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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This may seem like a small point, but here it goes. The lead currently starts with the sentence
Mythology is the study of myths or a body of myths.
On a strict logical/semantic level, this sentence makes no sense. MYTHOLOGY is not a body of myths (unless the "body of myths" in question is the body of all myths). Rather A mythology is a body of myths. For example, Greek mythology is a body of myths, and Norse mythology is a different body of myths.
When I performed a major rewrite of this article back around Feb 09, I worded the first sentence as follows:
The term "mythology" can refer either to the study of myths or to a body of myths.
Later someone changed the first sentence, presumably because he/she wanted "mythology" to be the first word. I do not see why this is necessary. If it is, can someone tell me why? (If I'm wrong, just let me know.)
If no one objects within a week, I will change the first sentence back to its original form for the sake of logic and clarity. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 04:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
greek mythology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.169.95 ( talk) 21:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain the revert http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mythology&diff=prev&oldid=334877906 BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do with this, but I thought it was worth pointing out that
I should also note that there is a brief discussion about redirecting to this page in Talk:Myth, followed by an agreement to do so. Any suggestions about how to resolve this? Mike Duskis ( talk) 07:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- This does not seem appropriate [in 'Related Concepts']: " ==Origins of myth==BY Ezra Griffin "
- Where do you find a caduceus on the 2000 Belga note? If you are referring to the lion in the middle front, this is the Belgian Lion, according to the Wikipedia entry for 'Belgian Franc'. A caduceus is the insignia of the greek God Hermes and I cannot find it in the picture.
86.51.114.108 ( talk) 21:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)js
The first paragraph of this article is not written well and is not well referenced. The part that I don't like is this:
In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[5][6][7] Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[7][8][9] In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[10]
The references are not specific. For example, "sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form" is essentially plagiarized from a book called, Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth by Alan Dundes which says the same thing except with the word "man" instead of "humankind." Source
Alan Dundes is actually the only major reference I could find who defines myths as being essentially "sacred." Everyone else refers to myths as being "traditional" or "legendary" stories. It would be more accurate to reword sentence with "myth" being defined in the broad sense, while noting that a some authors, such as Alan Dundes, refers to a myth as being, "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form."
For a more comprehensive and balanced coverage of the complexity of defining "myth" see Chapter 2 of Myth: a handbook, by William G. Doty. (Preview: [1])
All of the citations in the quoted paragraph (currently 5-10) need to be verified because they're missing critical information like full author name and title of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndm85 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it more appropriate to say "mythical" or "mythological"? Most of the lists which include that in the title us "mythological", but wikipedia's the first place I heard that term. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
A Mythology (fiction) article is needed, as too many uses of this "term of art" link to this article, which really has nothing at all to do with "mythology" in that sense, a term closely related to universe (fiction) and canon (fiction). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Was there a collection of knowledge, sort of like an encyclopedia, that provides detailed information of any of the ancient myths that was written at the time they were concieved like encyclopedias written in stone tablets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 ( talk) 07:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I am not the originator of the citation needed template on this page , I can see the issue clearly and would like to impose this simple request:
Could the original author of this section (20th Century...) please do a re-write so as not to insinuate that all 20th century scholars of mythology think alike? The attempt to include a segue from each preceding paragraph is implying such a premise. In particular to the Jung/Campbell reference, the highly notated current citation is attempting to do this specifically and, while Campbell and Jung may have had some congruent views on the subject of mythology, The phrase "Following Jung,..." is attempting to segue from the previous paragraph wherein the main discussion of Jung is in reference to his theory of archtype and, while some of Jung's work was an influence to Campbell's own theories on mythology and an inspiration for Campbell to expand his cultural knowledge further, it can not be said that Campbell directly agreed with Jung's archtype model. The current citation provided, explanation and all, still does nothing to prove this in any concrete manner and could be considered original research. WP:OR
If there is no correction or discussion in one week's time, I'll do a re-write of the section. Hyzerflip ( talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Hyzerflip ( talk) 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the section on the functions of myth:
Most of it was not sufficiently sourced (e.g. the stuff on Frankenstein). Remember, we cannot add things into the article just because it seems "obvious" to us that they are myths; we need published sources saying that they qualify as myths. Also, the bit from Levi-Strauss was sourced, but it was put in the wrong section (i.e. the section on function rather than the section on origin).
