Talk:Mythology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mythology article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4

"in folkloristics"

[1] I think the problem lies not so much with Tolkien as with "in folkloristics". This should perhaps be "in mythography". Tolkien was not a "folklorist" in the sense of a comparative approach to the world's traditional narratives, but he certainly was among the foremost experts on Anglo-Saxon (Old and Middle English) narratives. Together with his views on "mythopoeia" (On Fairy Stories), his opinion on the subject does carry great weight, quite unrelated to his popularity as an author of original works. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tolkien's doubtlessly an authority on "myth and fairy story" (as he liked to put it). However, the personal opinion of any scholar whatsoever isn't a proper reference for a blanket statement that folklorists see "truth" in myth. I'm fine with keeping the Tolkien quote in the article, but we need a different reference for that "archetypical quality of 'truth'" statement. --Phatius McBluff 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

can we be reasonable about this? I see a lot of "citation needed" tags gracing perfectly straightforward statements. Asking for citations is good, but some common sense should be involved. Have you looked at truth? The primary meaning of the word is ""faithfulness, fidelity". This obviously isn't about truth in the sense of "factuality", which is a concept that doesn't even enter the equation in a discussion of myth. There is objective truth (sooth), then there is mythological truth, and then there is religious truth, which is really mythological truth with a scripture and a clergy. Understanding these notions of truth is at the very core of getting the concept of "myth". dab (𒁳) 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My Oxford Dictionary doesn't find "folkloristics" anywhere. Probably neither will your average reader. By "truth" do you mean story essence and substance, rather than some historical fact? Fkapnist (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

see Truth#Etymology. Funny. "My" OED has folkloristics as a matter of course: "The study of folklore; folklore as a discipline or subject of research." dab (𒁳) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What do these passages mean?

1. "In folkloristics, which is concerned with the study of both secular and sacred narratives, a myth also derives some of its power from being more than a simple 'tale', by comprising an archetypical quality of 'truth'."

2. "Myths are often intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ('creation myths' and 'founding myths'), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions or rituals, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history, and it may or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes 'the story' (preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes 'the story' and the literate class becomes 'the authority'). However, as Lucien Lévy-Bruhl puts it, 'The primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development.'"

Um ... maybe I'm just stupid, but I have almost no idea what the above passages mean. Could someone please reword them so they make sense? In the first passage, what's "an archetypical quality of 'truth'"? And in the second passage, I can't tell how the different sentences go together to form a coherent argument. --Phatius McBluff 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The first passage may mean that myths transmitted universal value systems or ethical and moral guidelines. The second passage I think means that the original oral content of a myth is sometimes lost when committed to writing. Fkapnist (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree these passages are garbled. They should be lovingly rephrased. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotundum?

I'm not going to revert the new "Rotundum" section out, as it seems to contain some material that's potentially useful, but it shouldn't be in the article in its current form. At present this section seems to be a collection of random stuff that needs to be integrated in different places in the article. Actually, it's quite possible that Democritus and Epicurus belong at Greek mythology, but not here. Jung probably deserves a section all his own, or needs to be part of a "Psychological interpretations" section. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is the landing page or "main topic" article, and like the trunk of a tree, it should have adequate links with concise descriptions leading to all its related branch articles. Don't assume your reader knows how to find the related subjects unless you describe them within the content of the main page. Fkapnist (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

sigh, there isn't even a "Jungian rotundum" article. "Jungian rotundum" doesn't get a single google hit. What is this?. I suggest you write that artile first, see if it survives AfD, then incorporate a reference to it under UFOlogy and UFO religion, and then we can place a brief mention to the whole thing here if you insist. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not one Google hit! Then I guess I will have to write the rotundum article after all. It actually has little to do with UFOlogy. The rotundum is the basis of all archetypes, according to Jung. It is merely the perception of a circle or sphere (cosmic egg, etc.), which represents a totality of the self. Fkapnist (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Outline and Structure of Page is Weak

