we consider the vivid Deluge (Latin diluvium) or Flood myths that appear in numerous records in almost all parts of the world, we do have a strong case for catastrophe mythology. In fact, like Plato's Atlantis, it represents a mainstream and oft-repeated story element, rather than just an obscure fringe." However, after reading through this entire Talk message board, I am rather sad to find that no one (and I mean no one!) has bothered to quote any source material. The original stuff. The Real McCoy. All I find are various references to Velikovsky, and some other modern writers. You've wandered into sci-fi, Star Wars, and even Tarzan. It appears that many of you read books about myths, but not the myths themselves. Am I the only one who reads in Greek? Seriously, I'd really like to know if anyone has come to grips with source material; Greek, Sanskrit, anything. But not secondary, or third generation examinations. They can get pretty detailed, and revisionist, without revealing the original essense of mythology. Because the academic authors assume the you know the myths already. Yet I percieve that some of you really don't. At least that's what a first-time reader gathers from eyeing the bewildering article you've manage to concoct. No wonder this isn't going anywhere. Is there a "senior editor" to this article? If you need help with Greek please let me know. I have lots of free time, and I do live in the ancient land of Mythology. I was part of the team that discovered the tomb of Philip of Macedonia (father of Alexander the Great). There are some new archaeological surprises in store for the world.
Fkapnist (
talk)
11:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I see your point DreamGuy, However (as I also posted above) there is new scientific data that needs to be taken into account. Within the last two years, it has been found that Neanderthal man co-existed with Cro Magnon or modern man, and that there may have been interbreeding as well as some cultural exchange. The myth-forming catastrophe in this case would be the last glacial period, or melting of the land ice, which forced Neanderthal into extinction and brought Cro Magnon to the leading position. This catastrophe isn't fringe, its a fact. But you won't find anything written about it by your favorite mythology authors. It's up to new investigators to research it and bring us up to date.
Start with these sources. Google it. This is all new reseach, less than a few years old:
Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? - … for mixing of Neanderthal and modern human populations and "this doesn't add any," said Potts, who was not part of the research team. Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2007 (AP)
(Reuters) Could our big brains come from Neanderthals? - … proof that a Neanderthal was the source of the original copy of the D allele. However, our evidence shows that it is one of the best candidates," Lahn said. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/08/neanderthals.brains.reut/index.html
Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred - … be a little Neanderthal in all of us. That's the conclusion of anthropologists who have re-examined 30000-year-old fossilized bones from a Romanian cave -- bones that … By E.J. Mundell HealthDay ReporterMon Oct 30, 5:03 PM ET
IT LOOKS LIKE Neanderthal had a "culture" that involved ship-building, and song-making (the first myths were sung out loud)...
Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers - Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 Guardian Spanish investigators believe they may have … Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 EducationGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
The Singing Neanderthal - … features The Singing Neanderthal Music moves the human body (our feet tap, our bodies sway) and the human heart (our emotions beat in time to a song's pulse). Every …
-- Barbara J. King is an anthropologist and author at the College of William
and Mary.
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2005_10_006832.php
The myth-making catastrophic "fact" you don't want to hear about was the last ice age:
Freeze 'condemned Neanderthals' - … with calendar dates. Neanderthal bones have also been excavated from these sediment units, including a male skull fragment which could potentially be very recent. (BBC) A sharp freeze could have dealt the killer blow that finished off our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals, according to a new study. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6341987.stm Published: 2007/02/20 23:06:06 GMT
Concerning Plato's Atlantis, you should know that there are two "Pillars of Hercules." One is near Gibraltar, the other is in the Near East Aegean Sea. As for the date of Atlantis, there is an inconsistency between Greek and Egyptian numbers, much in the same way that a billion in the UK is a thousand million, but in the US is a million million. Recent finds suggest that the volcanic island of Santorini may be the Atlantis Plato wrote about.
Fkapnist ( talk) 10:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is another interesting report about catastrophe myths from Discover magazine:
Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory: His hypothesis depends on a major reinterpretation of many different mythologies and raises questions about how frequently major asteroid impacts occur. Masse’s biggest idea is that some 5,000 years ago, a 3-mile-wide ball of rock and ice swung around the sun and smashed into the ocean off the coast of Madagascar. The ensuing cataclysm sent a series of 600-foot-high tsunamis crashing against the world’s coastlines and injected plumes of superheated water vapor and aerosol particulates into the atmosphere. Within hours, the infusion of heat and moisture blasted its way into jet streams and spawned superhurricanes that pummeled the other side of the planet. For about a week, material ejected into the atmosphere plunged the world into darkness. All told, up to 80 percent of the world’s population may have perished, making it the single most lethal event in history. Why, then, don’t we know about it? Masse contends that we do. Almost every culture has a legend about a great flood, and—with a little reading between the lines—many of them mention something like a comet on a collision course with Earth just before the disaster. The Bible describes a deluge for 40 days and 40 nights that created a flood so great that Noah was stuck in his ark for two weeks until the water subsided. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero of Mesopotamia saw a pillar of black smoke on the horizon before the sky went dark for a week. Afterward, a cyclone pummeled the Fertile Crescent and caused a massive flood. Myths recounted in indigenous South American cultures also tell of a great flood. [17]
Most of the textbook references cited in this mythology article are at least half a century old. If the biology or chemistry articles in Wikipedia cited textbooks from the 1800s to the 1960s, they would be considered outdated. Why should mythology be any different? Fkapnist —Preceding comment was added at 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[18] I think the problem lies not so much with Tolkien as with "in folkloristics". This should perhaps be "in mythography". Tolkien was not a "folklorist" in the sense of a comparative approach to the world's traditional narratives, but he certainly was among the foremost experts on Anglo-Saxon (Old and Middle English) narratives. Together with his views on "mythopoeia" ( On Fairy Stories), his opinion on the subject does carry great weight, quite unrelated to his popularity as an author of original works. -- dab (𒁳) 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
can we be reasonable about this? I see a lot of "citation needed" tags gracing perfectly straightforward statements. Asking for citations is good, but some common sense should be involved. Have you looked at truth? The primary meaning of the word is ""faithfulness, fidelity". This obviously isn't about truth in the sense of "factuality", which is a concept that doesn't even enter the equation in a discussion of myth. There is objective truth (sooth), then there is mythological truth, and then there is religious truth, which is really mythological truth with a scripture and a clergy. Understanding these notions of truth is at the very core of getting the concept of "myth". dab (𒁳) 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My Oxford Dictionary doesn't find "folkloristics" anywhere. Probably neither will your average reader. By "truth" do you mean story essence and substance, rather than some historical fact? Fkapnist ( talk) 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
1. "In folkloristics, which is concerned with the study of both secular and sacred narratives, a myth also derives some of its power from being more than a simple 'tale', by comprising an archetypical quality of 'truth'."
2. "Myths are often intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ('creation myths' and 'founding myths'), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions or rituals, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history, and it may or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes 'the story' (preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes 'the story' and the literate class becomes 'the authority'). However, as Lucien Lévy-Bruhl puts it, 'The primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development.'"
Um ... maybe I'm just stupid, but I have almost no idea what the above passages mean. Could someone please reword them so they make sense? In the first passage, what's "an archetypical quality of 'truth'"? And in the second passage, I can't tell how the different sentences go together to form a coherent argument. -- Phatius McBluff 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The first passage may mean that myths transmitted universal value systems or ethical and moral guidelines. The second passage I think means that the original oral content of a myth is sometimes lost when committed to writing. Fkapnist ( talk) 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the new "Rotundum" section out, as it seems to contain some material that's potentially useful, but it shouldn't be in the article in its current form. At present this section seems to be a collection of random stuff that needs to be integrated in different places in the article. Actually, it's quite possible that Democritus and Epicurus belong at Greek mythology, but not here. Jung probably deserves a section all his own, or needs to be part of a "Psychological interpretations" section. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this is the landing page or "main topic" article, and like the trunk of a tree, it should have adequate links with concise descriptions leading to all its related branch articles. Don't assume your reader knows how to find the related subjects unless you describe them within the content of the main page. Fkapnist ( talk) 08:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Not one Google hit! Then I guess I will have to write the rotundum article after all. It actually has little to do with UFOlogy. The rotundum is the basis of all archetypes, according to Jung. It is merely the perception of a circle or sphere (cosmic egg, etc.), which represents a totality of the self. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the Mythology page is very weak for several reasons. It needs more sections because it doesn't answer two very important questions: 1. What actually were the major myths? Why not a single example? Don't assume that your reader knows. 2. Who were the original story tellers? The editors here don't seem to understand, or care enough to tell us. Hesiod, for example, is not mentioned at all. Don't assume that your reader knows and will look it up elsewhere. Sure, there are many references to scholars like Levi-Strauss or J. R. R. Tolkien, but they weren't the original story tellers of mythology. So who were they? You've heard that the classical myths were sung to music and painted on vases, not annotated with footnotes. But our dear readers won't learn any of that here, I guess. I'm surprised that even Homer is only mentioned once - in the Related Topics section, along with Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg! Come on, are you people serious? Who edited this bedsheet? Mythology constitutes a few thousand years of our precious human history. But the edits here seem to cover (yawn) about half a page full of cut and paste high-sounding academic quotes. Without getting to the real meat of the subject. Don't assume that your readers know anything about mythology. If they did, they sure wouldn't consult you or Wikipedia. Did anyone happen to notice how the myths influenced modern-day science? Why, for example, are the planets named after mythical characters? The editors here don't have time to look it up. And the geographical distribution or map of major myths is also not covered. Try this: Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, African, Asian, Native America. See how easy that was? Without these vital links right in the heart of the main article, your naive dear reader is lost and buried, by a bunch of sleepy editors. Do you have a problem with space? Buy a new hard disc. I don't think Wikipedia has any problem giving adequate space to such a major topic. And did you notice the decline of myths and their aftermath? Try Democritus and his buddies. But some of you would rather delete all that stuff and keep the page short and sweet. Oh, that Fifth Grade tradition of cut and paste! Smarty quotes; the very stuff of plagiarism. I was the publisher and editor of a big city daily newspaper, and I can tell you without hesitation that the current Mythology article would make an excellent bedsheet to cradle any reader's unfamiliar nightmares. Fkapnist ( talk) 07:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"It's better now that your additions are removed." That's a good one, DreamGuy. But thanks anyway for keeping Jung near the end. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Syncretic mythology also deserves to be mentioned along with the creation myths and ritual myths. But syncretic myths would probably belong in the "Myth and Religion" section. There are two main schools of thought here: One theory states that most of the western myths evolved, or were copied through time, and can be ultimately traced back to an original set of stories that probably started in ancient Egypt. The myth of Jesus is said to have begun as a primordial solar deity who annually dies and resurrects, such as Osiris, who later became Dionysus, and finally developed into the familiar Christ story. The opposing argument is that the syncretic myths did not actually appear until after the arrival of Christ, and were the retelling of the old Osiris and Dionysus myths based on the new story of Jesus. This theory claims that no evidence exists in antiquity for Osiris, Dionysus, or any other mythical gods ressurecting until after the 2nd and 3rd century AD. When deities of polytheistic society were sacrified, they dwelt either in Hades or the Elysian Fields, but did not return to life on earth. Fkapnist ( talk) 13:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If the myth of Dionysus is a syncretic continuation of the Osiris myth, we are not talking only about Jesus Christ. I think syncretic mythology is important as part of the "origin" of all myths.