Finally, I fail to see the direct relevance of the claim that pre-modern religion was not an "experience to be entered into". The editor seems to have added that to justify his/her decision to reword the section so that it no longer claimed that "traditional societies" use myths to attain "religious experience". I changed it back. The source (Eliade) for the "religious experience" statements explicitly states that pre-modern, traditional societies do use myths to attain religious experience. There may be other sources with other opinions, but they can be mentioned here only if they explicitly discuss myth (not religion in general).
If anyone disagrees with my edits, please discuss it here. Thanks.
-- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I edited the "Function of myth" section to sound less authoritative and more properly attribute the ideas presented to the specific scholars form which they originated (as is already done throughout most of the article). I moved Joseph Campbell's specific definitions of the functions of myth to this section form '20th century theories' for obvious reasons. I have properly linked and cited all changes. I would appreciate cogent discussion of these edits here rather than broad-brush reversions. Hyzerflip ( talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed a few problems with this entry. First off, it needs a criticism section. This would include the critiques of mythology given by the Pre-Socratics (such as Heraclitus), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as the Skeptics and probably the Epicureans. This criticism section should also include the work on those opposed to myth such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Kaufmann, and mention and give a link to Demythologizing (and inevitablly its friend Deconstruction). Why is there no mention in this forsaken entry of the great philosopher, Ernst Cassirer? Anyone ever heard of his study, " The Myth of the State"? Wherefore critiques by George Santayana? And of course, the blatant Orientalism that is part and parcel of the whole enterprise of explaining away and summing-up other people's belief systems (a la Edward Said)?
Teetotaler 4 October, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC).
Hi my name is Mitchal could you explain me of why early people would write it down even know If they dont exist. I may sign in this wikipedia but i havent decide yet so I'm 14 year old and maybe if you could help me understand this so I can work in my project Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.66.28 ( talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Under External links I added the school I graduated from in Mythological Studies. It is the only school in the country strictly offering an M.A./Ph.D. in the field, therefore I felt it may be appropriate to include in this section. thoughts or comments? Nholly ( talk) 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Many of us would appreciate seeing the alternative transliteration of "euhemerism," to wit "evemerism," included in the dictionary/wikipedia. This word "euhemerism" is currently enjoying some degree of popularity, but the fact remains that nobody is running around today saying "Euhemeros," "euhemerism" or "euhemerist" because these transliterations are difficult to pronounce. Thus, these words have been transliterated from the Greek also as "Evemerus," "evemerism" and "evemerist," for the same reason that the word "euangelion" became "evangelism."
Here are a few book citations where the transliteration "evermerism" is proffered:
In "Christianity and Mythology" (1900, p. 315), J.M. Robertson comments about "Euhemerism (or Evemerism, as the word ought to be written in English)..."
A search of Google books will reveal the use of this term and spelling as "evemerism" dating back to at least as early as 1856, in the London Quarterly, v. 6, which has an entire chapter entitled "Evemerism Fills All History with Fictions."
In the mid-20th century, Edouard Dujardin said:
Furthermore, a Google Book search for the transliteration "evemerist" or "evemerism" reveals 208 books using those terms. Many of those books are 100 years old, given the transliteration authority.
Experts in ancient and modern Greek assert that such a transliteration is appropriate, pointing to the word "evangelist," which, like "Euhemeros" is spelled with a "u" or upsilon in the orignal Greek. Yet, in modern Greek the "eu" is pronounced "ev." As Wikipedia states:
"The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word e?a??????? (transliterated as 'euangelion') via Latinised 'Evangelium,' as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists)....The verb form of euangelion, euangelizo (transliterated "evangelism")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism#Etymology
The same process may be found with the Greek word "I thank" or "thank you," which is spelled "eucharisto" but which is pronounced "eVkhareesto." Because of the difficulty in pronunciation and the fact that the word is in reality pronounced "evemerism," we are requesting that you included this transliteration in your dictionary/website.
The following relevant link may be helpful: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2160
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jose5643 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of us would like to see the mythicist position worked into the article here.
Acharya S has created the first succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists in her book, Christ in Egypt (2009):
The Mythicist Position:
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."
