Talk:Mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mythology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Euhemerist / Evemerist transliteration[edit]

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:

"Evemerism is the doctrine of Evemeras, a Greek philosopher of the fourth century BC, according to whom the gods were men..."

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)

The Mythicist Position[edit]

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

The Mythicist Position video

--Jose5643 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talkcontribs)

Hi, Jose. Thanks for your suggestion. However, I think this is the wrong article for your proposal. This article is simply titled Mythology; thus, it should contain only a very general overview of the basic characteristics of myths and a very cursory summary of major approaches to studying myth. At most, the "mythicist position" should get a one-sentence summary in the section on the study of myth. A more appropriate place for a discussion of the mythicist position would be Jesus myth hypothesis or perhaps a separate article titled The mythicist position. If you have any more questions, let me know. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Lead as summary[edit]

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)

Are you sure it's a good idea to split the 2 examples (comparative mythology and Greek mythology) off into their own paragraph? While reworking the article a while back, I specifically wanted those examples to illustrate the fact that "mythology" can mean either the study of myths (as in comparative mythology) or a body of myths (as in Greek mythology). Removing them to a separate paragraph makes it less clear what specific point they're supposed to illustrate. (I also think that the phrase "As examples" should be changed to "For example", but apparently people disagree with me.) I won't press the point, because I don't think it's that important. But I thought I'd put in my two cents. By the way, I think your edits, overall, are a step in the right direction. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no, and thank you. That paragraph indicates text that is overweighted on a single point and can be demoted from the lead to its own section. But I think you'll like how I do so. JJB 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Science slap[edit]

"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)

"Mankind" versus "Humankind"[edit]