Fkapnist (
talk)
09:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am suggesting the following book as Further Reading on the Mythology page: Vitsaxis, Vassilis. Myth and the Existential Quest. Boston: Somerset Hall Press, 2006. ISBN 0797461009 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum Disclosure: I am the publisher of this book. To avoid overstepping conflict of interest guidelines, I am bringing this up on this talk page. I believe this book adds to the scholarly discussion of this topic. Vassilis Vitsaxis is a prominent modern Greek philosopher who has written on Ancient Greek, Hindu, Christian and other myths. To make your determination of whether this book is worthy of mention, more info about this book and other books by Vitsaxis is available on Amazon.com. Look up Vitsaxis. I'll avoid further marketing language here. ;) Thank you for your consideration. Summer612 ( talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
When I visited this article just now, I found that the "term" section had been merged with the intro. I felt that this made the intro long and somewhat confusing. For example, suppose that someone is looking for a quick explanation of myth. Such a person would obviously read only the intro in detail, perhaps skimming the rest of the article. Suppose such a person wasn't particularly interested in etymological/historical issues. If he came upon this article with the "term" section merged into the intro, then he would waste time wading through the "term" discussion.
I checked the edit history before separating the intro back into intro and "term" section. However, most of this article's edit history consists of vandalism and subsequent reversions. Thus, I had a hard time finding who exactly had merged the "term" section into the intro, and why he had done so. That being the case, I went ahead with my plan of separating "term" discussion from intro. If someone disagrees with this move, he/she can feel free to bring it up on this talk page. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
A while back, I added a section called "Interpretations of myth" to the Comparative mythology article. I've finally decided that it belongs more in the general Mythology article. Many of the theories mentioned in that section have nothing particularly "comparative" about them, besides the fact that the theorists who came up with them obviously read a lot of different myths. Anyhow, the Comparative mythology article should focus more on specific similarities between different mythologies and interpretations of those similarities. That's what "comparative mythology" is all about. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 06:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The watcher is like a dog catcher except a demon catcher if you see him he will not hurt you but it will fill like time stoped but there will be no sound he will take form of a 6 foot white dog. so far thats how much I no. 66.139.99.226 ( talk) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally" - what does passed down traditionally mean exactly?--Meieimatai 10:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
An interesting myth in the making is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Myth Florida ( talk) 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to Segal's "Very Short Introduction", but he is being used for a number of very simplistic and dubious statements. I don't know if Segal is to blame for this, or if he is simply being quoted naively out of context. -- dab (𒁳) 08:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last several days there has been a huge number of changes to the article that were not discussed on the talk page and often have no substantive edit comment at all (listing the name of the section tht was changed but not explaining what was edited or why is not a real edit comment) to give any sort of rationale to the changes.
I haven't yet looked at every single change, but the modifications to the modern myths section (completely removing it, which got rid of the very important clarification that fiction and mythology are different) stands out as especially odd.
As far as I know, edit comments are not optional, and using them, and discussing the more major pages on talk, is an essential part of the editing process. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in copy edits I removed six fact date tags and put a general cite tag for the section "Myths as depictions of historical events", but then realised there are references throughout the section. Please remove tag if extra citations are not required there. Thanks, Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the first sentence be changed from "that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity" to "that a particular culture finds meaningful in explaining the nature of the reality, often using supernatural or dream-like language to interpret natural phenomena". Here's why...
Did ancient peoples truly 'believe' in supernatural entities or did they inevitably and freely use dream-like, unnatural (supposedly 'supernatural') language in the process of personifying or relationalizing natural forces and dynamics? Recent studies in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary neuroscience would suggest the latter. How was the world made? Why do earthquakes, tornados, and other bad things happen? Why must we die? Why do we struggle with inner feelings and impulses that seem to have a life of their own? Why are we so easily addicted and tempted to do things that go against our own interests? Such questions cannot be answered by the powers of human perception alone. Ancient cultures gave so-called supernatural answers to these questions, but those answers were not truly supernatural—they were pre-natural. Prior to advances in technology and scientific ways of testing truth claims, factual answers were simply unavailable. It was not just difficult to have a natural, factual understanding of infection before microscopes brought bacteria into focus; it was impossible. It was similarly impossible to understand the large-scale structure of the universe before telescopes allowed us to see galaxies. If we could do during the day what we do at night, in our dreams, we'd all be having supernatural experiences daily. In any event, I edited the first sentence to try to reflect this more nuanced understanding. MBDowd ( talk) 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may have encountered me in the Noah's Ark debate about the word 'mythology' there. It is because of that debate that I had a look at this article. Quite frankly, the whole article strikes me as an apologia for the minimalist POV pushers who are determined that religion become synonymous with myth. The editors have spent so much energy in trying to 'prove' that mythology does not equate with falsehood that the reader is left bewildered as to what the subject is really about.
It is clear to me that this article has been created/manipulated to justify the inclusion of the word 'mythology' in every religious article on WP. Quite frankly I am disgusted.
(And before anyone accuses me of being a POV pusher, I should point out that I would be equally disgusted by any article that tries to claim 'religion is truth')-- FimusTauri ( talk) 10:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, the above was written in haste and anger, so I thought I should flesh out the rerasons why this article annoyed me with some more specific comments:
This is wrong. In ancient Greece, the stories of their gods were told (preached) as truth. It is only since that religion has died out that we have come to view the stories therein as myth. Hence, the following line,
is patent nonsense too. By this logic, all of the Greek myths, Roman myths, Norse myths, etc etc should now be called fairy tales.
This sentence simply doesn't make sense.
This whole section seems dedicated to classifying sacred texts as myths. There are many religious stories (in the world’s major religions) that would be called either ‘ritual myth’, ‘social myth’ or ‘origin myth’ according to the ‘definitions’ presented here. This is a clear example of someone with an agenda to de-classify all religions into the realm of myth.
Rubbish. It is either a re-telling of events that actually occurred (according to ‘mainstream’ thought) or, if it is telling of a future event, it is a prophecy, not a myth.
There is no mention of the fact that comparative mythology is used to find an underlying common history, other than a note later in the article about catastrophism, which is a sub-set of this.
This whole section looks like OR. The only cite has little relevance to the actual subject.
I wpuld like to know who inserted “[or myth]”? which creates the impression that myth and religion are equated.
No refs. Looks like pure OR.
Yet again looks like OR.
There is a repeated emphasis that myth should not be taken to mean falsehood:
This theme is repeated throughout WP to 'justify' using the term 'myth' in association with living religions. I won't re-hash the arguments here; suffice to say that this apparent need to keep repeating this point is self-evident proof that the word should not be used in the context of religion - if it needs explaining, its either wrong or its jargon.-- FimusTauri ( talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Just before posting this message, I made a single large-scale edit to the article. If you're reading this message after someone else has made subsequent changes to the article, you can see the result of my edit here. I removed very little of the previous content; mostly I just rearranged it into what I felt was a more logical arrangement. Out-of-place sentences were put in better location (for example, the quote from Tolkien); the sections were put into a better order; and I reworded a couple of passages for clarity. I did remove a few passages, but only those that (1) had long-standing "citation needed" tags, (2) looked dubious, and (3) did not seem to contribute clearly to the article.
Before my edit, there were way too many jargon-laden sentences peppering the article in odd locations. For example, consider the following two passages:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find an appropriate place for these passages. So I removed them from the article and posted them here. If you can find a logical place to put them, feel free to re-add them. I confess that I simply didn't understand what they were doing in the article — mainly because I didn't know what they mean. We really need to reword passages like these for clarity. When adding stuff to Wikipedia, we should always phrase it in a way that a high-schooler could understand. Also, apart from their polysyllabic verbosity, the above passages (as far as I understood them) didn't fit logically where they were located in the article.
I felt that there was a strong need for more precise and concise categorization in this article. A quote from Levi-Strauss is perfectly appropriate in this article on mythology — but not just anywhere in the article! A section on "Myths as depictions of historical events" (now changed to "The euhemerist theory" in my edit) is certainly welcome in this article, but not as a stand-alone section, separate from the section on "Formation of myths". Isn't the theory that myths depict historical events one example of a theory on the formation of myths? (Thus, I changed it into a sub-section within the section on "Formation of myths".)
Anyhow, if anyone has complaints, suggestions, or comments, I'd be glad to discuss them. I really think this article can be better than it currently is if we become stricter about providing citations, organizing material logically, and (most importantly) writing sentences that contain only clear, simple English prose. Some sections still need a lot of work. I don't see a single citation for the section on the various categories of myth; and the section on euhemerism needs to be shortened and supported with citations. Please help! -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your edit, this sentence: "In the field of religious studies, myths are generally defined as stories about gods." might be a problem sentence. Many biblical scholars used to restrict myth to polytheistic religions, and not monotheistic religions (we have the Brothers Grimm to thank for that one interestingly enough). However, most scholars no longer impose this restriction, see Robert A. Oden's The Bible Without Theology for instance, where he notes that:
Now, I don't know if the reference you got that 'gods' definition from was using the plural form innocently (the context actually suggests this, chaps / gods), or if they mean to impose a restriction. Either way, I think we're best off using a statement that talks about things in general, as the above reference does, as opposed to one single author's definition. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the article:
As Roland Barthes affirms, "myth is a word chosen by history. It could not come from the nature of things". [3]
It originally was the last sentence in the opening paragraph of the section on euhemerist theory. I don't understand what it means, and I certainly don't know how it fits into that paragraph. (If anything, it looks like a statement that belongs in the "Term" section.) Instead of simply inserting a quote from Barthes, would someone please either paraphrase that quote in the article in a way that makes its meaning obvious, or provide some exegesis around the quote in order to make its significance clear? Thanks. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
...at least to overall understanding of the topic. Right now the lead says almost nothing, and seems to be pushing a definition favored by a single author and not how it is used in the field.
What the lead needs to say, is that mythology is: 1) the study of myths (explaining what myths are - sacred stories about supernatural/creation of world/etc. believed to be true by the culture) 2) the alternate definition of mythology being a collection of myths.
That is FUNDAMENTAL to any understanding of the topic at all.
If you want to give alternate definitions of myth (the looser one that encompasses legends and etc., and then mention of the popular usage meaning "false" -- with explanation that obviously mythology is the study of the academic term and not the popular usage), we can go into greater detail in the body of the article. Unfortunately we've had so many changes to this article lately hat it seems to be largely useless in getting the most important information off.