As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 11-12
"What is a Mythicist?" article
--Jose5643 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 ( talk • contribs)
Phatius is right. A mere "see also" is more than enough. In my view, this article needs to remain completely off-limits to the Christ myth nerds. It is enough that they cause havoc at the dedicated Christ myth theory (now unhappily called " Jesus myth theory") article. It is unacceptable that this red herring should have even the slightest influence on the main "mythology" article. A definition of "Mythicism" as, essentially "Mythicism represents the perspective that mythological characters are mythological characters" is idiotic. "Mythicism" in the Christ-mythers sense of the term is "the perspective that Christ is a mythological character". Period. Acharya S cannot be cited as a relevant source to anything other than Acharya S. This is pulp literature on what would be a serious topic. But since it is clearly impossible to turn the "Christ myth" topic into something encyclopedic without going insane, I prefer to turn a blind eye to such stuff being discussed there as if it was "literature". But I cannot see myself agreeing to any such stuff being submitted to mythology. There is enough good literature on the topic to make this WP:UNDUE by several orders of magnitude. -- dab (𒁳) 11:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This article should at least acknowledge the existence of modern religions, or non-modern religions that have survived modern times, and how the only thing that separates these religions from the notions of mythology is that many people still believe these modern notions. The article should not act like modern religion doesn't exist or that it's something completely different from mythology. At least make mention why modern religion is not discussed in the article, rather than acting like it is completely irrelevant to mythology. Modern religions and mythology are essentially identical and should not be treated as though they are completely different. Pulseczar ( talk) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Because of prior editing cycles it is primarily an apologetic "usage" section to ensure readers don't argue over the word usage later. I will add to and rearrange the lead with the view of demoting some of its current text to the "related concepts" section (which would be better titled "terminology") at a later date. JJB 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"Because it is not the job of science to define human morality, a religious experience is an attempt to connect with a perceived moral past...". Ummm, dont tell that to the secular humanist, the humanist secularist, the agnostic, the athiest. We dont need religion to make us humane. 108.23.43.73 ( talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
An IP keeps edit-warring removing "Humankind" and replacing it with "Mankind". I think "Humankind" is a gender-neutral term and so it has to stay in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 01:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Google results: "The creation of humanity" About 307,000 results (0.14 seconds) vs. "The creation of humankind" About 331,000 results (0.17 seconds). Conclusion: When combined with the noun "creation", "humankind" is the preferred term. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 03:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, these are unconnected occurrences of the two terms. Your edit-warring addition to Mythology is connected to the "creation of humankind", not just "humankind". This combination of terms is important: usually explaining how the world or humanity came to be in its present form [4], i.e. "was created". Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Also: "humankind was created" About 303,000 results (0.30 seconds) vs. "humanity was created" About 270,000 results (0.31 seconds). Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Dr.K would you be happy if it read ´´the human race´´ instead? Edgth ( talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to still be a misunderstanding. WP:DR tells us: "Most situations are not urgent. Give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! Because there are no deadlines, you can always fix the problem later." It really amounts to composition and creating a well written article. Using the same word throughout when others are available detracts from the overall interest of the reader.``` Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Consider: Optimizing the flow of our writing is an important aspect of article editing. Flow comprises a number of aspects. The continuous use of the same word when other words are available ruins flow. Flow can make our writing smooth, and therefore clear and enjoyable to read; a lack of flow can make it bumpy and disjointed.``` Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I see the article managed to get protected, and I see Nishidani resorting to poety at User talk:EdJohnston, but for those without the patience to work it out for themselves, would someone please outline the current state of play? I gather the article is in its "established" state (how it has been in recent weeks)? And someone proposes this edit to the lead to change "humankind" to "humanity"? My dictionary is quite happy with "humankind"—why would it need to be changed? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason for the change to humanity is that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before and google hits show that humanity is far more commonly used, both by itself and in conjunction with mythology. Both statements are demonstrably wrong. The term "humankind" is a very widely used and understood term of the English language so the claim that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before. is patently absurd, meanwhile the Google results claim is also wrong because I demonstrated exactly the opposite with my search as outlined above. You have some ideological opposition to the word "humanity" and you have declared multiple times that you don't "like it". You have also issued some weird manifesto under which
No I don´t. I can go about replacing humankind with humanity. They both mean the same thing so unless there is a good reason for a specific article to have humankind instead, I can change it. Please begin a fruitless search for a policy or guideline that says otherwise. Edgth ( talk) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think your POV-driven ideological bias against the term "humankind" speaks for itself. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@
Johnuniq: This story started on 20 July 2013 (UTC) with this edit
where IP 190.43.168.63 replaced the stable version "humankind" at the lead with mankind and
got reverted by me. Then
a similar IP 190.235.46.44 came into the fray and reverted me. IP 190.235.46.44 then started an edit-war and finally replaced the longstanding "humankind" with "humanity" as a compromise. IP 190.235.46.44 is a
self-admitted sock of Edgth. Conclusion: the logstanding stable version had "humanity" "humankind" at the lead and it was only changed recently by IP edit-warring and Edgth, before it was restored in the present version. Please see also
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth.