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. λόγοςπράξις 01:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Bahá'í Faith
He is also edit-warring on Mythology with mocking edit-summaries to the effect that "the SPI went well". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You´re the one pointedly edit warring over a minor edit. The summary was in response to your last revert in which you gave the reason as socking on my part. In response to Sound, I think humanity sounds much better. I don´t see anything wrong with it while humankind has several problems which have already been said. Edgth (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You are edit-warring without discussing your edit on the talkpage of Mythology. If you had bothered to read the many edit-warring notices on your talk, before you blanked all of them, you would have noticed that you are not following the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle WP:BRD but you are blindly reverting without discussion. I opened a discussion on the talkpage of Mythology, you are invited to participate there. Otherwise you have no consensus. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion you opened was in response to the mankind edit in which you say the gender neutral word is preferable. It´s now humanity which cannot be controversial and doesn´t need discussion. Edgth (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does. For the same reasons we are having the discussion here. You cannot go on different articles unchecked and keep replacing "humankind" with "humanity". This needs either a centralised discussion or at least consensus on the talkpage of the article as we are doing here. Not an opportunistic, edit-war assisted, replacement of the word every time you feel like it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn´t. ´´Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy.´´ You still haven´t provided a reason why mythology shouldn´t say humanity. Unless humanity contains some controversy I haven´t heard of, then there´s no reason to revert the change on mythology. Edgth (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Being bold does not give you the license to edit-war in multiple articles to impose your POV and to reignite edit-wars on the same two articles using deceptive edit summaries that there is no consensus, especially after being blocked for the disruption you caused in round 1. And you still have not proved that "humanity" is a more apt or more frequently used word in Mythology-related literature and why it should be preferred over the word "humankind". Therefore you cannot come here and demand that the word "humankind" be replaced with the term "humanity" without a serious review of the literature to establish the superior usage and more suitable meaning of the latter term as applied to Mythology. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It´s not a deceptive edit summary. When three users express dissaproval of humankind, there has to be many more to support it for there to be consensus. There were not many more. I don´t have to prove that humanity is used more in mythology related literature. I feel that humanity sounds better and so I changed it. It would be a huge pain to edit Wikipedia if we had to follow your made up rules. Edgth (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because you don't like it is not an excuse to erase a word that has wide usage in Mythology-related literature. And these are not "my made-up rules". This is common sense and relates to the currency and common usage of the term. I feel that humanity sounds better is not sufficient. You have to prove it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:07, 30 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. λόγοςπράξις 03:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m replacing humankind with humanity. Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind. I don´t need to follow all those conditions you laid out. Your combination of creation and the words don´t prove that humankind is preferred in sources discussing mythology, just that a certain combination of words is slightly more popular than another combination. Edgth (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Mankind gets double those hits but you edit warred to keep that out of the article so I don´t think you value Google hits too much. Edgth (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community and just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to get your way. Consensus also doesnt' mean that everyone has to agree, but in this case the vast majority of people (everyone but you) is ok with the current version of the article. Your comment "so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind" doesn't abide by Wikipedia's policies, and if you are going to be a useful contributer to Wikipedia, you have to learn to play within the rules. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What Jeff3000 said. Also Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind.: Unacceptable. Please read WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Mythology deals chiefly with the creation of humankind. Google results just established that the common term when dealing with creation is "humankind" and not "humanity". Google easily trumps your IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response. You have submitted no valid reasons for keeping your massive edit-warring-imposed edit on Mythology. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Mankind gets double those hits but you edit warred to keep that out of the article so I don´t think you value Google hits too much. Not so. There is the added restriction as you have been told many times that it must also be a gender-neutral term. This discussion is about the two alternatives. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you are actually enjoying the way this has been going round in circles. Forgive me if you really are concerned about the quality of the articles you have been attacking but that is not the impression anyone would get from reading your comments. Read WP:EW - YOU are the one edit warring - the people you are accusing of "edit-warring back" (???) have been doing no more than defending a sensible compromise consensus. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I´m not, I hope he´ll drop this pointless conflict. We´re discussing the mythology article, not this one. On the mythology article he is pointlessly edit warring to keep humankind when there´s nothing wrong with humanity. Edgth (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn´t see the other text amongst this jumble. To Jeff I was talking about the mythology article in which there´s nothing wrong with using humanity instead of humankind, so I can change it just because I prefer humanity. To Dr.K, humankind beats humanity by just a few percent and it just proved that a combination of words gets that few percent more, not that humankind is used more in mythology sources. Edgth (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have proved to you using Google that "humankind" is the preferred term in creation-related accounts which is exactly what Mythology covers. End of story. No amount of obfuscation on your part or I just don't like it or I didn't hear that arguments can refute this fact. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The mythology article is broad and here is a more relevant result: [1] over 7 million for humanity while humankind has less than 10% of that: [2]. Edgth (talk) 05:14, 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 [3], i.e. "was created". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 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. λόγοςπράξις 05:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the article doesn´t use those words ´´creation of...´´ so how many other sources haven´t used that exact language you typed into Google? Your Google hits are pointless because it just compares a specific combination of words. My hits accurately show that humanity is preferred when discussing mythology while, again, yours doesn´t show anything like that. Edgth (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. We don't have to use the exact language. But when the Gods "create" something, that something is described more often as "humankind" not "humanity". Therefore when your refer to "creation" or equivalent terms, the more popular term associated with them is "humankind". However let's wait for other editors to chime in because I can see there is no way you will accept these results. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It is correct. This article doesn´t use the word create, it says came to be. Your hits don´t count that and many other sources that similarly don´t use that exact language you typed in. Sure, let´s waste the time of others on this ridiculous debate. Edgth (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
[4] may prove interesting to all concerned in this discussion. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We´re debating humankind and humanity now. I compromise on mankind with humanity but for some (Personal attack removed) reason, that wasn´t good enough for Dr.K and we have this long and very, very boring discussion. Edgth (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
for some OCD reason....Be careful, thin ice ahead. Do not personally attack a fellow collaborator. Perhaps you should discontinue your input into this "boring discussion". Read the article. It deals with all 3 words. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:16, 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)