Obviously I can't just revert the whole thing, mainly because of all the other changes that were made that were perfectly fine and also because cleary there's some disagreement, but we need to work on a way we can all agree to it. I don't even care if we have sourced multiple definitions in the lead (assuming we don't give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe view in the process), but the whole point of the field is that mythology is the study of sacred stories believed to be true. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a few points to make:
1. Can anyone provide an actual source for the definition that used to be in the intro? For those who don't remember, this was the former definition: "a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". I know of no published source that defines mythology in quite this way. It can't be the standard folklorists' definition, because (1) for folklorists, "mythology" does not include legends, and (2) the former definition doesn't mention the creation of the world. I can only conclude that, however much "consensus" the former definition may have had, it was not drawn from a verifiable source and, thus, technically counts as OR.
2. I have no particular problem with using the folkloristic definition of myth in the intro (including, of course, the qualification that this definition is official only for folklorists). After all, folklorists are the only scholars who have bothered to formulate an "official" definition, so their unanimous definition has some kind of authority relative to the scattered definitions used by classicists, theologians, etc. However, we must make it absolutely clear in the article that the reader will most likely not find the same definition used if he picks up a random book on mythology. Many stories usually called "myths" even by scholars, such as the stories of Oedipus and Perseus, are not myths according to the folkloristic definition. For example, Joseph Campbell, a well-known (if not particularly well-respected in the academic community) mythologist discusses Arthurian romance in his book Creative Mythology; Arthurian romance is obviously not myth by the folklorists' definition.
3. I agree with Ben that the article is probably too obsessed with definitions. Ordinary people don't look up "mythology" on Wikipedia hoping to find a list of definitions. They're more intersted in learning about the major mythical gods, heroes, and events, and (perhaps) some of the major academic theories about myth. It would be tedious and redundant to list the important mythical characters and events in this article: if people want to learn about that, then they can go to Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc. However, I think this article should focus more on summarizing a wide variety of academic theories.
4. DreamGuy complains that the article now "seems to be pushing a definition favored by a single author". I assume he's talking about Robert Segal. I admit that I have used Segal quite a bit in my edits. However, there's a reason for that. Segal's Myth: A Very Short Introduction (published by Oxford University Press!) is the only book I know of that actually provides what I think this article should provide: a concise survey of the major academic approaches to studying myths. Segal does not use the folklorists' definition, for not all scholars of myth are folklorists. He does not use the definition favored in religious studies, for not all scholars of myth are professors in religious studies departments. He uses a definition broad enough to encompass everything that a layman might think of when he hears the word "myth". I think this article should do so as well, at least until we figure out what to do with the folklorists' definition.
Sorry this ran so long. I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. But, in my opinion, this article was unacceptable in the condition I found it in before I made those edits. Let's try to move forward, not backward. Peace. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Another thing. DreamGuy, I just read the post you made on Dbachmann's talk page (I was about to post something there myself to ask him to come and add his input). I'm sorry if you feel that I've demonstrated a willingness "to revert to [my] version when modifications are made". Like I said, I'm not looking for a fight. In fact, I left Wikipedia for a long time (until a few days ago) because I disliked the confrontational attitude I always found on the talk pages.
As for the "revert" that you mention, I changed the intro back to my favored version only because I thought I had gathered new quotes and citations (now located throughout the article) that would make it obvious that the intro needed to be changed. At this point, I can only say this: I promise that I will not throw a fit if you revert to your favored version of the intro (although I may continue to calmly raise some objections here). I am frankly too tired from fighting other Wikipedia battles to fight one here. If I make any mnore substantial edits to this article, I think that I will henceforth devote my energies to doing what I think is most important: adding more academic theories to the article. DreamGuy, Ben, dab, reword the intro as you see fit. Peace. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request comments from editors of this page about a piece of policy that is likely to effect it. Please see the discussion here. Ben ( talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is in trouble definition-wise. In the lead, it defines mythology as the "body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". Where is the citation for this definition? I know of no academic source that defines mythology in quite this way. As an unsourced assertion, it is fair game for deletion.
It seems that the favored definition of "myth" in this article is the folkloristic definition ("a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form"). I say this because most of the other definitions I added (namely ones from classicists and people in religious studies) were removed. I have no problem with this in principle, because we need to establish some kind of standard definition of "mythology" for use in other WP articles (see the discussion that Ben Tillman mentions above). However, if we are going to favor the folkloristic definition, then we should use it in the lead!!! The lead does not use anything remotely similar to the folkloristic definition. First of all, folklorists would not define mythology as a body of "folklore/myths/legends" because, for folklorists, "legend" is a separate category from "myth". Secondly, the definition in the lead does not mention sacredness. Thirdly... Need I go on?
I don't understand why we don't use the broadest academic definition ("traditional story") in the lead. This definition is the first definition given by the OED (see the "Term" section of the article). However, since I appear to be getting no support on this point, I will drop it.
But please, let's fix the definition in the lead. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If the folklorist definition of myth is as standardized as people say, I don't have a problem with using that as "the" definition in the lead. After that definition is given, we can proceed to say that many different definitions are offered in other fields, and perhaps give a sourced statement explaining why there are so many definitions. More detailed coverage of different definitions of myth can then be given in the body of the article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've started to work on a draft for a revised version of the Mythology article. I'm trying to address a number of issues in the revision, such as logical organization, conciseness, proper sourcing, and (most importantly for our purposes) definitions, without removing any legitimate info that was in the old article. The draft is still very much in progress, but feel free to look at it and offer comments. It's located at the bottom of my user page. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Fimus, it isn't quite as simple as that. The Christ myth theory (if that is indeed the theory's "official" name) certain seems to use "myth" to imply "false story". Now, in my brief skimming of the Christ myth theory article, I saw no indication that "Christ myth" is the conventional name of the hypothesis. In fact, the name "Christ myth theory" seems to be completely unsourced (as indicated by the "citation needed" tag). However, suffice it to say that the existence of an article entitled Christ myth theory, which questions Christ's historicity, would create confusion when placed alongside a statement in Mythology that academics never use "myth" to imply falsehood.
Ultimately, it's a small point: the Christ myth theory is currently supported only by a very small minority of non-mainstream scholars; and at any rate, our goal should not be to show that no one uses "myth" to mean "false", but simply to show that "myth" has an academically-recognized non-pejorative meaning, and that that's the meaning we're using here. However, it's a point worth noting. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
i
Template:Myth box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Goldenrowley (
talk)
05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
USer:Phatius McBluff mentioned in an edit comment on Myth that it should be redirected to this article, which I always 100% agreed with, so I wa WP:BOLD and did so. We can incorporate smoe of the info that was there over here if it helps. That also makes it just that much more important that we explain terms here clearly.
As far as rationale for the redirect, myth and mythology is a huge overlap, and the other article was basically just a WP:FORK file of this one -- often one where people would change things here or there and the two wouldn't sync up. Also, the only reaon it ever because a separate article over ther in the first place was tha some longstanding POV-pushers opposed to the academic definition entirely wanted to keep them separate, as it helped them make arguments about the use of the term on other articles. As most of those editors are no longer around (I think some of them have been permanently banned for POV-pushing, actually), there was no reason to keep the fork article intact for them.
I am specifically bringing it up here though for any discussion about it. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
But you created a tautology. I put in myth, get redirected to mythology, which is defined as the study of myths, but I can't find out what myths are.... there should be a short article called mythology that says the study of myths, and this big article should be about myths. 74.68.152.245 ( talk) 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I discovered that earlier this day I had made this edit to this page. I was quite surprised, since I don't remember even reading this article, let alone making the edit. The only thing I could think, after several minutes of pondering the matter, was that while I was reading a Wikipedia article my 14-month old daughter had decided to "help" me by banging on the keyboard. (I had thought the only thing she had done was download a copy of "index.php" from somewhere on Wikipedia.) Anyway, I apologize for the inadvertent removal of FimusTauri's comments & hope this did not negatively affect the conversation. -- llywrch ( talk) 04:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As some of you may know, I started a draft for a revised version of this article on my user page (sections 5-12). A few people have commented on it approvingly here. I was originally planning to compose a complete replacement for the current article on my user page, but I've fallen victim to inertia since then. At this point, I feel that the best course of action would be to work with what I already have. Please check my user page and let me know what you think of my draft on this talk page. If I do not receive any complaints, I will begin replacing the appropriate sections of this article with sections from my draft. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Just to make it clear, my 'revision' was pretty much reverting the page back to the last article form it had before the one I ended up with when I came to read the article-- that is, some really stupid vandalism. I mean, jesus fucking christ, that's lame. Yes, takes two seconds to fix, and all that, but I figured I'd leave a comment just so any REAL editors can rest assured that I'm not taking any potshots at them.
I just, y'know, would like to see a goddamn article when I click a link to a goddamn article. If I wanted vandalism, I'd go to a public bathroom-- at least THERE the one-liners are actually amusing. -- 72.224.72.24 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Everything from prior to the re-creation of myth on January 18, 2006 has been archived. See the link above. October 7, 2005 and January 9, 2006 archived discussions are also available. JHCC (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In view of the fairly clear consensus articulated above [see archive ], I moved the content of Myth/temp to myth and made Myth/temp a redirect to myth. For the edit history of Myth/temp, please see here. I also archived the old content of Talk:Myth, which is now here. I had made a couple of changes to Myth/temp earlier, so I've included the rationale for these here (lest anyone accuse me of deceptive editing practice). JHCC (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I just created Category:Mythological kings to rescue Zeus out of Category:Fictional kings. - Haukur 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since discussion of multiple senses of "myth" has moved to myth and Talk:Myth, and since the article is still locked, we need to discuss what edits are planned for once the article is unlocked.