I'm afraid the Mythology page is very weak for several reasons. It needs more sections because it doesn't answer two very important questions: 1. What actually were the major myths? Why not a single example? Don't assume that your reader knows. 2. Who were the original story tellers? The editors here don't seem to understand, or care enough to tell us. Hesiod, for example, is not mentioned at all. Don't assume that your reader knows and will look it up elsewhere. Sure, there are many references to scholars like Levi-Strauss or J. R. R. Tolkien, but they weren't the original story tellers of mythology. So who were they? You've heard that the classical myths were sung to music and painted on vases, not annotated with footnotes. But our dear readers won't learn any of that here, I guess. I'm surprised that even Homer is only mentioned once - in the Related Topics section, along with Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg! Come on, are you people serious? Who edited this bedsheet? Mythology constitutes a few thousand years of our precious human history. But the edits here seem to cover (yawn) about half a page full of cut and paste high-sounding academic quotes. Without getting to the real meat of the subject. Don't assume that your readers know anything about mythology. If they did, they sure wouldn't consult you or Wikipedia. Did anyone happen to notice how the myths influenced modern-day science? Why, for example, are the planets named after mythical characters? The editors here don't have time to look it up. And the geographical distribution or map of major myths is also not covered. Try this: Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, African, Asian, Native America. See how easy that was? Without these vital links right in the heart of the main article, your naive dear reader is lost and buried, by a bunch of sleepy editors. Do you have a problem with space? Buy a new hard disc. I don't think Wikipedia has any problem giving adequate space to such a major topic. And did you notice the decline of myths and their aftermath? Try Democritus and his buddies. But some of you would rather delete all that stuff and keep the page short and sweet. Oh, that Fifth Grade tradition of cut and paste! Smarty quotes; the very stuff of plagiarism. I was the publisher and editor of a big city daily newspaper, and I can tell you without hesitation that the current Mythology article would make an excellent bedsheet to cradle any reader's unfamiliar nightmares. Fkapnist (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fkapnist, I am not sure what you are ranting against. Nobody said this article was great, or finished. It needs work. I certainly wouldn't give it more than a "B". But I am not sure the way forward is inserting random paragraphs on Ufology. dab (𒁳) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"I was the publisher and editor of a big city daily newspaper" -- well, if you were I have no doubt that you'd print all sorts of random rants on UFOs and so forth while complaining about how you think you know more than everyone else. But that's neither here nor there for improving this article. I think you'd learn a lot about the topic if you read the article for content and didn't just assume it sucked because it doesn't say what little you think you know about the topic. There's a lot of good content here. It's not the best it could be, but it's better now that your additions are removed. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's better now that your additions are removed." That's a good one, DreamGuy. But thanks anyway for keeping Jung near the end. Fkapnist (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Syncretic Mythology

Syncretic mythology also deserves to be mentioned along with the creation myths and ritual myths. But syncretic myths would probably belong in the "Myth and Religion" section. There are two main schools of thought here: One theory states that most of the western myths evolved, or were copied through time, and can be ultimately traced back to an original set of stories that probably started in ancient Egypt. The myth of Jesus is said to have begun as a primordial solar deity who annually dies and resurrects, such as Osiris, who later became Dionysus, and finally developed into the familiar Christ story. The opposing argument is that the syncretic myths did not actually appear until after the arrival of Christ, and were the retelling of the old Osiris and Dionysus myths based on the new story of Jesus. This theory claims that no evidence exists in antiquity for Osiris, Dionysus, or any other mythical gods ressurecting until after the 2nd and 3rd century AD. When deities of polytheistic society were sacrified, they dwelt either in Hades or the Elysian Fields, but did not return to life on earth. Fkapnist (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

you may be looking for Jesus Christ and mythology, or even Jesus myth hypothesis. dab (𒁳) 14:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the myth of Dionysus is a syncretic continuation of the Osiris myth, we are not talking only about Jesus Christ. I think syncretic mythology is important as part of the "origin" of all myths. Fkapnist (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

Hello. I am suggesting the following book as Further Reading on the Mythology page: Vitsaxis, Vassilis. Myth and the Existential Quest. Boston: Somerset Hall Press, 2006. ISBN 0797461009 Disclosure: I am the publisher of this book. To avoid overstepping conflict of interest guidelines, I am bringing this up on this talk page. I believe this book adds to the scholarly discussion of this topic. Vassilis Vitsaxis is a prominent modern Greek philosopher who has written on Ancient Greek, Hindu, Christian and other myths. To make your determination of whether this book is worthy of mention, more info about this book and other books by Vitsaxis is available on Amazon.com. Look up Vitsaxis. I'll avoid further marketing language here. ;) Thank you for your consideration. Summer612 (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your honesty -- I'll add it for now and we'll see how it's doing. The bibliography (and the article itself) will need to be overhauled at some point, at which time some bibliography may end up being exported to mythography or another related topic. dab (𒁳) 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Separated intro back into intro and "term" section

When I visited this article just now, I found that the "term" section had been merged with the intro. I felt that this made the intro long and somewhat confusing. For example, suppose that someone is looking for a quick explanation of myth. Such a person would obviously read only the intro in detail, perhaps skimming the rest of the article. Suppose such a person wasn't particularly interested in etymological/historical issues. If he came upon this article with the "term" section merged into the intro, then he would waste time wading through the "term" discussion.