Δρ.Κ.
λόγος
πράξις
05:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I´d like the clause that contains humanity in the terminology section to be removed, as it is just a repeat with one word changed of the clause in the lead. Thus, the lead would then be changed to humanity and there would be no repitition problems with humanity and the current repitition would be removed. I suspect that would require a different RfC, as you´d be eagre to revert that. Edgth ( talk) 04:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this statement :"However, modern-day scholars tend to be more suspicious of comparative approaches, avoiding overly general or universal statements about mythology"
is generally representative of all views or its only according to Northup? (Northup, Lesley. "Myth-Placed Priorities: Religion and the Study of Myth") -- PLNR ( talk) 18:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(quoted from
Talk:The Death of Koschei the Deathless#garble):
The underlined clause, in
The Death of Koschei the Deathless#Plot, is garbled:
I have no idea what's meant, so I'm going to mention it on the pages of the three projects that claim interest in the page. -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
In second paragraph, the link to the word "hyperbolic" (phenomena to truthful or hyperbolic accounts of historical events) taking us to the page "Euhemerism" where there is no definition for hyperbolic.
Thanks, Allwinalexbaskar ( talk) 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I just recently joined this project because I'm a big fan of mythology and I looked at the to do list but I'm not sure about how to do some of those things. You guys seem to have been involved in this project more than I have so if y'all can help me out in any way shape or form it would be appreciated.( PythonessofDelphi🐍 ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
The section titled "Modern mythology" needs to be rewritten to incorporate inline citations using the Wikipedia style. Right now all it has are authors' names and page numbers making it look like a college term paper. I realize this will take some time but it would make this article much better. Be a hero or a heroine and fix this! Thank you! Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors ( talk) 02:24, 24 August 2015 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This may seem like a small point, but here it goes. The lead currently starts with the sentence
Mythology is the study of myths or a body of myths.
On a strict logical/semantic level, this sentence makes no sense. MYTHOLOGY is not a body of myths (unless the "body of myths" in question is the body of all myths). Rather A mythology is a body of myths. For example, Greek mythology is a body of myths, and Norse mythology is a different body of myths.
When I performed a major rewrite of this article back around Feb 09, I worded the first sentence as follows:
The term "mythology" can refer either to the study of myths or to a body of myths.
Later someone changed the first sentence, presumably because he/she wanted "mythology" to be the first word. I do not see why this is necessary. If it is, can someone tell me why? (If I'm wrong, just let me know.)
If no one objects within a week, I will change the first sentence back to its original form for the sake of logic and clarity. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 04:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
greek mythology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.169.95 ( talk) 21:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain the revert http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mythology&diff=prev&oldid=334877906 BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do with this, but I thought it was worth pointing out that
I should also note that there is a brief discussion about redirecting to this page in Talk:Myth, followed by an agreement to do so. Any suggestions about how to resolve this? Mike Duskis ( talk) 07:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- This does not seem appropriate [in 'Related Concepts']: " ==Origins of myth==BY Ezra Griffin "
- Where do you find a caduceus on the 2000 Belga note? If you are referring to the lion in the middle front, this is the Belgian Lion, according to the Wikipedia entry for 'Belgian Franc'. A caduceus is the insignia of the greek God Hermes and I cannot find it in the picture.
86.51.114.108 ( talk) 21:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)js
The first paragraph of this article is not written well and is not well referenced. The part that I don't like is this:
In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[5][6][7] Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[7][8][9] In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[10]
The references are not specific. For example, "sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form" is essentially plagiarized from a book called, Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth by Alan Dundes which says the same thing except with the word "man" instead of "humankind." Source
Alan Dundes is actually the only major reference I could find who defines myths as being essentially "sacred." Everyone else refers to myths as being "traditional" or "legendary" stories. It would be more accurate to reword sentence with "myth" being defined in the broad sense, while noting that a some authors, such as Alan Dundes, refers to a myth as being, "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form."