I see three areas for immediate attention:
Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This argument is pathetic. Just write the page and get on with your lives. (usigned, but comment by User:61.72.76.213, the only edit it ever made on Wikipedia)
The current introduction has the following for the Greek derivation:
While this is all quite correct, I wonder if it might not be improved. Most dictionaries that I have seen note that "mythology" came into English by way of the French Mythologie; we may or may not want to include this fact. Also, the Greek μυϑολογία means "romance", "fiction", "legend", or "storytelling" [1]. (See also the LSJ entry for μυϑολογειν, which has some more details.) I'd suggest:
and leave it at that. JHCC (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Greek word mythos probably does mean "romance" or "to be remembered" more than story. Because the Greek word for story is actually "istoria" which gives us the term "history." The word for legend in Greek is "thrillos," as in a thrilling adventure. The term "logos" sometime can mean word but is generally used philosophically to mean "reason" or logic. "My logos" is offered as a word of honour or a promise. Because "word" in Greek is actually "lexis," as in lexicon. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Greek μυθολογια "legendary lore" is derived from μυθος "speech, thought, story, myth", itself of unknown origin. English mythology is in use since the 15th century, in the meaning "an exposition of myths". The current meaning of "body of myths" itself dates to 1781 (OED). The adjective mythical dates to 1678; English use of myth is later, first attested in 1830, in its original English meaning of "untrue story":
-- ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the universality of the supernatural element. In particular, examples given at Founding myth and National myth are exclusively secular, with no supernatural content at all. Should the definition be qualified to "that often use the supernatural"? JHCC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
(REDUCE)
DreamGuy, would you be willing to frame this in such a way that we can incorporate it into the Mythology#Related concepts section? This is some good stuff and should be included in the article. Perhaps you would be willing to do the same for some of the other Related concepts as well? Thanks. JHCC (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
A myth and a legend differ in that the legend usually involves a strong element of danger - the Greek word here is "thrillos" implying a thrilling adventure. The labours of Hercules are some examples, but Hercules' quest for immortality is more of a myth, which can be an erotic tale etc., without any sense of danger involved. The supernatural element is found in almost everything written and conducted by the ancients. Even lighting the hearth or bathing. Almost no way out of it, really. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Accidentally hit enter while typing edit comment... Academic mythology is a redundant term. Mythology studies myths per the academic definition. There is no non-academic mythology. It'd be like a non-academic biology. DreamGuy 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Using the term "myth" to mean a falsehood, is a Greek "slang" word of abusive language to make fun of something or to cause offense. Not recommended. The idea of "academic mythology" can be misleading. I guess it would mean a "scholarly study" of myths, but are there really any "studies" done to be stupid? And it could falsely suggest "a body of myths related to learning" like the wolf teach Romulus and Remus. Not recommended. Fkapnist ( talk) 10:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Phyesalis. I was refering to The English suffix "-ology," which means "study." Once you've already called it a "study," or an "-ology" there's really no further need to call it an "academic study," or a "scholarly academic study," etc. It becomes an oxymoron, because any study is the acquisition of knowledge. There isn't a chance someone will mistake it for a "study not for learning." (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true). Fkapnist ( talk) 14:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we seem to have agreed that definitions and disclaimers basically belong at the top of the article, the following bit in Mythology#Related concepts needs to be either incorporated higher up, deleted, or moved to myth:
This could be put either in the intro (to expand "In common usage, myth means a falsehood" etc) or in the Definition section (which currently only contains the academic definition). I hesitate to delete it entirely, as the "used pejoratively" bit is obviously relevant.
This brings up another issue: if we restrict this article to discussion of the academic senses of "myth" and "mythology" (as seems to be consensus), should we not make that clear in some way? We could change Definition to Academic definition or change "Myths are generally narratives..." to "In academia, myths are generally narratives..." or something like that, to avoid the misunderstanding that the article is making universal statements about all uses of "myth" and "mythology". Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the term Aetiological myths being used formally in academia? I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include this term in the types of myth section. For example, "how did the tiger get his stripes"... is that a myth? Well, that's kind of a whimsical example. What about Prometheus, and the introduction of fire to humanity? I'd call that an aetiological myth. Is that the same as an Origin myth? -- Torgo 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand how the edit summary
relates to this edit (what loser?), which I would revert in any case, already for removing the {{ fact}} templates, dumping etymological information (which is of utmost importance in any article on a polysemous term), and for reverting to the childish "Myths are not the same as" bulleted list. I have attempted to replace that list by a coherent account of how myths tie in with other genres. An account that may certainly still be improved, but not by reverting to something like
dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose a small section on myths in the world of science (such as gum taking 7 years to digest) However, I am quite aware that the type of myths may differ...but still =P -- DNA 13:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the word "myth" with yarn. Science yarns: spun threads for knitting or weaving spacesuits! Anecdotes are not the same as myths. Why is that so hard to accept? As I said elsewhere, I'd much rather see a section that describes how myths have influenced science, such as the naming of the planets or the phyla (taxonomic ranks) of biology.
Fkapnist (
talk)
10:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care to get involved in yet another histrionic, juvenile playground fight with Dreamguy, but I certainly don't think that my contributions to the Modern section were "massive fuck up" and I hope that some day you will recognize that such comments and behavior are completely unacceptable and embarassing. If you would like to discuss the content of the article I am definetly open to it. Please let me know if there is anything I could do to help create a decent adult relationship. BarkingDoc 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
where do we give the full range of meanings ""speech, thought, story, myth" for μυθος? Where do we assert that (unlike many other -logies), μυθολογια is itself attested in Ancient Greek? How is it 'pov' that the word means "legendary lore"? That's straight from a reputable dictionary. How is it pov, or where is it covered that the English word is in use since the 15th century, or since 1781 in the modern meaning? Dates directly taken from the
OED? How is it already covered, or how is it biased to say that the English term 'myth' is younger than 'mythology'? I agree we don't need stuff about Star Trek or Scientology here, but why do you keep reverting a perfectly sound discussion of the word's history? If you have other sources contradicting the OED, by all means add them. I don't understand why I even have to point this out to you, an experienced Wikipedian, in such painstaking length, as if you were a passing anonymus.
dab
(ᛏ)
10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page after stumbling across the myth disambig page. I was shocked at how the subject was beginning to disappear under a side issue of whether myth was truthful or not. strange? so I tried to clarify it without treading on too many toes - I hope it meets with approval.
Anyway. what I really couldn't understand is why there is no myth page itself - when I got here all became clear, there is a dispute...
So for what its worth I would like to offer a possible solution to the problem. As with most disputes of this type it seems to stem from valid positions being over-written by other valid positions. Here I see a lot of justification based on the terms 'academic' and 'academia' as though that somehow lends authority to the subject. Well perhaps it would if the opposed voices here just recognised that mythology isn't an academic discipline in itself. Mythology is studied from several academic perspectives, including the anthropological, literary, psychological and philosophical. not to mention the fields of political science and sociology (which actually justifies the inclusion of non-sacred, text based forms as myth). All that needs to be done here is to define and separate out the various academic claims on the subjects and compare the approaches under headings - not so tricky really, you've already managed to coexist with the definition meaning both 'the telling of' and 'the study of' myth.
Once the page was formed of a definition and headings for the various academic views and findings relating to mythology. It would probably make sense to put the list of myths on a separate page called, strangely enough myths.
So if all you supporters of 'the academic' would care to nail your colours to the mast and own up to the discipline you are supporting we will be half way to getting rid of all this one sided stuff about truth, if you are worried about your subjects golden calves being smashed, cheer up, a seperate heading for your own discipline will surely show the world how wrong everyone else is. and perhaps in the process the original scope of mythology, the poets and storytellers might get a word in sideways too.
DavidP 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you DavidP. Lets get out a solid skeleton for this page and put some life into it. Right now it's just a dirty hairball. The casual reader gets nothing more out of it but a few confusing snotty footnotes. And the editors argue about camel hairs in their clubhouse every day. It looks like some people will always want to be scornful without allowing interactivity. That's exactly why they're here. I suppose they need to identify with mythology for depth-psychology reasons. Looking for themselves. As for me, yes, I work in academia! I was part of the original team that discovered and photographed the tomb of Philip of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great! My museum photos and 4X5 slides are in REAL encyclopedias. We worked with professor Andronikus. I'm near another archaelogical dig right now, but I won't say what, because it will really surprise the world! It kinda bugs me when unqualified people jam the doorway and won't let anyone else in. But that's life. Fkapnist ( talk) 10:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Was that just a kneejerk revert on Mythology or what? You blindly reverted everything in that edit, even things that were obviously needed (we don't link to foreign language sites in External links, etc.). You say discuss sweeping changes on talk when all of the changes of any controversy were already discussed on the talk page quite extensively and were only changed back to what was decided there after much discussion. I've been editing logged out a few times here, and I see a lot of editors just blind reverting anything and everything, probably because they can't be bothered to check to see if the changes were good or not and just assume it must be if it's an anon user. Please take some time to check over what you are doing before undoing so many edits at once. 172.164.87.241 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have this page on my watchlist and read the talk page regularly. I see no consensus for these changes. I do see a few comments concerning too much focus on Truth but there is certainly no consensus, and your edits were not specifically discussed there at all. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
--
I have refactored the following, which was inserted into my numbered post, above. Do not modify my posts.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, as does dab and now Bunchofgrapes has also reverted your edits with the edit summary KC has made good detailed points about a number of these changes being bad. Stop it with the sweeping reversions. Focus on one thing at a time if you want to move forward. I strongly suggest you pick one of the items above and counter my objections, and attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes. Claiming old consensus is irrelevant. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
anon, if you mix 'good' edits with 'bad' ones, you risk getting them all reverted. it is not the job of other people to sift your edits for anything salvageable. If you think that part of your edit was rolled back accidentially, kindly make an edit consisting only of that. It is not even clear what "things" you claim have "firm consensus". this article needs a lot of work an is a long way from stability. Just because it has been quiet for a while doesn't make it any better. I do not even see any factual disagreement here. We all agree on the article scope, the 'academic' meaning of the term, etc.; since everybody fully agrees about the facts, I don't see any reason for your hostility (not that I would see such a reason if you were in factual disagreement, either) dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again! Do me a favor... please look up the word "yarn" in Wikipedia and tell me if you need a lengthy statement to explain to you that yarn in slang usage means anecdote. Better yet, look up the word "spin." Myth is commonly used in Greek slang (for more than the past decade or two) the same way we use spin today in the media. Fkapnist ( talk) 11:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
why under myth by region is there no cherokee mythology? i mean did someone not think of cherokee or is there nothing to put down? Hicups0002 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
They left a big hole in the main article, and went after some bread crumbs, Hicups0002. In fact, since this is the landing page for Mythology, it should include links to Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, Asian, and YES, North American Indian. Funny, though, they kept Star Wars and Tarzan... How scholarly. I'd be ashamed. Who can really lean anything from this dysfunctional article? Fkapnist ( talk) 11:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Campbell is a well-respected interdisciplinary scholar, he is qualified to discuss mythography, religion, psychology, history and textual criticism of religious and ficitonal literature, among other things. His contributions to the field include numerous editorial projects, including collections by Maya Deren, Carl Kerenyi, and Carl Jung. He is one of the world's foremost experts on the subject of myth. He was a member of the editorial board for the interdisciplinary Bollingen Foundation, and finished four volumes of Heinrich Zimmer's academic papers. If his work isn't scholarly, I don't know what is. I am going to change the article's mention of him to reflect his expertise and wide spread contributions to the field. Phyesalis 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (added sig)
The line "Not every religious narrative is a myth however; unless it is deeply rooted in tradition, it may also be trivial pious anecdote or legend." is problematic at best. I think, at the very least, it needs a citation and have noted it within the article. I also think the wording is far from optimal. First, many discourses acknowledge all religious narratives as myth. Also, the term "pious" is questionable. The issue is and should be addressed under "Related Concepts". I suggest removing the line. Any objections or alternate suggestions? Phyesalis 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I also removed the words "deeply" and "trivial", as they imply unsubstantiated determinations. Phyesalis 10:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The wording in the line "This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history which may, or may not, exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story" (Preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes "the story" and the literate become "the authority")." is unclear. To what does the "This broader truth" refer? As this is the first phrase in the paragraph, I suggest a rewording which explicitly states what is being refered to and avoids use of the phrase "broader truth". It is the first use of the word "truth" in the section and has no correlative antecedent. Phyesalis 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That "primitive" quote is kind of problematic, in the context of the paragraph it imples that Greeks and Romans were primative, along with all other religions, like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Can we do something about that? Thanks. Phyesalis 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I can make neither heads nor tails of this "sentence", hence I removed it. "This broader definition runs deeper than the advent of critical history which may, or may not, exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story"." •Jim62sch• 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Jim62sch completely blind revert a badly needed edit to this article with the edit comment: "revert - dreamguy, take your complaints to talk" -- This is simply nonsense. The things that my edit changed to the article were for problems EXTENSIVELY discussed on these talk pages OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
We do not link to Encyclopedia Mythica, as it is horribly unreliable.