I checked the edit history before separating the intro back into intro and "term" section. However, most of this article's edit history consists of vandalism and subsequent reversions. Thus, I had a hard time finding who exactly had merged the "term" section into the intro, and why he had done so. That being the case, I went ahead with my plan of separating "term" discussion from intro. If someone disagrees with this move, he/she can feel free to bring it up on this talk page. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Imported material from Comparative mythology

A while back, I added a section called "Interpretations of myth" to the Comparative mythology article. I've finally decided that it belongs more in the general Mythology article. Many of the theories mentioned in that section have nothing particularly "comparative" about them, besides the fact that the theorists who came up with them obviously read a lot of different myths. Anyhow, the Comparative mythology article should focus more on specific similarities between different mythologies and interpretations of those similarities. That's what "comparative mythology" is all about. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

the watcher

The watcher is like a dog catcher except a demon catcher if you see him he will not hurt you but it will fill like time stoped but there will be no sound he will take form of a 6 foot white dog. so far thats how much I no.66.139.99.226 (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

the watcher

The watcher is like a dog catcher except a demon catcher if you see him he will not hurt you but it will fill like time stoped but there will be no sound he will take form of a 6 foot white dog. so far thats how much I no.66.139.99.226 (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics of a myth

"Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally" - what does passed down traditionally mean exactly?--Meieimatai 10:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the article, I suppose it means that myths have been transmitted (in one form or another) either for a long time or as a constitutive part of a certain culture or other group. For example, the Book of Mormon is a fundamental part of Mormonism, so the stories in the Book of Mormon could be called "traditional" to Mormonism. A better example would be Homer's Iliad: passed down for a long time, and probably originally composed by piecing together songs from oral tradition, that poem is definitely "traditional", which means that the stories [myths] in it have been "passed down traditionally".

I agree that "passed down traditionally" is somewhat confusing and redundant (if it's traditional, then it must have been passed down). Anyway, the whole statement in question isn't completely true, so I just removed it. Not all scholars restrict the label "myth" to stories about gods and heroes. Some scholars (e.g. in religious studies and folkloristics) wouldn't call many hero stories "myths", because those scholars restrict "myth" to sacred stories. Who says that myths must be arranged in a coherent system? Has anyone noticed the 3 contradictory creation myths in Egyptian mythology?

--Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing about transmission rather than "passing down" is that it significantly depends on the mode and medium, which for most ancient societies was oral, and therefore reliant on the finding of individuals within the society with Eidetic memory.

Besides this, traditions are not normative parts of social practices (marriage, warship, leader determination, etc.), and so are highly subject to change, particularly where the tradition is not transmitted in writing.

Any transmitted cultural knowledge which is a part of systematic codification of social normative practice can not very well be said to be traditional, can it? For example the stories of evolution and development of legal practice associated with the English law.

More importantly, the norms of transmission are also important, such as existence of a group within society professionally dedicated to this transmission, or this being accomplished by popular communication, for example via the oldest members with recollection of the myth--Meieimatai 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Myth in the Making

An interesting myth in the making is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Myth Florida (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Segal

I don't have access to Segal's "Very Short Introduction", but he is being used for a number of very simplistic and dubious statements. I don't know if Segal is to blame for this, or if he is simply being quoted naively out of context. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the section on "Interpretation of Myths"? I added that. I realize that some of the statements look rather simplistic (Segal is a relatively "concise" writer). However, I feel that, besides the "Term" section, the "Interpretation" section may currently be the best section in this article. For example, consider the following passage:

Myths are often intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, otherwise inexplicable cultural conventions or rituals, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history, and it may or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story" (preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes "the story" and the literate class becomes "the authority"). However, as Lucien Lévy-Bruhl puts it, "The primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development." Huh??

The first sentence is certainly true. However, it's completely unsourced. The second sentence could be reworded for clarity and conciseness. (Maybe something like "Myths were passed down before the development of critical history. As a preliterate society develops writing, an 'official' written version of its mythology often eclipses its orally-transmitted myths".) It's also unsourced. It's unclear to me what the Lévy-Bruhl quote means, and how it relates to the rest of the paragraph.