For a more comprehensive and balanced coverage of the complexity of defining "myth" see Chapter 2 of Myth: a handbook, by William G. Doty. (Preview: [1])
All of the citations in the quoted paragraph (currently 5-10) need to be verified because they're missing critical information like full author name and title of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndm85 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it more appropriate to say "mythical" or "mythological"? Most of the lists which include that in the title us "mythological", but wikipedia's the first place I heard that term. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
A Mythology (fiction) article is needed, as too many uses of this "term of art" link to this article, which really has nothing at all to do with "mythology" in that sense, a term closely related to universe (fiction) and canon (fiction). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Was there a collection of knowledge, sort of like an encyclopedia, that provides detailed information of any of the ancient myths that was written at the time they were concieved like encyclopedias written in stone tablets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 ( talk) 07:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I am not the originator of the citation needed template on this page , I can see the issue clearly and would like to impose this simple request:
Could the original author of this section (20th Century...) please do a re-write so as not to insinuate that all 20th century scholars of mythology think alike? The attempt to include a segue from each preceding paragraph is implying such a premise. In particular to the Jung/Campbell reference, the highly notated current citation is attempting to do this specifically and, while Campbell and Jung may have had some congruent views on the subject of mythology, The phrase "Following Jung,..." is attempting to segue from the previous paragraph wherein the main discussion of Jung is in reference to his theory of archtype and, while some of Jung's work was an influence to Campbell's own theories on mythology and an inspiration for Campbell to expand his cultural knowledge further, it can not be said that Campbell directly agreed with Jung's archtype model. The current citation provided, explanation and all, still does nothing to prove this in any concrete manner and could be considered original research. WP:OR
If there is no correction or discussion in one week's time, I'll do a re-write of the section. Hyzerflip ( talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Hyzerflip ( talk) 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the section on the functions of myth:
Most of it was not sufficiently sourced (e.g. the stuff on Frankenstein). Remember, we cannot add things into the article just because it seems "obvious" to us that they are myths; we need published sources saying that they qualify as myths. Also, the bit from Levi-Strauss was sourced, but it was put in the wrong section (i.e. the section on function rather than the section on origin).
Finally, I fail to see the direct relevance of the claim that pre-modern religion was not an "experience to be entered into". The editor seems to have added that to justify his/her decision to reword the section so that it no longer claimed that "traditional societies" use myths to attain "religious experience". I changed it back. The source (Eliade) for the "religious experience" statements explicitly states that pre-modern, traditional societies do use myths to attain religious experience. There may be other sources with other opinions, but they can be mentioned here only if they explicitly discuss myth (not religion in general).
If anyone disagrees with my edits, please discuss it here. Thanks.
-- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I edited the "Function of myth" section to sound less authoritative and more properly attribute the ideas presented to the specific scholars form which they originated (as is already done throughout most of the article). I moved Joseph Campbell's specific definitions of the functions of myth to this section form '20th century theories' for obvious reasons. I have properly linked and cited all changes. I would appreciate cogent discussion of these edits here rather than broad-brush reversions. Hyzerflip ( talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed a few problems with this entry. First off, it needs a criticism section. This would include the critiques of mythology given by the Pre-Socratics (such as Heraclitus), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as the Skeptics and probably the Epicureans. This criticism section should also include the work on those opposed to myth such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Kaufmann, and mention and give a link to Demythologizing (and inevitablly its friend Deconstruction). Why is there no mention in this forsaken entry of the great philosopher, Ernst Cassirer? Anyone ever heard of his study, " The Myth of the State"? Wherefore critiques by George Santayana? And of course, the blatant Orientalism that is part and parcel of the whole enterprise of explaining away and summing-up other people's belief systems (a la Edward Said)?
Teetotaler 4 October, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC).
Hi my name is Mitchal could you explain me of why early people would write it down even know If they dont exist. I may sign in this wikipedia but i havent decide yet so I'm 14 year old and maybe if you could help me understand this so I can work in my project Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.66.28 ( talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Under External links I added the school I graduated from in Mythological Studies. It is the only school in the country strictly offering an M.A./Ph.D. in the field, therefore I felt it may be appropriate to include in this section. thoughts or comments? Nholly ( talk) 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Many of us would appreciate seeing the alternative transliteration of "euhemerism," to wit "evemerism," included in the dictionary/wikipedia. This word "euhemerism" is currently enjoying some degree of popularity, but the fact remains that nobody is running around today saying "Euhemeros," "euhemerism" or "euhemerist" because these transliterations are difficult to pronounce. Thus, these words have been transliterated from the Greek also as "Evemerus," "evemerism" and "evemerist," for the same reason that the word "euangelion" became "evangelism."