We have a definition of mythology that was thoroughly discussed and backed up by cites, but some people want to change it to whatever nonsense either comes off the top of their heads or to support some religious definitions (as the "Codex" guy and others were continuously doing despite that they did not have consensus to do so.
For the love of god, if a bunch of people new to the article who didn;t bother to read the prior thorough discussions -- or any reliable book on the topic as far as I can see -- feel like they can change it to whatever they want, I certainly have the right to change it back to a better prior version that was hammered out through long discussion here. DreamGuy 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
DAVID SUNG quit vandalizing! some of us have reports to do on mythology by next week!!! im going to go to ask.com or a better search engine that does not have vandalizers! speaking of my report i should get working on that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.9.70 ( talk • contribs)
The article has the "please restructure" message, but as a lay person, I cannot see what needs to be restructured. Restructuring is little discussed on the talk page; the content as a whole is discussed, but there is no consensus. I suggest that the "restructure" tag be replaced with an "expert" tag or something like that. - Pgan002 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting (what might be) a major restructuring of this article, namely to better represent the study the meanings of myths. See User:Ephilei/Mythology for version under construction and the talk page there. -- Ephilei 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I tagged two paragraphs as OR in the myth nad history section. They seem to be the two major paragraphs, describing all the means and methods for the examination given, but only specific examples are given any citation; this leaves the major paragraphs to read as if they were OR or synthesis shoehorned around the examples. Please fix with citation or a rewrite, thank you. ThuranX 14:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think going to WP:ANI is a bit excessive, and I'd suggest going to WP:3O instead. DreamGuy, discussion does not mean resolution. I do not see a consensus or agreement of any kind. You did not respond to the latest comments, so it is still being disputed. You shouldn't revert the edits. - Zero1328 Talk? 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, I note that you have reverted my edit for the third time,
[5], without commenting on my suggestions above,
[6], and contrary to advice.
[7]. In addition to your incivility towards me,
[8] which notes your intent to "reverted on sight", I felt I had no choice but to make a comment on the Administrators' noticeboard,
here --
84.9.191.165
13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
User:DLX recently reverted an edit I made to the "religion and mythology" section. I accidentally reintroduced the reverted material due to an edit conflict. Sorry for the confusion there, DLX. You can revert my edit again if you want to, but before you do, I'd like to ask a few questions.
It's not at all clear to me why the stuff I added was "unsourced, OR" while the stuff that was already in the "religion and mythology" section wasn't. Let me first quote, in full, what was originally in the "religion and mythology" section:
Myth is not intimately connected with religion. Myth in this sense does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions. Literalism refers to the attitude of some adherents of modern dominant religions that regards the traditions surrounding the origin and development of their faith as literal historic accounts. Such a position has only become possible with the advent of the critical method that counters mythos with logos. Literalists often object to the classification of their traditions as myths because of the connotations of "falsehood" mentioned above, while the mythologist's classification is not a statement on historical truth or falsehood, but refers to the subjective importance of the theme within the community in question. Thus, one can speak of a Hindu mythology, a Christian mythology, or an Islamic mythology, in which one describes the mythic elements within these faiths, without implying any statement as to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history.
Now, let me quote, again in full, what I replaced that with:
Significantly, none of the scholarly definitions of "myth" imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, many scholars call the sacred stories of Christianity and Islam "myths" without intending to insult those religions. However, this application of the word "myth" may cause confusion and offense, due to the popular usage of the word.
I can't see how what I put is substantially different from what was already there. (Granted, I afterward added some more info to the "religion and mythology" section, some of which I think I may get hammered for; but that's not what I'm talking about right now.) I can see only two differences between what I put and what was already there:
I'm not trying to be billigerent or pick a fight with anyone. However, I can't see what's wrong with my addition to the "religion and mythology" section.
Forgot to sign; sorry. -- Phatius McBluff 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think providing an external link that's really linking to another section on the same page is just clumsy. There should be a way to write that so you don't have to do that at all. I don't particularly like some of the changes -- for example there's now a long list of "most important" people in the field, which is surely POV, especially as the source is just one source and not speaking authoritatively for the field (if such a thing were even possible). I also think some of the sections were people decide they want to using myth to mean something other than what other people think is pretty odd too, as the evolution page doesn't just quote random people who decide they want to use evolution to mean something else. That whole beginning section is just too long now. If some people prefer to include religion in a different sense, or argue against the definition, that should be handled separately and with plenty of context. See the NPOV policy on "undue weight" -- merely mentioning minotiry views can give the idea that they are widely accepted and slant people's perception. There must be a better way to handle that. DreamGuy 11:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that linking back to another part of the article is a bit awkward. However, aside from that, don't you think that what I put is an improvement over what was already there? My idea was just to make what I felt to be necessary substantive changes, and then leave the aesthetics to others: if others want to rephrase the section so it doesn't have to link to another part of the article, then they can be my guest.
As for your dissatisfaction with the numerous different definitions of "myth" being used in this article, that's an unfortunate consequence of the actual usage of the term. As pointed out in the "Term" section, there's simply no consensus about the proper use of the word "myth" in a scholarly context. Folklorists, in particular, have their own definition of the word that's no necessary recognized by other scholars. I realize that, outside of the "Term" section, editors have been using the term haphazardly, with inconsistent meanings, throughout the article; and I'm not defending that. I'm just pointing out that the situation is a bit complex. Maybe we could correct the problem by specifying, at the beginning of each section, how the word is being used within that section? -- Phatius McBluff 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
At the bottom of the "characteristics" section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Characteristics), the article lists a number of different kinds of myths. Included are "ritual myths" and "cult myths". Could someone please explain to me why these must be listed separately? A cult is "the totality of external religious practice and observance". That includes ritual, doesn't it? Or if we go with this article's definition of cult, as "elaborate festivals that magnify the power of the deity", then cult should be one kind of ritual. Shouldn't cult myths be one kind of ritual myth or vice versa? -- Phatius McBluff 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
A cult is a system or a sect. A ritual is the prescribed order of a ceremony. For example, water immersion is a ritual. The Catholic system is a cult. In common modern usage, cult has also come to mean a splinter group of unorthodox beliefs. Fkapnist ( talk) 12:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
For the not uncommon interpretation, I've created the section on "Cosmic interpretation", and a subsection on the less common catastrophic interpretation, of which I have given a couple of sentences to the older "cometary" catastrophists (there's perhaps a dozen more writers that could be included), and finally qualified the single sentence on the "planetary" catastrophists. -- 67.136.238.48 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, it is absolutely deceptive and bad faith to revert to a disputed version of the article over the long-standing, consensus-approved version just because one editor didn't bother to respond to some anon editor on the talk page. Don't tell me it's not courteous to discuss it on the talk page before removing it when you didn't discuss it on the talk page before tossing it all in there. Pretty much everything you are trying to do in that section is wholly unacceptable by multiple Wikipedia policies. If you would like to try to come up with some addition that fits policies, please make suggestions here, and if you can get a version that is acceptable as following policies by others here, then you can add it. Until then if you try to put anything like that back it will be reverted on sight. DreamGuy 00:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding
84.9.191.165 (
talk ·
contribs) ("84.*") and
DreamGuy (
talk ·
contribs), lemme see if I understand the problem:
Just because someone is editing without an account does not mean you should assume bad faith. This appears to be what DreamGuy is doing. If no one is participating in a proposed edit made on the talk page, especially for a week, I would say it is safe to assume that there are no objections. I see DreamGuy as acting fairly uncivil at the moment, as he did not make any objections prior to 84.*'s edits. -
Zero1328
Talk?
01:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
guys, elaborate discussions of policy and courtesy aside, the fact remains that the anon editor has added a bunch of fringe authors to the article, and reverting him was the right thing to do. Ideally, the reverting should be done courteously, but the important point is that the revert is made. This article should mention catastrophism, but any further discussion of this fringy topic should go to the main article. This is covered by WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with slakr in that putting a rather large paragraph on the mythology article would be quite the case of undue weight. However, given the amount of sources, it most definitely can qualify for its own article (remember that notability =/= correctness). I would suggest the IP pursue that course. I also agree with the above editors that DreamGuy was a bit too harsh in this case and should definitely apply WP:AGF in the future when dealing with any editor, registered or not. Sasquatch t| c 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the catastrophic interpretation of mythology is not as fringe as DreamGuy wants us to think. If we consider the vivid Deluge (Latin diluvium) or Flood myths that appear in numerous records in almost all parts of the world, we do have a strong case for catastrophe mythology. In fact, like Plato's Atlantis, it represents a mainstream and oft-repeated story element, rather than just an obscure fringe. DreamGuy calls it "unscholarly, not taken seriously." But I strongly disagree with that and think I can produce enough manuscripts to prove it. Where is your proof of its insignificance, DreamGuy? Perhaps you've seen some of those rather kitschy websites on "vortex" subjects and it has clouded your Platonic memories? I've seen them too, ugh, but no matter. Catastrophe is a valid point here, I think. Thumbs up. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What this? What that? Am I to blame if your "Fringe" is becoming mainstream? Reliable Sources: Start with these manuscripts DreamGuy. Google it.This is all new reseach, less than a few years old:
Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? - … for mixing of Neanderthal and modern human populations and "this doesn't add any," said Potts, who was not part of the research team. Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2007 (AP)
(Reuters) Could our big brains come from Neanderthals? - … proof that a Neanderthal was the source of the original copy of the D allele. However, our evidence shows that it is one of the best candidates," Lahn said. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/08/neanderthals.brains.reut/index.html
Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred - … be a little Neanderthal in all of us. That's the conclusion of anthropologists who have re-examined 30000-year-old fossilized bones from a Romanian cave -- bones that … By E.J. Mundell HealthDay ReporterMon Oct 30, 5:03 PM ET
IT LOOKS LIKE Neanderthal had a "culture" that involved ship-building, and song-making (the first myths were sung out loud)...
Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers - Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 Guardian Spanish investigators believe they may have … Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 EducationGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
The Singing Neanderthal - … features The Singing Neanderthal Music moves the human body (our feet tap, our bodies sway) and the human heart (our emotions beat in time to a song's pulse). Every …
-- Barbara J. King is an anthropologist and author at the College of William
and Mary.
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2005_10_006832.php
The myth-making catastrophic "fact" you don't want to hear about was the last ice age:
Freeze 'condemned Neanderthals' - … with calendar dates. Neanderthal bones have also been excavated from these sediment units, including a male skull fragment which could potentially be very recent. (BBC) A sharp freeze could have dealt the killer blow that finished off our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals, according to a new study. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6341987.stm Published: 2007/02/20 23:06:06 GMT
Fkapnist ( talk) 10:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the recent discussion, and would welcome discussion from DreamGuy too. I acknowledge that the catastrophic interpretation of myth is a minority subject, and the one sentence we have is sufficient. However, there is also the cosmic interpretation of myth, which is a larger minority subject. I had suggested:
what is it with all these fruity claims that "myth is 'really' this or that"? Such an approach can only ever yield fringy pseudoscholarship. What do we even mean by "cosmic events/catastrophes"? A catastrophe of order? Sure, we can link geomythology and what not, but leave it at the linking, please. dab (𒁳) 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL gives us a few hits, but nothing coherent at first glance. I have no doubt the idea is floating around, especially in 19th century literature, but it is your task to establish that this is in any way a coherent hypothesis that has been discussed in academia. If you're going to discuss comets, you are back to catastrophism, and to lunatic stuff like Comets and the swastika motif. Incidentially, it would be nice if you could take the latter article and incorporate it into a larger discussion of "comets in mythology" or what. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Velikovsky does not belong on this page as this he represents a tiny minority view regarding mythology. See WP:UNDUE. -- Velikovsky 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote in my above post, the catastrophic interpretation of mythology is not fringe. "If we consider the vivid Deluge (Latin diluvium) or Flood myths that appear in numerous records in almost all parts of the world, we do have a strong case for catastrophe mythology. In fact, like Plato's Atlantis, it represents a mainstream and oft-repeated story element, rather than just an obscure fringe." However, after reading through this entire Talk message board, I am rather sad to find that no one (and I mean no one!) has bothered to quote any source material. The original stuff. The Real McCoy. All I find are various references to Velikovsky, and some other modern writers. You've wandered into sci-fi, Star Wars, and even Tarzan. It appears that many of you read books about myths, but not the myths themselves. Am I the only one who reads in Greek? Seriously, I'd really like to know if anyone has come to grips with source material; Greek, Sanskrit, anything. But not secondary, or third generation examinations. They can get pretty detailed, and revisionist, without revealing the original essense of mythology. Because the academic authors assume the you know the myths already. Yet I percieve that some of you really don't. At least that's what a first-time reader gathers from eyeing the bewildering article you've manage to concoct. No wonder this isn't going anywhere. Is there a "senior editor" to this article? If you need help with Greek please let me know. I have lots of free time, and I do live in the ancient land of Mythology. I was part of the team that discovered the tomb of Philip of Macedonia (father of Alexander the Great). There are some new archaeological surprises in store for the world.
Fkapnist (
talk)
11:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I see your point DreamGuy, However (as I also posted above) there is new scientific data that needs to be taken into account. Within the last two years, it has been found that Neanderthal man co-existed with Cro Magnon or modern man, and that there may have been interbreeding as well as some cultural exchange. The myth-forming catastrophe in this case would be the last glacial period, or melting of the land ice, which forced Neanderthal into extinction and brought Cro Magnon to the leading position. This catastrophe isn't fringe, its a fact. But you won't find anything written about it by your favorite mythology authors. It's up to new investigators to research it and bring us up to date.
Start with these sources. Google it. This is all new reseach, less than a few years old:
Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? - … for mixing of Neanderthal and modern human populations and "this doesn't add any," said Potts, who was not part of the research team. Did Humans And Neanderthals Interbreed? WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2007 (AP)
(Reuters) Could our big brains come from Neanderthals? - … proof that a Neanderthal was the source of the original copy of the D allele. However, our evidence shows that it is one of the best candidates," Lahn said. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/08/neanderthals.brains.reut/index.html
Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred - … be a little Neanderthal in all of us. That's the conclusion of anthropologists who have re-examined 30000-year-old fossilized bones from a Romanian cave -- bones that … By E.J. Mundell HealthDay ReporterMon Oct 30, 5:03 PM ET
IT LOOKS LIKE Neanderthal had a "culture" that involved ship-building, and song-making (the first myths were sung out loud)...
Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers - Neanderthal man floated into Europe, say Spanish researchers Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 Guardian Spanish investigators believe they may have … Giles Tremlett in Madrid Wednesday January 18, 2006 EducationGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
The Singing Neanderthal - … features The Singing Neanderthal Music moves the human body (our feet tap, our bodies sway) and the human heart (our emotions beat in time to a song's pulse). Every …
-- Barbara J. King is an anthropologist and author at the College of William
and Mary.
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2005_10_006832.php
The myth-making catastrophic "fact" you don't want to hear about was the last ice age:
Freeze 'condemned Neanderthals' - … with calendar dates. Neanderthal bones have also been excavated from these sediment units, including a male skull fragment which could potentially be very recent. (BBC) A sharp freeze could have dealt the killer blow that finished off our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals, according to a new study. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6341987.stm Published: 2007/02/20 23:06:06 GMT
Concerning Plato's Atlantis, you should know that there are two "Pillars of Hercules." One is near Gibraltar, the other is in the Near East Aegean Sea. As for the date of Atlantis, there is an inconsistency between Greek and Egyptian numbers, much in the same way that a billion in the UK is a thousand million, but in the US is a million million. Recent finds suggest that the volcanic island of Santorini may be the Atlantis Plato wrote about.
Fkapnist ( talk) 10:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is another interesting report about catastrophe myths from Discover magazine:
Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory: His hypothesis depends on a major reinterpretation of many different mythologies and raises questions about how frequently major asteroid impacts occur. Masse’s biggest idea is that some 5,000 years ago, a 3-mile-wide ball of rock and ice swung around the sun and smashed into the ocean off the coast of Madagascar. The ensuing cataclysm sent a series of 600-foot-high tsunamis crashing against the world’s coastlines and injected plumes of superheated water vapor and aerosol particulates into the atmosphere. Within hours, the infusion of heat and moisture blasted its way into jet streams and spawned superhurricanes that pummeled the other side of the planet. For about a week, material ejected into the atmosphere plunged the world into darkness. All told, up to 80 percent of the world’s population may have perished, making it the single most lethal event in history. Why, then, don’t we know about it? Masse contends that we do. Almost every culture has a legend about a great flood, and—with a little reading between the lines—many of them mention something like a comet on a collision course with Earth just before the disaster. The Bible describes a deluge for 40 days and 40 nights that created a flood so great that Noah was stuck in his ark for two weeks until the water subsided. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero of Mesopotamia saw a pillar of black smoke on the horizon before the sky went dark for a week. Afterward, a cyclone pummeled the Fertile Crescent and caused a massive flood. Myths recounted in indigenous South American cultures also tell of a great flood. [17]
Most of the textbook references cited in this mythology article are at least half a century old. If the biology or chemistry articles in Wikipedia cited textbooks from the 1800s to the 1960s, they would be considered outdated. Why should mythology be any different? Fkapnist —Preceding comment was added at 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[18] I think the problem lies not so much with Tolkien as with "in folkloristics". This should perhaps be "in mythography". Tolkien was not a "folklorist" in the sense of a comparative approach to the world's traditional narratives, but he certainly was among the foremost experts on Anglo-Saxon (Old and Middle English) narratives. Together with his views on "mythopoeia" ( On Fairy Stories), his opinion on the subject does carry great weight, quite unrelated to his popularity as an author of original works. -- dab (𒁳) 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
can we be reasonable about this? I see a lot of "citation needed" tags gracing perfectly straightforward statements. Asking for citations is good, but some common sense should be involved. Have you looked at truth? The primary meaning of the word is ""faithfulness, fidelity". This obviously isn't about truth in the sense of "factuality", which is a concept that doesn't even enter the equation in a discussion of myth. There is objective truth (sooth), then there is mythological truth, and then there is religious truth, which is really mythological truth with a scripture and a clergy. Understanding these notions of truth is at the very core of getting the concept of "myth". dab (𒁳) 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My Oxford Dictionary doesn't find "folkloristics" anywhere. Probably neither will your average reader. By "truth" do you mean story essence and substance, rather than some historical fact? Fkapnist ( talk) 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
1. "In folkloristics, which is concerned with the study of both secular and sacred narratives, a myth also derives some of its power from being more than a simple 'tale', by comprising an archetypical quality of 'truth'."
2. "Myths are often intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ('creation myths' and 'founding myths'), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions or rituals, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history, and it may or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes 'the story' (preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes 'the story' and the literate class becomes 'the authority'). However, as Lucien Lévy-Bruhl puts it, 'The primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development.'"