I'm not a professor and not in a position to judge how accurate Segal's claims are. I'll try to check his book again and see if I misrepresented anything he said. However, I stand by my claim that, by Wikipedia's purported standards, the Segal claims (along with the "Term" section) are currently some of the best material here. Remember, on Wikipedia, clarity and verifiability (i.e. having a source) matter more than nuance or (alas) truth. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed massive edits to the article

In the last several days there has been a huge number of changes to the article that were not discussed on the talk page and often have no substantive edit comment at all (listing the name of the section tht was changed but not explaining what was edited or why is not a real edit comment) to give any sort of rationale to the changes.

I haven't yet looked at every single change, but the modifications to the modern myths section (completely removing it, which got rid of the very important clarification that fiction and mythology are different) stands out as especially odd.

As far as I know, edit comments are not optional, and using them, and discussing the more major pages on talk, is an essential part of the editing process. DreamGuy (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite tags

Hi, in copy edits I removed six fact date tags and put a general cite tag for the section "Myths as depictions of historical events", but then realised there are references throughout the section. Please remove tag if extra citations are not required there. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

'Supernatural or dream-like language' versus 'the supernatural'

I'm suggesting that the first sentence be changed from "that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity" to "that a particular culture finds meaningful in explaining the nature of the reality, often using supernatural or dream-like language to interpret natural phenomena". Here's why...

Did ancient peoples truly 'believe' in supernatural entities or did they inevitably and freely use dream-like, unnatural (supposedly 'supernatural') language in the process of personifying or relationalizing natural forces and dynamics? Recent studies in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary neuroscience would suggest the latter. How was the world made? Why do earthquakes, tornados, and other bad things happen? Why must we die? Why do we struggle with inner feelings and impulses that seem to have a life of their own? Why are we so easily addicted and tempted to do things that go against our own interests? Such questions cannot be answered by the powers of human perception alone. Ancient cultures gave so-called supernatural answers to these questions, but those answers were not truly supernatural—they were pre-natural. Prior to advances in technology and scientific ways of testing truth claims, factual answers were simply unavailable. It was not just difficult to have a natural, factual understanding of infection before microscopes brought bacteria into focus; it was impossible. It was similarly impossible to understand the large-scale structure of the universe before telescopes allowed us to see galaxies. If we could do during the day what we do at night, in our dreams, we'd all be having supernatural experiences daily. In any event, I edited the first sentence to try to reflect this more nuanced understanding. MBDowd (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You ask: "Did ancient peoples truly 'believe' in supernatural entities" and the quick answer is "Yes, obviously!" Your claim that the cultures didn't really believe them is certainly against what experts say, not to mention common sense. Many people today still have supernatural explanations for these things, so there's no reason to doubt that ancient ones would also. DreamGuy (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What the?

Some of you may have encountered me in the Noah's Ark debate about the word 'mythology' there. It is because of that debate that I had a look at this article. Quite frankly, the whole article strikes me as an apologia for the minimalist POV pushers who are determined that religion become synonymous with myth. The editors have spent so much energy in trying to 'prove' that mythology does not equate with falsehood that the reader is left bewildered as to what the subject is really about.

It is clear to me that this article has been created/manipulated to justify the inclusion of the word 'mythology' in every religious article on WP. Quite frankly I am disgusted.

(And before anyone accuses me of being a POV pusher, I should point out that I would be equally disgusted by any article that tries to claim 'religion is truth')--FimusTauri (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, the above was written in haste and anger, so I thought I should flesh out the rerasons why this article annoyed me with some more specific comments:

Myths are often linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, and endorsed by rulers or priests.

This is wrong. In ancient Greece, the stories of their gods were told (preached) as truth. It is only since that religion has died out that we have come to view the stories therein as myth. Hence, the following line,

Once this link to the spiritual leadership of society is broken, they often acquire traits that are characteristic of fairy tales.

is patent nonsense too. By this logic, all of the Greek myths, Roman myths, Norse myths, etc etc should now be called fairy tales.

This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history, and it may or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story".

This sentence simply doesn't make sense.

Individual myths or mythemes may be classified in various categories: et seq.

This whole section seems dedicated to classifying sacred texts as myths. There are many religious stories (in the world’s major religions) that would be called either ‘ritual myth’, ‘social myth’ or ‘origin myth’ according to the ‘definitions’ presented here. This is a clear example of someone with an agenda to de-classify all religions into the realm of myth.

New Testament Book of Revelation is an example of a set of eschatological myths.

Rubbish. It is either a re-telling of events that actually occurred (according to ‘mainstream’ thought) or, if it is telling of a future event, it is a prophecy, not a myth.