Well, I find "the human race" a bit dramatic in its tone, but this is just a personal opinion with no encyclopedic value. However, given Buster7's input and the paper he linked to about the two previous terms and also your constructive proposal, I'll let this go. I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As I already explained on your talk your latest edit was not what I agreed to and I asked you if you could revert back to the previous state. What I said above was: I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer., which meant "I will not contest the word 'humanity'". Your edit removed not only the word "humanity" but also the last remaining occurrence of "humankind" and replaced them with the phrase"human race", a result which removes one occurrence of each term from the article and replaces them with two occurrences of the phrase "human race". This is unnecessary repetition and it is not what I had agreed to. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay it´s now humanity, hopefully that pleases everybody. Edgth (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
To avoid repetition and return to the status quo before your "human race" edit I replaced one "humanity" with "humankind". Now everyone should be happy. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm satisfied. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I am too. But Edth has started the edit-warring as soon as he was released from a 48 hour edit-warring block because now he insists that "humanity" must be at lead. I see no good reason why this should be so, especially given the Google results discussion, and in fact I agree with Paul August that both occurrences should be "humankind" but as a compromise I am ok with one of each, but "humankind" is better to be at the lead, since I agree with Paul that it is also less ambigupous. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the satisfied is in response to the lead containing humanity. As that is what this whole discussion was about, your pretend compromise is transparent. Also, the google results show that humanity is far more common when combined with mythology, rather than yours which is just a certain combination of words which is useless. Edgth (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There was never a consensus for "humanity" to be explicitly at the lead. Paul August prefers both words to be "humankind" anyway and I agree with him. So overall the present arrangement is a fair compromise. Let's wait also for Buster7 to clarify his position. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes there was. In fact, you explicitly said so, claiming that it only included the lead and not the rest of the article. Besides, what else could it be? This whole discussion revolved around our edit war in the lead. Edgth (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No, not really. Here is you removing all occurrences of "humankind". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
That was after the discussion when I realised that there was another humankind.... so irrelevant. Edgth (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No it is not. It is still edit-warring and you had no consensus to remove it. Neither do you have consensus now. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I don´t need consensus every time I make an edit. The discussion and consensus was for the lead to be humanity, not also for all other humankinds to stay in the article. Edgth (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes you do. You cannot go about replacing the word "humankind" with "humanity" in every occurrence. You have some sort of POV ideological opposition to the word "humanity" and you have no consensus to keep replacing it. None. Zero. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
You have already got two blocks for doing just that. If that doesn't tell you something I cannot advise you any further. Plus, as I said before, let's wait for some othe people to chime in, including Buster7. It is fruitless to keep going around in circles just between the two of us. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
A policy or guideline could advise me further. So after the long and boring discussion we had that resulted in humanity, you want to have another discussion to come up with humankind. You´re depressing me. Edgth (talk) 03:27, 3 August 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 agree with you Buster7. By the way, are you ok with the present balance and location of "humanity", "humankind" and "mankind"? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I support the present balanced use of the 3 choices. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Buster7 for taking the time. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:47, 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)