Um ... maybe I'm just stupid, but I have almost no idea what the above passages mean. Could someone please reword them so they make sense? In the first passage, what's "an archetypical quality of 'truth'"? And in the second passage, I can't tell how the different sentences go together to form a coherent argument. -- Phatius McBluff 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The first passage may mean that myths transmitted universal value systems or ethical and moral guidelines. The second passage I think means that the original oral content of a myth is sometimes lost when committed to writing. Fkapnist ( talk) 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the new "Rotundum" section out, as it seems to contain some material that's potentially useful, but it shouldn't be in the article in its current form. At present this section seems to be a collection of random stuff that needs to be integrated in different places in the article. Actually, it's quite possible that Democritus and Epicurus belong at Greek mythology, but not here. Jung probably deserves a section all his own, or needs to be part of a "Psychological interpretations" section. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this is the landing page or "main topic" article, and like the trunk of a tree, it should have adequate links with concise descriptions leading to all its related branch articles. Don't assume your reader knows how to find the related subjects unless you describe them within the content of the main page. Fkapnist ( talk) 08:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Not one Google hit! Then I guess I will have to write the rotundum article after all. It actually has little to do with UFOlogy. The rotundum is the basis of all archetypes, according to Jung. It is merely the perception of a circle or sphere (cosmic egg, etc.), which represents a totality of the self. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the Mythology page is very weak for several reasons. It needs more sections because it doesn't answer two very important questions: 1. What actually were the major myths? Why not a single example? Don't assume that your reader knows. 2. Who were the original story tellers? The editors here don't seem to understand, or care enough to tell us. Hesiod, for example, is not mentioned at all. Don't assume that your reader knows and will look it up elsewhere. Sure, there are many references to scholars like Levi-Strauss or J. R. R. Tolkien, but they weren't the original story tellers of mythology. So who were they? You've heard that the classical myths were sung to music and painted on vases, not annotated with footnotes. But our dear readers won't learn any of that here, I guess. I'm surprised that even Homer is only mentioned once - in the Related Topics section, along with Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg! Come on, are you people serious? Who edited this bedsheet? Mythology constitutes a few thousand years of our precious human history. But the edits here seem to cover (yawn) about half a page full of cut and paste high-sounding academic quotes. Without getting to the real meat of the subject. Don't assume that your readers know anything about mythology. If they did, they sure wouldn't consult you or Wikipedia. Did anyone happen to notice how the myths influenced modern-day science? Why, for example, are the planets named after mythical characters? The editors here don't have time to look it up. And the geographical distribution or map of major myths is also not covered. Try this: Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, African, Asian, Native America. See how easy that was? Without these vital links right in the heart of the main article, your naive dear reader is lost and buried, by a bunch of sleepy editors. Do you have a problem with space? Buy a new hard disc. I don't think Wikipedia has any problem giving adequate space to such a major topic. And did you notice the decline of myths and their aftermath? Try Democritus and his buddies. But some of you would rather delete all that stuff and keep the page short and sweet. Oh, that Fifth Grade tradition of cut and paste! Smarty quotes; the very stuff of plagiarism. I was the publisher and editor of a big city daily newspaper, and I can tell you without hesitation that the current Mythology article would make an excellent bedsheet to cradle any reader's unfamiliar nightmares. Fkapnist ( talk) 07:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"It's better now that your additions are removed." That's a good one, DreamGuy. But thanks anyway for keeping Jung near the end. Fkapnist ( talk) 09:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Syncretic mythology also deserves to be mentioned along with the creation myths and ritual myths. But syncretic myths would probably belong in the "Myth and Religion" section. There are two main schools of thought here: One theory states that most of the western myths evolved, or were copied through time, and can be ultimately traced back to an original set of stories that probably started in ancient Egypt. The myth of Jesus is said to have begun as a primordial solar deity who annually dies and resurrects, such as Osiris, who later became Dionysus, and finally developed into the familiar Christ story. The opposing argument is that the syncretic myths did not actually appear until after the arrival of Christ, and were the retelling of the old Osiris and Dionysus myths based on the new story of Jesus. This theory claims that no evidence exists in antiquity for Osiris, Dionysus, or any other mythical gods ressurecting until after the 2nd and 3rd century AD. When deities of polytheistic society were sacrified, they dwelt either in Hades or the Elysian Fields, but did not return to life on earth. Fkapnist ( talk) 13:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If the myth of Dionysus is a syncretic continuation of the Osiris myth, we are not talking only about Jesus Christ. I think syncretic mythology is important as part of the "origin" of all myths.
Fkapnist (
talk)
09:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am suggesting the following book as Further Reading on the Mythology page: Vitsaxis, Vassilis. Myth and the Existential Quest. Boston: Somerset Hall Press, 2006. ISBN 0797461009 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum Disclosure: I am the publisher of this book. To avoid overstepping conflict of interest guidelines, I am bringing this up on this talk page. I believe this book adds to the scholarly discussion of this topic. Vassilis Vitsaxis is a prominent modern Greek philosopher who has written on Ancient Greek, Hindu, Christian and other myths. To make your determination of whether this book is worthy of mention, more info about this book and other books by Vitsaxis is available on Amazon.com. Look up Vitsaxis. I'll avoid further marketing language here. ;) Thank you for your consideration. Summer612 ( talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
When I visited this article just now, I found that the "term" section had been merged with the intro. I felt that this made the intro long and somewhat confusing. For example, suppose that someone is looking for a quick explanation of myth. Such a person would obviously read only the intro in detail, perhaps skimming the rest of the article. Suppose such a person wasn't particularly interested in etymological/historical issues. If he came upon this article with the "term" section merged into the intro, then he would waste time wading through the "term" discussion.
I checked the edit history before separating the intro back into intro and "term" section. However, most of this article's edit history consists of vandalism and subsequent reversions. Thus, I had a hard time finding who exactly had merged the "term" section into the intro, and why he had done so. That being the case, I went ahead with my plan of separating "term" discussion from intro. If someone disagrees with this move, he/she can feel free to bring it up on this talk page. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
A while back, I added a section called "Interpretations of myth" to the Comparative mythology article. I've finally decided that it belongs more in the general Mythology article. Many of the theories mentioned in that section have nothing particularly "comparative" about them, besides the fact that the theorists who came up with them obviously read a lot of different myths. Anyhow, the Comparative mythology article should focus more on specific similarities between different mythologies and interpretations of those similarities. That's what "comparative mythology" is all about. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 06:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The watcher is like a dog catcher except a demon catcher if you see him he will not hurt you but it will fill like time stoped but there will be no sound he will take form of a 6 foot white dog. so far thats how much I no. 66.139.99.226 ( talk) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally" - what does passed down traditionally mean exactly?--Meieimatai 10:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
An interesting myth in the making is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Myth Florida ( talk) 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to Segal's "Very Short Introduction", but he is being used for a number of very simplistic and dubious statements. I don't know if Segal is to blame for this, or if he is simply being quoted naively out of context. -- dab (𒁳) 08:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last several days there has been a huge number of changes to the article that were not discussed on the talk page and often have no substantive edit comment at all (listing the name of the section tht was changed but not explaining what was edited or why is not a real edit comment) to give any sort of rationale to the changes.
I haven't yet looked at every single change, but the modifications to the modern myths section (completely removing it, which got rid of the very important clarification that fiction and mythology are different) stands out as especially odd.
As far as I know, edit comments are not optional, and using them, and discussing the more major pages on talk, is an essential part of the editing process. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in copy edits I removed six fact date tags and put a general cite tag for the section "Myths as depictions of historical events", but then realised there are references throughout the section. Please remove tag if extra citations are not required there. Thanks, Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the first sentence be changed from "that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity" to "that a particular culture finds meaningful in explaining the nature of the reality, often using supernatural or dream-like language to interpret natural phenomena". Here's why...
Did ancient peoples truly 'believe' in supernatural entities or did they inevitably and freely use dream-like, unnatural (supposedly 'supernatural') language in the process of personifying or relationalizing natural forces and dynamics? Recent studies in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary neuroscience would suggest the latter. How was the world made? Why do earthquakes, tornados, and other bad things happen? Why must we die? Why do we struggle with inner feelings and impulses that seem to have a life of their own? Why are we so easily addicted and tempted to do things that go against our own interests? Such questions cannot be answered by the powers of human perception alone. Ancient cultures gave so-called supernatural answers to these questions, but those answers were not truly supernatural—they were pre-natural. Prior to advances in technology and scientific ways of testing truth claims, factual answers were simply unavailable. It was not just difficult to have a natural, factual understanding of infection before microscopes brought bacteria into focus; it was impossible. It was similarly impossible to understand the large-scale structure of the universe before telescopes allowed us to see galaxies. If we could do during the day what we do at night, in our dreams, we'd all be having supernatural experiences daily. In any event, I edited the first sentence to try to reflect this more nuanced understanding. MBDowd ( talk) 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may have encountered me in the Noah's Ark debate about the word 'mythology' there. It is because of that debate that I had a look at this article. Quite frankly, the whole article strikes me as an apologia for the minimalist POV pushers who are determined that religion become synonymous with myth. The editors have spent so much energy in trying to 'prove' that mythology does not equate with falsehood that the reader is left bewildered as to what the subject is really about.
It is clear to me that this article has been created/manipulated to justify the inclusion of the word 'mythology' in every religious article on WP. Quite frankly I am disgusted.
(And before anyone accuses me of being a POV pusher, I should point out that I would be equally disgusted by any article that tries to claim 'religion is truth')-- FimusTauri ( talk) 10:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, the above was written in haste and anger, so I thought I should flesh out the rerasons why this article annoyed me with some more specific comments:
This is wrong. In ancient Greece, the stories of their gods were told (preached) as truth. It is only since that religion has died out that we have come to view the stories therein as myth. Hence, the following line,
is patent nonsense too. By this logic, all of the Greek myths, Roman myths, Norse myths, etc etc should now be called fairy tales.
This sentence simply doesn't make sense.
This whole section seems dedicated to classifying sacred texts as myths. There are many religious stories (in the world’s major religions) that would be called either ‘ritual myth’, ‘social myth’ or ‘origin myth’ according to the ‘definitions’ presented here. This is a clear example of someone with an agenda to de-classify all religions into the realm of myth.
Rubbish. It is either a re-telling of events that actually occurred (according to ‘mainstream’ thought) or, if it is telling of a future event, it is a prophecy, not a myth.
There is no mention of the fact that comparative mythology is used to find an underlying common history, other than a note later in the article about catastrophism, which is a sub-set of this.
This whole section looks like OR. The only cite has little relevance to the actual subject.
I wpuld like to know who inserted “[or myth]”? which creates the impression that myth and religion are equated.
No refs. Looks like pure OR.
Yet again looks like OR.
There is a repeated emphasis that myth should not be taken to mean falsehood:
This theme is repeated throughout WP to 'justify' using the term 'myth' in association with living religions. I won't re-hash the arguments here; suffice to say that this apparent need to keep repeating this point is self-evident proof that the word should not be used in the context of religion - if it needs explaining, its either wrong or its jargon.-- FimusTauri ( talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Just before posting this message, I made a single large-scale edit to the article. If you're reading this message after someone else has made subsequent changes to the article, you can see the result of my edit here. I removed very little of the previous content; mostly I just rearranged it into what I felt was a more logical arrangement. Out-of-place sentences were put in better location (for example, the quote from Tolkien); the sections were put into a better order; and I reworded a couple of passages for clarity. I did remove a few passages, but only those that (1) had long-standing "citation needed" tags, (2) looked dubious, and (3) did not seem to contribute clearly to the article.
Before my edit, there were way too many jargon-laden sentences peppering the article in odd locations. For example, consider the following two passages:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find an appropriate place for these passages. So I removed them from the article and posted them here. If you can find a logical place to put them, feel free to re-add them. I confess that I simply didn't understand what they were doing in the article — mainly because I didn't know what they mean. We really need to reword passages like these for clarity. When adding stuff to Wikipedia, we should always phrase it in a way that a high-schooler could understand. Also, apart from their polysyllabic verbosity, the above passages (as far as I understood them) didn't fit logically where they were located in the article.