Comparative mythology

There is no mention of the fact that comparative mythology is used to find an underlying common history, other than a note later in the article about catastrophism, which is a sub-set of this.

Formation of myths

This whole section looks like OR. The only cite has little relevance to the actual subject.

as Frazer puts it, man progresses “from magic through religion [or myth] to science”.

I wpuld like to know who inserted “[or myth]”? which creates the impression that myth and religion are equated.

One way of conceptualizing this process is to view "myths" as lying at the far end of a continuum ranging from a "dispassionate account" to "legendary occurrence" to "mythical status". As an event progresses towards the mythical end of this continuum, what people think, feel and say about the event takes on progressively greater historical significance while the facts become less important. By the time one reaches the mythical end of the spectrum the story has taken on a life of its own and the facts of the original event have become almost irrelevant.

No refs. Looks like pure OR.

This process occurs in part because the events described become detached from their original context and new context is substituted, often through analogy with current or recent events. Some Greek myths originated in Classical times to provide explanations for inexplicable features of local cult practices, to account for the local epithet of one of the Olympian gods, to interpret depictions of half-remembered figures, events, or to account for the deities' attributes or entheogens, even to make sense of ancient icons, much as myths are invented to "explain" heraldic charges, the origins of which has become arcane with the passing of time.

Yet again looks like OR.

There is a repeated emphasis that myth should not be taken to mean falsehood:

• Myths are not the same as fables, legends, folktales, fairy tales, anecdotes or fiction
• In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion.
• For instance, a scholar may call Abrahamic scriptures "myths" without meaning to insult Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
• Euhemerus was one of the most important pre-modern mythologists. He interpreted myths as accounts of actual historical events, distorted over many retellings
• As discussed above, the status of a story as myth is unrelated to whether it is based on historical events.

This theme is repeated throughout WP to 'justify' using the term 'myth' in association with living religions. I won't re-hash the arguments here; suffice to say that this apparent need to keep repeating this point is self-evident proof that the word should not be used in the context of religion - if it needs explaining, its either wrong or its jargon.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it sounds like you are just going by what you believe "myth" means and not how the academics and experts use the term. As far as your claim that "In ancient Greece, the stories of their gods were told (preached) as truth. It is only since that religion has died out that we have come to view the stories therein as myth." goes, that is simply false. Greeks who believed in their religion called their stories myths. That's where the term came from. As your entire argument is based upon an incorrect belief -- one that I must stress has been discussed many, many, MANY times before -- your complaint is completely without merit. DreamGuy (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the "expert's" use of the term 'myth'. My main point is that this article and many others on WP use the specious argument that "it's ok to call religion myth because the experts don't mean it as implying falsehood." The argument is specious because it totally ignores the fact that 99% of people reading the article(s) are not 'experts' and the majority of them use the word incorrectly. The Greeks may have used the word 'myth(os)' but they used the term to imply "story telling". The word had a significantly different meaning to them and quite clearly they were telling those stories as sacred truth - far different from how we use the (derived) term nowadays.

That aside, you have totally failed to address the issue of whole sentences that read like OR. You have not addressed the issue of non-sensical sentences or the insertion of "[or myth]". This latter is especially significant.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi FimusTauri. I removed the parenthetical "[or myth]" bit. I was the person who originally added it, and I admit that it reeks of OR. I added it at the time because I thought that it helped to clarify the point being made by Segal (see the discussion of the myth-ritual theory elsewhere in the article); as Segal notes, Frazer intended for his statement to apply to religion in general, including the sacred narratives in pagan religions (which everyone calls "mythology" without flinching).

As for the current argument about religion and the word "mythology", I'm going to stay out of it this time. I've discovered that my input is generally less than helpful in these disputes that pop up once in a while. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know that I removed that part you found particularly problematic. Peace. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My recent edit

Just before posting this message, I made a single large-scale edit to the article. If you're reading this message after someone else has made subsequent changes to the article, you can see the result of my edit here. I removed very little of the previous content; mostly I just rearranged it into what I felt was a more logical arrangement. Out-of-place sentences were put in better location (for example, the quote from Tolkien); the sections were put into a better order; and I reworded a couple of passages for clarity. I did remove a few passages, but only those that (1) had long-standing "citation needed" tags, (2) looked dubious, and (3) did not seem to contribute clearly to the article.