We currently have had two discussions and consensuses. The first is humanity in the lead and the second is one use of humanity, one of humankind and one of mankind in the entire article. 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. That´s why I find having a single use of humankind pointless when we have humanity to replace it. Edgth (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently there are two humanities, two mankinds and one humankind. It is not redundant. It doesn't repeat itself. A fair distribution of descriptive words. Maybe it's time to Call for a request for comment if that simple fact isn't obvious. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No it´s fine, I can live with a humankind buried somewhere in the article like the terminology section. Edgth (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Words are not "buried" somewhere in Wikipedia articles. They are used to convey meaning and clarity to our reader. Aside from that, are you now saying that you support the use of the word humankind in the terminology section? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I´m betting you write poetry :). Support would be a bit strong, but I can live with it, as long as the previous discussion and consensus is finally implemented and it is no longer in the lead. Edgth (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Concensus is that humankind is in the lead. That's where it stays based on the consensus of every editor except you. What I'm asking is if you now want to change the "humanity" in technology to now be "humankind"? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
After the long discussion, as seen above, humanity was to be in the lead. Why is it now to be humankind? No, I obviously don´t want more humankinds in the article. Edgth (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question, but I have yet to see a response to "My dictionary is quite happy with "humankind" [in the lead]—why would it need to be changed?". Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It´s just below your comment: ´´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.´´ Edgth (talk) 04:58, 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. λόγοςπράξις 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. λόγοςπράξις 05:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that was my IP, not a sock that I used once and decided to continue using on this article so that it wouldn´t appear as though two users were in favour of my edit, as that would be socking. But of course this has been explained many times to you. Also, your results do not show that, it shows that you came up with a specific combination of words and humankind managed to come out first. Whilst my hits are useful as they are not an exact combination of words. They show that humanity and the word mythology got 7 million hits on google while humankind got less than 10% of that. Edgth (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
'stable version had "humanity" at the lead' I think you mean, had "humankind"? Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. With all these edit-conflicts I had to write fast. Corrected. Thank you very much for pointing this out. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Understandable. Good catch. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Buster. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version) all be used in the article rather than using only the word "humanity"? Buster Seven Talk 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Clarification to RfC: The phrase (as they stand in the current version) means that "humankind" remains at the lead, "humanity" remains in the "Terminology" section and the word "mankind" remains inside the quotes of the verbatim Joseph Campbell definition. When commenting please comment on both the RfC and the clarification. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support (as they stand in the current version). Also per Johnuniq, "mankind" must be in quotes. Rigidly and robotically repeating "humanity" on every occasion and avoiding the word "humankind" is absurd POV-smacking ideological bias against the word "humankind", a well-used and accepted literary word of the English language. Mechanical repetition of the term "humanity" to the exclusion of the word "humankind" also results in stilted prose. Ideological POV-driven removals of words do not belong in an encyclopaedia and are counter-intellectual. We are not in the business of banning words. Period. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I also support the clarification. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. If we just consider the flow of language and our desire to keep the reader interested, we editors should choose a variety of words that may mean the same thing. Constant use of the same word is redundant. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Note: I support "(as they stand in the current version)" addendum to this RfC Buster Seven Talk
  • I also support the clarification. Buster Seven Talk 00:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I want to address the "few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before" comment that was given in earlier discussions as a reason to remove "humankind". We have no way of knowing whether that suggestion is correct, but we do know that the word "humankind" is commonly used in written works, and this is not simple:, and Wikipedia should and does use words that are not part of a limited vocabularly. I hope no one wants to use "mankind" (other than in quotes) as that kind of expression is not part of modern writing, but naturally the article will use a variety of terms as part of good written expression. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Also support clarification. There would need to be plausible reason for changing things, other than the degree of familiarity individual editors may have with a particular word. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support because other options than just the three offered exist as well. Sentences could be structured in such a way as to allow other options as well, such as "peoples," "ethnic groups," etc. I might myself find the word "humankind" to somewhat strike a somewhat jarring note, and think that other options, like the ones I suggested and others, might be somewhat preferable. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - We ABSOLUTELY should not change what is in quotes, and the the difference between humankind and humanity is stylistic in this case. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree. "Humankind" should be avoided since it's rarely used, "Mankind" is traditional and is not "sexist." "Humanity" should be used carefully since it has multiple meanings. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Comment It would´ve been nice if the RFC question was actually on the dispute, which is should the lead be humankind or humanity. The currently worded RFC is obviously going to pass, despite bypassing the actual dispute. Edgth (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Editor Edgth. I wrote this RfC to resolve the dispute that I saw. If you see another dispute (what you call the actual dispute), you are free to create your own RfC to resolve that one. There was no attempt to bury anything or cleverly disguise anything. Wikipedia editors are collaborators not adversaries. No one is trying to trick you. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it isn´t directly on the dispute and should probably end. I may do an RFC on the dispute, not sure. Edgth (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The RFC wording covers that specifically: Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version). Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The main point of the question is should a diverse range of words be used. Who´s going to bother checking the article for the placement of those words? Edgth (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the apparent attempt to limit the dicussion to the words in the lead, I would suggest mankind or humanity be used first, the other word second (if repetition is a concern) and possibly alter any remaining duplication by altering the sentence structure to allow other commonly used phrases to be used, "humankind" probably, given its somewhat rare usage, being perhaps one of the last alternatives should there be excessive repetition. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Edgth: I think the qualification (as they stand in the current version) is clear enough. Anyone who wants to comment on this RFC is assumed to have read all of it carefully before deciding. In addition our current comments will also help clarify that the expression (as they stand in the current version) means that the RfC participant agrees with the locations in which the words are placed in the current version of the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it cleverly disguises the actual dispute which is over humankind or humanity being in the lead. Edgth (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @John Carter: "Mankind" is not an option because per Wikipedia MOS gender-neutral words are preferred. Please see also relevant discussion at Bahá'í Faith. Also Google searches have established that the usage of "humankind" is actually preferred over "humanity" when combined with "creation" or similar words. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Mankind is gender-neutral as it refers to men and women. Just like woman is not sexist just because it has the letters m a n in the word. No, your Google search shows that a specific combination of words resulted in humankind being slightly more popular just for that combination. A Google search of mythology and humanity and mythology and humankind show that humanity got over 7 million hits while humankind got less than 10% of that. Edgth (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
"Mankind" is not gender-neutral. It is definitely sexist and its not because it contains the letters m, a, and n. Its sexist because it connotes all the historical and social dominance of men over women. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That´s a depressing connotation. The word man is derived from the original word meaning person, ie human; somewhat ironic given the present dispute. Thus any connotation like that is not the fault of the word. Anyway, per my orginal comment, this RFC is useless and we should stop wasting people´s time. I may start an RFC that addresses the dispute directly, though whether I can be bothered remains to be seen. Edgth (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As you can see the default duration for a RfC is 30 days. I agree that we should stop wasting peoples time, but I'm not sure "we" is the correct pronoun. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── RfC's work best when the question is as specific as possible. The endeavor is to eliminate disagreements, one at a time. If the RfC is too broad-based, at the end there is still confusion. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I´ll make an RfC as specific and direct as possible to finally put this to rest. So can we close this one now? Edgth (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Not yet. Maybe in two weeks as per instructions at WP:RfC. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It says the original poster can withdraw it at any time. As this RfC won´t solve anything, can you exercise that right? Edgth (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Since editors have already !voted this cannot be withdrawn. We don't have to jump through hoops by opening another RfC. I have added a clarification so I will simply add that I accept the clarification to my comment above. Buster can do the same. I'll inform Johnuniq and John Carter. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have informed both John Carter and Johnuniq of the clarification and invited them to comment on their acceptance of it or not. Meanwhile I indicated my support for the clarification and so has Buster7. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ...and now Editor Johnuniq. @ Editor Edgth. I notice you have not participated in the survey. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don´t plan to, as the clarification doesn´t make the RfC question direct or neutral to the dispute. Besides, see below for the proposed version that´s going to require another RfC. Edgth (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I was randomly selected for the RFC commentary and mythology is a subject I studied a great deal in High School, Greek, Roman, and Christian mostly since they hold significant consequences in Western civilizations today.
My suggestion is that the textual usages of the word "mankind" is traditional and should be retained as the primary term since male-specific shading of the English language is part of the English language, after all. The word "humankind" is not often used here on Earth. After all, we don't use the word "Dolpiniuskind" to describe the family of dolphins, so I would suggest that "humankind" not be the primary term, it is rarely used. Finally the word "humanity" has several meanings (such as when describing humanitarian emotive, such as "oh the humanity!",) so care must be taken when applying the term.
Also it is suggested that "mankind" is "sexist." That's complete bullshit. The English language is what it is. Let's not neutralize or feminize the English language. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Didn't Neil Armstrong say "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" when he first landed on the moon, on July 21, 1969? warshy¥¥ 16:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What does that have to do with Mythology? I thought the Moon landing actually happened. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