I felt that there was a strong need for more precise and concise categorization in this article. A quote from Levi-Strauss is perfectly appropriate in this article on mythology — but not just anywhere in the article! A section on "Myths as depictions of historical events" (now changed to "The euhemerist theory" in my edit) is certainly welcome in this article, but not as a stand-alone section, separate from the section on "Formation of myths". Isn't the theory that myths depict historical events one example of a theory on the formation of myths? (Thus, I changed it into a sub-section within the section on "Formation of myths".)
Anyhow, if anyone has complaints, suggestions, or comments, I'd be glad to discuss them. I really think this article can be better than it currently is if we become stricter about providing citations, organizing material logically, and (most importantly) writing sentences that contain only clear, simple English prose. Some sections still need a lot of work. I don't see a single citation for the section on the various categories of myth; and the section on euhemerism needs to be shortened and supported with citations. Please help! -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your edit, this sentence: "In the field of religious studies, myths are generally defined as stories about gods." might be a problem sentence. Many biblical scholars used to restrict myth to polytheistic religions, and not monotheistic religions (we have the Brothers Grimm to thank for that one interestingly enough). However, most scholars no longer impose this restriction, see Robert A. Oden's The Bible Without Theology for instance, where he notes that:
Now, I don't know if the reference you got that 'gods' definition from was using the plural form innocently (the context actually suggests this, chaps / gods), or if they mean to impose a restriction. Either way, I think we're best off using a statement that talks about things in general, as the above reference does, as opposed to one single author's definition. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the article:
As Roland Barthes affirms, "myth is a word chosen by history. It could not come from the nature of things". [3]
It originally was the last sentence in the opening paragraph of the section on euhemerist theory. I don't understand what it means, and I certainly don't know how it fits into that paragraph. (If anything, it looks like a statement that belongs in the "Term" section.) Instead of simply inserting a quote from Barthes, would someone please either paraphrase that quote in the article in a way that makes its meaning obvious, or provide some exegesis around the quote in order to make its significance clear? Thanks. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
...at least to overall understanding of the topic. Right now the lead says almost nothing, and seems to be pushing a definition favored by a single author and not how it is used in the field.
What the lead needs to say, is that mythology is: 1) the study of myths (explaining what myths are - sacred stories about supernatural/creation of world/etc. believed to be true by the culture) 2) the alternate definition of mythology being a collection of myths.
That is FUNDAMENTAL to any understanding of the topic at all.
If you want to give alternate definitions of myth (the looser one that encompasses legends and etc., and then mention of the popular usage meaning "false" -- with explanation that obviously mythology is the study of the academic term and not the popular usage), we can go into greater detail in the body of the article. Unfortunately we've had so many changes to this article lately hat it seems to be largely useless in getting the most important information off.
Obviously I can't just revert the whole thing, mainly because of all the other changes that were made that were perfectly fine and also because cleary there's some disagreement, but we need to work on a way we can all agree to it. I don't even care if we have sourced multiple definitions in the lead (assuming we don't give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe view in the process), but the whole point of the field is that mythology is the study of sacred stories believed to be true. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a few points to make:
1. Can anyone provide an actual source for the definition that used to be in the intro? For those who don't remember, this was the former definition: "a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". I know of no published source that defines mythology in quite this way. It can't be the standard folklorists' definition, because (1) for folklorists, "mythology" does not include legends, and (2) the former definition doesn't mention the creation of the world. I can only conclude that, however much "consensus" the former definition may have had, it was not drawn from a verifiable source and, thus, technically counts as OR.
2. I have no particular problem with using the folkloristic definition of myth in the intro (including, of course, the qualification that this definition is official only for folklorists). After all, folklorists are the only scholars who have bothered to formulate an "official" definition, so their unanimous definition has some kind of authority relative to the scattered definitions used by classicists, theologians, etc. However, we must make it absolutely clear in the article that the reader will most likely not find the same definition used if he picks up a random book on mythology. Many stories usually called "myths" even by scholars, such as the stories of Oedipus and Perseus, are not myths according to the folkloristic definition. For example, Joseph Campbell, a well-known (if not particularly well-respected in the academic community) mythologist discusses Arthurian romance in his book Creative Mythology; Arthurian romance is obviously not myth by the folklorists' definition.
3. I agree with Ben that the article is probably too obsessed with definitions. Ordinary people don't look up "mythology" on Wikipedia hoping to find a list of definitions. They're more intersted in learning about the major mythical gods, heroes, and events, and (perhaps) some of the major academic theories about myth. It would be tedious and redundant to list the important mythical characters and events in this article: if people want to learn about that, then they can go to Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc. However, I think this article should focus more on summarizing a wide variety of academic theories.
4. DreamGuy complains that the article now "seems to be pushing a definition favored by a single author". I assume he's talking about Robert Segal. I admit that I have used Segal quite a bit in my edits. However, there's a reason for that. Segal's Myth: A Very Short Introduction (published by Oxford University Press!) is the only book I know of that actually provides what I think this article should provide: a concise survey of the major academic approaches to studying myths. Segal does not use the folklorists' definition, for not all scholars of myth are folklorists. He does not use the definition favored in religious studies, for not all scholars of myth are professors in religious studies departments. He uses a definition broad enough to encompass everything that a layman might think of when he hears the word "myth". I think this article should do so as well, at least until we figure out what to do with the folklorists' definition.
Sorry this ran so long. I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. But, in my opinion, this article was unacceptable in the condition I found it in before I made those edits. Let's try to move forward, not backward. Peace. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Another thing. DreamGuy, I just read the post you made on Dbachmann's talk page (I was about to post something there myself to ask him to come and add his input). I'm sorry if you feel that I've demonstrated a willingness "to revert to [my] version when modifications are made". Like I said, I'm not looking for a fight. In fact, I left Wikipedia for a long time (until a few days ago) because I disliked the confrontational attitude I always found on the talk pages.
As for the "revert" that you mention, I changed the intro back to my favored version only because I thought I had gathered new quotes and citations (now located throughout the article) that would make it obvious that the intro needed to be changed. At this point, I can only say this: I promise that I will not throw a fit if you revert to your favored version of the intro (although I may continue to calmly raise some objections here). I am frankly too tired from fighting other Wikipedia battles to fight one here. If I make any mnore substantial edits to this article, I think that I will henceforth devote my energies to doing what I think is most important: adding more academic theories to the article. DreamGuy, Ben, dab, reword the intro as you see fit. Peace. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request comments from editors of this page about a piece of policy that is likely to effect it. Please see the discussion here. Ben ( talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is in trouble definition-wise. In the lead, it defines mythology as the "body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". Where is the citation for this definition? I know of no academic source that defines mythology in quite this way. As an unsourced assertion, it is fair game for deletion.
It seems that the favored definition of "myth" in this article is the folkloristic definition ("a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form"). I say this because most of the other definitions I added (namely ones from classicists and people in religious studies) were removed. I have no problem with this in principle, because we need to establish some kind of standard definition of "mythology" for use in other WP articles (see the discussion that Ben Tillman mentions above). However, if we are going to favor the folkloristic definition, then we should use it in the lead!!! The lead does not use anything remotely similar to the folkloristic definition. First of all, folklorists would not define mythology as a body of "folklore/myths/legends" because, for folklorists, "legend" is a separate category from "myth". Secondly, the definition in the lead does not mention sacredness. Thirdly... Need I go on?
I don't understand why we don't use the broadest academic definition ("traditional story") in the lead. This definition is the first definition given by the OED (see the "Term" section of the article). However, since I appear to be getting no support on this point, I will drop it.
But please, let's fix the definition in the lead. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If the folklorist definition of myth is as standardized as people say, I don't have a problem with using that as "the" definition in the lead. After that definition is given, we can proceed to say that many different definitions are offered in other fields, and perhaps give a sourced statement explaining why there are so many definitions. More detailed coverage of different definitions of myth can then be given in the body of the article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've started to work on a draft for a revised version of the Mythology article. I'm trying to address a number of issues in the revision, such as logical organization, conciseness, proper sourcing, and (most importantly for our purposes) definitions, without removing any legitimate info that was in the old article. The draft is still very much in progress, but feel free to look at it and offer comments. It's located at the bottom of my user page. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Fimus, it isn't quite as simple as that. The Christ myth theory (if that is indeed the theory's "official" name) certain seems to use "myth" to imply "false story". Now, in my brief skimming of the Christ myth theory article, I saw no indication that "Christ myth" is the conventional name of the hypothesis. In fact, the name "Christ myth theory" seems to be completely unsourced (as indicated by the "citation needed" tag). However, suffice it to say that the existence of an article entitled Christ myth theory, which questions Christ's historicity, would create confusion when placed alongside a statement in Mythology that academics never use "myth" to imply falsehood.
Ultimately, it's a small point: the Christ myth theory is currently supported only by a very small minority of non-mainstream scholars; and at any rate, our goal should not be to show that no one uses "myth" to mean "false", but simply to show that "myth" has an academically-recognized non-pejorative meaning, and that that's the meaning we're using here. However, it's a point worth noting. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
i
Template:Myth box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Goldenrowley (
talk)
05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
USer:Phatius McBluff mentioned in an edit comment on Myth that it should be redirected to this article, which I always 100% agreed with, so I wa WP:BOLD and did so. We can incorporate smoe of the info that was there over here if it helps. That also makes it just that much more important that we explain terms here clearly.
As far as rationale for the redirect, myth and mythology is a huge overlap, and the other article was basically just a WP:FORK file of this one -- often one where people would change things here or there and the two wouldn't sync up. Also, the only reaon it ever because a separate article over ther in the first place was tha some longstanding POV-pushers opposed to the academic definition entirely wanted to keep them separate, as it helped them make arguments about the use of the term on other articles. As most of those editors are no longer around (I think some of them have been permanently banned for POV-pushing, actually), there was no reason to keep the fork article intact for them.
I am specifically bringing it up here though for any discussion about it. DreamGuy ( talk) 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
But you created a tautology. I put in myth, get redirected to mythology, which is defined as the study of myths, but I can't find out what myths are.... there should be a short article called mythology that says the study of myths, and this big article should be about myths. 74.68.152.245 ( talk) 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I discovered that earlier this day I had made this edit to this page. I was quite surprised, since I don't remember even reading this article, let alone making the edit. The only thing I could think, after several minutes of pondering the matter, was that while I was reading a Wikipedia article my 14-month old daughter had decided to "help" me by banging on the keyboard. (I had thought the only thing she had done was download a copy of "index.php" from somewhere on Wikipedia.) Anyway, I apologize for the inadvertent removal of FimusTauri's comments & hope this did not negatively affect the conversation. -- llywrch ( talk) 04:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As some of you may know, I started a draft for a revised version of this article on my user page (sections 5-12). A few people have commented on it approvingly here. I was originally planning to compose a complete replacement for the current article on my user page, but I've fallen victim to inertia since then. At this point, I feel that the best course of action would be to work with what I already have. Please check my user page and let me know what you think of my draft on this talk page. If I do not receive any complaints, I will begin replacing the appropriate sections of this article with sections from my draft. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)