Before my edit, there were way too many jargon-laden sentences peppering the article in odd locations. For example, consider the following two passages:

• Middleton argues that, "For Lévi-Strauss, myth is a structured system of signifiers, whose internal networks of relationships are used to 'map' the structure of other sets of relationships; the 'content' is infinitely variable and relatively unimportant."
• Mâche distinguishes between "myth, in the sense of this primary psychic image, with some kind of mytho-logy, or a system of words trying with varying success to ensure a certain coherence between these images.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find an appropriate place for these passages. So I removed them from the article and posted them here. If you can find a logical place to put them, feel free to re-add them. I confess that I simply didn't understand what they were doing in the article — mainly because I didn't know what they mean. We really need to reword passages like these for clarity. When adding stuff to Wikipedia, we should always phrase it in a way that a high-schooler could understand. Also, apart from their polysyllabic verbosity, the above passages (as far as I understood them) didn't fit logically where they were located in the article.

I felt that there was a strong need for more precise and concise categorization in this article. A quote from Levi-Strauss is perfectly appropriate in this article on mythology — but not just anywhere in the article! A section on "Myths as depictions of historical events" (now changed to "The euhemerist theory" in my edit) is certainly welcome in this article, but not as a stand-alone section, separate from the section on "Formation of myths". Isn't the theory that myths depict historical events one example of a theory on the formation of myths? (Thus, I changed it into a sub-section within the section on "Formation of myths".)

Anyhow, if anyone has complaints, suggestions, or comments, I'd be glad to discuss them. I really think this article can be better than it currently is if we become stricter about providing citations, organizing material logically, and (most importantly) writing sentences that contain only clear, simple English prose. Some sections still need a lot of work. I don't see a single citation for the section on the various categories of myth; and the section on euhemerism needs to be shortened and supported with citations. Please help! --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to make another edit; see the result here. The definition of myths as supernatural stories believed to be true is not universal among scholars; at most, it is the official definition used by folklorists, as the article itself states. So I edited the intro accordingly. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, what? So the people in the field in question officially define it that way and you want to define it some other way? That doesn't work. At all. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi DreamGuy. I think you misunderstood my post. I meant that the article states that the definition of myth as supernatural, etc. is at most official for folklorists, not for all scholars. I have added some more citations to the article to show this. Classicists (i.e. people who study ancient Greece and Rome professionally) certainly don't accept the folkloristic definition. If they did, then they would have to exclude much of what is usually called "Greek mythology" from the category of myth. Moreover, if we really want to be technical, the definition formerly shown in the intro is not quite the official folkloric definition. For folklorists above all, myths are about the creation of the world--something which was never mentioned in the intro.

Anyway, I don't want to start a fight. I'd like to hear your feedback. Peace, Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edit, this sentence: "In the field of religious studies, myths are generally defined as stories about gods." might be a problem sentence. Many biblical scholars used to restrict myth to polytheistic religions, and not monotheistic religions (we have the Brothers Grimm to thank for that one interestingly enough). However, most scholars no longer impose this restriction, see Robert A. Oden's The Bible Without Theology for instance, where he notes that:

The simple and convenient view that all myths are stories about the gods [in reference to earlier discussions about polytheism] continued to play the lead role in discussions by biblical scholars about myth and the Bible for a surprisingly long period in the twentieth century — surprisingly long since, as we will see, this definition was dismissed as unfair and inadequate by a wide range of scholars outside the area of biblical study. A look at almost any of the most widely used introductions to the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, or at similarly influential biblical theologies, will show that this remained the case until very recently [he seems to put a limit of 1970].

Now, I don't know if the reference you got that 'gods' definition from was using the plural form innocently (the context actually suggests this, chaps / gods), or if they mean to impose a restriction. Either way, I think we're best off using a statement that talks about things in general, as the above reference does, as opposed to one single author's definition. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, Ben Tillman. For non-professionals like me to make a blanket statement about people in religious studies, even with the support of published sources, is unwarranted. When I made that edit, I intended for Segal (who does indeed presume to make a blanket statement about religious studies) to be the primary source for my claim about religious studies, and for the O'Flaherty quote to be just one example. Taking your concern into consideration, I replaced "generally" with "often" and modified the citation slightly. Hope that helps. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My objection was to the sentence using the word gods. Some readers might read this and think that stories involving only one god can not be labelled a myth, and this would be a valid thought since until the latter half of the twentieth century, this was in fact a common definition of the term. To reflect modern usage, a simple fix to what you have now might be to just say "god or gods", do you think? Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sure, that seems to be a good idea. Segal does mean "god or gods" (he mentions the God of the Hebrew Bible). I'll alter the text accordingly. Note: I will be capitalizing the singular "god", since it's being used as a proper noun for "the single god" in this context; let me know if you find this problematic. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the MoS advises not to, unless you're explicitly referring to a particular god. So if we're talking about the Christian god we would say "God blah blah". Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Why don't you reword it as you see fit? I don't think I'll have any particular objection to whatever wording you choose. I would personally suggest "gods or a god", but that might not make clear our point that myths can be about the monotheistic god. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the order matters too much, so whatever order you're happy with should be fine. We can always discuss monotheism explicitly if we need to, noting the change in definition in the process. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another confusing sentence

I removed this sentence from the article:

As Roland Barthes affirms, "myth is a word chosen by history. It could not come from the nature of things".