Here are a few book citations where the transliteration "evermerism" is proffered:
In "Christianity and Mythology" (1900, p. 315), J.M. Robertson comments about "Euhemerism (or Evemerism, as the word ought to be written in English)..."
A search of Google books will reveal the use of this term and spelling as "evemerism" dating back to at least as early as 1856, in the London Quarterly, v. 6, which has an entire chapter entitled "Evemerism Fills All History with Fictions."
In the mid-20th century, Edouard Dujardin said:
Furthermore, a Google Book search for the transliteration "evemerist" or "evemerism" reveals 208 books using those terms. Many of those books are 100 years old, given the transliteration authority.
Experts in ancient and modern Greek assert that such a transliteration is appropriate, pointing to the word "evangelist," which, like "Euhemeros" is spelled with a "u" or upsilon in the orignal Greek. Yet, in modern Greek the "eu" is pronounced "ev." As Wikipedia states:
"The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word e?a??????? (transliterated as 'euangelion') via Latinised 'Evangelium,' as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists)....The verb form of euangelion, euangelizo (transliterated "evangelism")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism#Etymology
The same process may be found with the Greek word "I thank" or "thank you," which is spelled "eucharisto" but which is pronounced "eVkhareesto." Because of the difficulty in pronunciation and the fact that the word is in reality pronounced "evemerism," we are requesting that you included this transliteration in your dictionary/website.
The following relevant link may be helpful: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2160
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jose5643 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of us would like to see the mythicist position worked into the article here.
Acharya S has created the first succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists in her book, Christ in Egypt (2009):
The Mythicist Position:
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."
As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 11-12
"What is a Mythicist?" article
--Jose5643 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 ( talk • contribs)
Phatius is right. A mere "see also" is more than enough. In my view, this article needs to remain completely off-limits to the Christ myth nerds. It is enough that they cause havoc at the dedicated Christ myth theory (now unhappily called " Jesus myth theory") article. It is unacceptable that this red herring should have even the slightest influence on the main "mythology" article. A definition of "Mythicism" as, essentially "Mythicism represents the perspective that mythological characters are mythological characters" is idiotic. "Mythicism" in the Christ-mythers sense of the term is "the perspective that Christ is a mythological character". Period. Acharya S cannot be cited as a relevant source to anything other than Acharya S. This is pulp literature on what would be a serious topic. But since it is clearly impossible to turn the "Christ myth" topic into something encyclopedic without going insane, I prefer to turn a blind eye to such stuff being discussed there as if it was "literature". But I cannot see myself agreeing to any such stuff being submitted to mythology. There is enough good literature on the topic to make this WP:UNDUE by several orders of magnitude. -- dab (𒁳) 11:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This article should at least acknowledge the existence of modern religions, or non-modern religions that have survived modern times, and how the only thing that separates these religions from the notions of mythology is that many people still believe these modern notions. The article should not act like modern religion doesn't exist or that it's something completely different from mythology. At least make mention why modern religion is not discussed in the article, rather than acting like it is completely irrelevant to mythology. Modern religions and mythology are essentially identical and should not be treated as though they are completely different. Pulseczar ( talk) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Because of prior editing cycles it is primarily an apologetic "usage" section to ensure readers don't argue over the word usage later. I will add to and rearrange the lead with the view of demoting some of its current text to the "related concepts" section (which would be better titled "terminology") at a later date. JJB 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"Because it is not the job of science to define human morality, a religious experience is an attempt to connect with a perceived moral past...". Ummm, dont tell that to the secular humanist, the humanist secularist, the agnostic, the athiest. We dont need religion to make us humane. 108.23.43.73 ( talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
An IP keeps edit-warring removing "Humankind" and replacing it with "Mankind". I think "Humankind" is a gender-neutral term and so it has to stay in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 01:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Google results: "The creation of humanity" About 307,000 results (0.14 seconds) vs. "The creation of humankind" About 331,000 results (0.17 seconds). Conclusion: When combined with the noun "creation", "humankind" is the preferred term. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 03:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, these are unconnected occurrences of the two terms. Your edit-warring addition to Mythology is connected to the "creation of humankind", not just "humankind". This combination of terms is important: usually explaining how the world or humanity came to be in its present form [4], i.e. "was created". Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Also: "humankind was created" About 303,000 results (0.30 seconds) vs. "humanity was created" About 270,000 results (0.31 seconds). Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Dr.K would you be happy if it read ´´the human race´´ instead? Edgth ( talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to still be a misunderstanding. WP:DR tells us: "Most situations are not urgent. Give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! Because there are no deadlines, you can always fix the problem later." It really amounts to composition and creating a well written article. Using the same word throughout when others are available detracts from the overall interest of the reader.``` Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Consider: Optimizing the flow of our writing is an important aspect of article editing. Flow comprises a number of aspects. The continuous use of the same word when other words are available ruins flow. Flow can make our writing smooth, and therefore clear and enjoyable to read; a lack of flow can make it bumpy and disjointed.``` Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I see the article managed to get protected, and I see Nishidani resorting to poety at User talk:EdJohnston, but for those without the patience to work it out for themselves, would someone please outline the current state of play? I gather the article is in its "established" state (how it has been in recent weeks)? And someone proposes this edit to the lead to change "humankind" to "humanity"? My dictionary is quite happy with "humankind"—why would it need to be changed? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason for the change to humanity is that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before and google hits show that humanity is far more commonly used, both by itself and in conjunction with mythology. Both statements are demonstrably wrong. The term "humankind" is a very widely used and understood term of the English language so the claim that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before. is patently absurd, meanwhile the Google results claim is also wrong because I demonstrated exactly the opposite with my search as outlined above. You have some ideological opposition to the word "humanity" and you have declared multiple times that you don't "like it". You have also issued some weird manifesto under which
No I don´t. I can go about replacing humankind with humanity. They both mean the same thing so unless there is a good reason for a specific article to have humankind instead, I can change it. Please begin a fruitless search for a policy or guideline that says otherwise. Edgth ( talk) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think your POV-driven ideological bias against the term "humankind" speaks for itself. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@
Johnuniq: This story started on 20 July 2013 (UTC) with this edit
where IP 190.43.168.63 replaced the stable version "humankind" at the lead with mankind and
got reverted by me. Then
a similar IP 190.235.46.44 came into the fray and reverted me. IP 190.235.46.44 then started an edit-war and finally replaced the longstanding "humankind" with "humanity" as a compromise. IP 190.235.46.44 is a
self-admitted sock of Edgth. Conclusion: the logstanding stable version had "humanity" "humankind" at the lead and it was only changed recently by IP edit-warring and Edgth, before it was restored in the present version. Please see also
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth.
Δρ.Κ.
λόγος
πράξις
05:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I´d like the clause that contains humanity in the terminology section to be removed, as it is just a repeat with one word changed of the clause in the lead. Thus, the lead would then be changed to humanity and there would be no repitition problems with humanity and the current repitition would be removed. I suspect that would require a different RfC, as you´d be eagre to revert that. Edgth ( talk) 04:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this statement :"However, modern-day scholars tend to be more suspicious of comparative approaches, avoiding overly general or universal statements about mythology"
is generally representative of all views or its only according to Northup? (Northup, Lesley. "Myth-Placed Priorities: Religion and the Study of Myth") -- PLNR ( talk) 18:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(quoted from
Talk:The Death of Koschei the Deathless#garble):
The underlined clause, in
The Death of Koschei the Deathless#Plot, is garbled:
I have no idea what's meant, so I'm going to mention it on the pages of the three projects that claim interest in the page. -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
In second paragraph, the link to the word "hyperbolic" (phenomena to truthful or hyperbolic accounts of historical events) taking us to the page "Euhemerism" where there is no definition for hyperbolic.
Thanks, Allwinalexbaskar ( talk) 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I just recently joined this project because I'm a big fan of mythology and I looked at the to do list but I'm not sure about how to do some of those things. You guys seem to have been involved in this project more than I have so if y'all can help me out in any way shape or form it would be appreciated.( PythonessofDelphi🐍 ( talk) 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
The section titled "Modern mythology" needs to be rewritten to incorporate inline citations using the Wikipedia style. Right now all it has are authors' names and page numbers making it look like a college term paper. I realize this will take some time but it would make this article much better. Be a hero or a heroine and fix this! Thank you! Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors ( talk) 02:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)