30 days?[edit]

The RfC page says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." )

  • The RfC process is voluntary and designed to bring in viewpoints from outside the dispute to attempt to negotiate a solution. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was moved from RfC's threaded discussion since it raised a complimentary topic[edit]

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)

Invalid concern. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to provide an overview of the article contents, including details of the definition. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Valid concern, as the lead is supposed to be a ´´summary of its most important aspects´´, not replicate them. This in the terminology section: ´´Alan Dundes defines myth as a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society".´´ I would remove ´´a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form,´´ as it is unneeded due to the quote that follows and it repeats the sentence in the lead. Edgth (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The terminology section expands on the definition and explains it, while the lead, quite properly, just borrows the short definition and presents it at the beginning of the article. No reason or need to obliterate it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I´m sure there´s a sentence in some guideline that we shouldn´t repeat things exactly in an article. As the lead already contains a summary of Alan´s views, the terminology should just show his quote, as the quote doesn´t need to be explained. The article is essentially saying that same thing three times, first in the lead then twice in the terminology section. Edgth (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Linguists like humankind[edit]

A trip to my bookshelf found this,
  • From Garner's Modern American Usage: "Humankind, a 17th Century creation, is unexceptionable, while mankind is, to many people, a sexist word. The prudent writer will therefore resort to humankind".
  • From The New Fowler's Modern English Usage: "First used in the 17th century as an ocassional variant of the human race or of mankind, the term (humankind) has gathered strength in the 20th century, sometimes written as two words the word is also favored by those who judge mankind to be unacceptable in our politically correct times". ```Buster Seven Talk 05:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That´s only relevant if we´re debating between mankind and humankind. Edgth (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparative mythology[edit]

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)

garbled text in article[edit]

(quoted from Talk:The Death of Koschei the Deathless#garble):
The underlined clause, in The Death of Koschei the Deathless#Plot, is garbled:

Soon after Ivan finds out that Koschei took Marya Morevna away, and chases him. When he gets him for the first time, Koschei tells Ivan he lets him go, but Ivan doesn't give in, and Koschei kills him, puts his remains into a barrel and throws it into the sea.

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)