It originally was the last sentence in the opening paragraph of the section on euhemerist theory. I don't understand what it means, and I certainly don't know how it fits into that paragraph. (If anything, it looks like a statement that belongs in the "Term" section.) Instead of simply inserting a quote from Barthes, would someone please either paraphrase that quote in the article in a way that makes its meaning obvious, or provide some exegesis around the quote in order to make its significance clear? Thanks. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits have been less than helpful...

...at least to overall understanding of the topic. Right now the lead says almost nothing, and seems to be pushing a definition favored by a single author and not how it is used in the field.

What the lead needs to say, is that mythology is: 1) the study of myths (explaining what myths are - sacred stories about supernatural/creation of world/etc. believed to be true by the culture) 2) the alternate definition of mythology being a collection of myths.

That is FUNDAMENTAL to any understanding of the topic at all.

If you want to give alternate definitions of myth (the looser one that encompasses legends and etc., and then mention of the popular usage meaning "false" -- with explanation that obviously mythology is the study of the academic term and not the popular usage), we can go into greater detail in the body of the article. Unfortunately we've had so many changes to this article lately hat it seems to be largely useless in getting the most important information off.

Obviously I can't just revert the whole thing, mainly because of all the other changes that were made that were perfectly fine and also because cleary there's some disagreement, but we need to work on a way we can all agree to it. I don't even care if we have sourced multiple definitions in the lead (assuming we don't give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe view in the process), but the whole point of the field is that mythology is the study of sacred stories believed to be true. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We have wiktionary for definitions, and I think the article could do with a bit of trim with this in mind. I mean, is it really necessary to have an entire dictionary entry in this article? Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a few points to make:

1. Can anyone provide an actual source for the definition that used to be in the intro? For those who don't remember, this was the former definition: "a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". I know of no published source that defines mythology in quite this way. It can't be the standard folklorists' definition, because (1) for folklorists, "mythology" does not include legends, and (2) the former definition doesn't mention the creation of the world. I can only conclude that, however much "consensus" the former definition may have had, it was not drawn from a verifiable source and, thus, technically counts as OR.

2. I have no particular problem with using the folkloristic definition of myth in the intro (including, of course, the qualification that this definition is official only for folklorists). After all, folklorists are the only scholars who have bothered to formulate an "official" definition, so their unanimous definition has some kind of authority relative to the scattered definitions used by classicists, theologians, etc. However, we must make it absolutely clear in the article that the reader will most likely not find the same definition used if he picks up a random book on mythology. Many stories usually called "myths" even by scholars, such as the stories of Oedipus and Perseus, are not myths according to the folkloristic definition. For example, Joseph Campbell, a well-known (if not particularly well-respected in the academic community) mythologist discusses Arthurian romance in his book Creative Mythology; Arthurian romance is obviously not myth by the folklorists' definition.

3. I agree with Ben that the article is probably too obsessed with definitions. Ordinary people don't look up "mythology" on Wikipedia hoping to find a list of definitions. They're more intersted in learning about the major mythical gods, heroes, and events, and (perhaps) some of the major academic theories about myth. It would be tedious and redundant to list the important mythical characters and events in this article: if people want to learn about that, then they can go to Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc. However, I think this article should focus more on summarizing a wide variety of academic theories.

4. DreamGuy complains that the article now "seems to be pushing a definition favored by a single author". I assume he's talking about Robert Segal. I admit that I have used Segal quite a bit in my edits. However, there's a reason for that. Segal's Myth: A Very Short Introduction (published by Oxford University Press!) is the only book I know of that actually provides what I think this article should provide: a concise survey of the major academic approaches to studying myths. Segal does not use the folklorists' definition, for not all scholars of myth are folklorists. He does not use the definition favored in religious studies, for not all scholars of myth are professors in religious studies departments. He uses a definition broad enough to encompass everything that a layman might think of when he hears the word "myth". I think this article should do so as well, at least until we figure out what to do with the folklorists' definition.

Sorry this ran so long. I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. But, in my opinion, this article was unacceptable in the condition I found it in before I made those edits. Let's try to move forward, not backward. Peace. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. DreamGuy, I just read the post you made on Dbachmann's talk page (I was about to post something there myself to ask him to come and add his input). I'm sorry if you feel that I've demonstrated a willingness "to revert to [my] version when modifications are made". Like I said, I'm not looking for a fight. In fact, I left Wikipedia for a long time (until a few days ago) because I disliked the confrontational attitude I always found on the talk pages.

As for the "revert" that you mention, I changed the intro back to my favored version only because I thought I had gathered new quotes and citations (now located throughout the article) that would make it obvious that the intro needed to be changed. At this point, I can only say this: I promise that I will not throw a fit if you revert to your favored version of the intro (although I may continue to calmly raise some objections here). I am frankly too tired from fighting other Wikipedia battles to fight one here. If I make any mnore substantial edits to this article, I think that I will henceforth devote my energies to doing what I think is most important: adding more academic theories to the article. DreamGuy, Ben, dab, reword the intro as you see fit. Peace. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirected Myth here...

USer:Phatius McBluff mentioned in an edit comment on Myth that it should be redirected to this article, which I always 100% agreed with, so I wa WP:BOLD and did so. We can incorporate smoe of the info that was there over here if it helps. That also makes it just that much more important that we explain terms here clearly.

As far as rationale for the redirect, myth and mythology is a huge overlap, and the other article was basically just a WP:FORK file of this one -- often one where people would change things here or there and the two wouldn't sync up. Also, the only reaon it ever because a separate article over ther in the first place was tha some longstanding POV-pushers opposed to the academic definition entirely wanted to keep them separate, as it helped them make arguments about the use of the term on other articles. As most of those editors are no longer around (I think some of them have been permanently banned for POV-pushing, actually), there was no reason to keep the fork article intact for them.

I am specifically bringing it up here though for any discussion about it.DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your boldness! I obviously have no complaint about what you did. But see above for my response to your concerns. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But you created a tautology. I put in myth, get redirected to mythology, which is defined as the study of myths, but I can't find out what myths are.... there should be a short article called mythology that says the study of myths, and this big article should be about myths. 74.68.152.245 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It explains what myths are in this article starting with the first sentence: "stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity" DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments sought

I'd like to request comments from editors of this page about a piece of policy that is likely to effect it. Please see the discussion here. Ben (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Defining myth

This article is in trouble definition-wise. In the lead, it defines mythology as the "body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity". Where is the citation for this definition? I know of no academic source that defines mythology in quite this way. As an unsourced assertion, it is fair game for deletion.

It seems that the favored definition of "myth" in this article is the folkloristic definition ("a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form"). I say this because most of the other definitions I added (namely ones from classicists and people in religious studies) were removed. I have no problem with this in principle, because we need to establish some kind of standard definition of "mythology" for use in other WP articles (see the discussion that Ben Tillman mentions above). However, if we are going to favor the folkloristic definition, then we should use it in the lead!!! The lead does not use anything remotely similar to the folkloristic definition. First of all, folklorists would not define mythology as a body of "folklore/myths/legends" because, for folklorists, "legend" is a separate category from "myth". Secondly, the definition in the lead does not mention sacredness. Thirdly... Need I go on?

I don't understand why we don't use the broadest academic definition ("traditional story") in the lead. This definition is the first definition given by the OED (see the "Term" section of the article). However, since I appear to be getting no support on this point, I will drop it.

But please, let's fix the definition in the lead. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The definition in the lead has been played with over time so often that I think the current version is one nobody agrees with, as it's the results of fragmented edits by multiple editors over time. We need to favor the academic definition of the people in the field, and for some odd reason we have had a lot of editors strongly opposed to following that. DreamGuy (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think OED definitions are the best basis on which to write an encyclopedia. A better course of action, I think, is to present several different definitions--"traditional story" is probably the only point on which every definition would agree. (Each definition should be sourced, of course.) Classicists and people in religious studies are good people to turn to for definitions, as are cultural anthropologists; folklorists shouldn't have pride of place. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about religious studies or anthropologists. We don't let religious and economic sources define biology terms (like, say, evolution, which has had similar complaints in the past over definition), and it's equally ridiculous to give similar WP:UNDUE weight to what people in completely different fields think. DreamGuy (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"The field" includes classics, religious studies, and anthropology. Or do you think that Jean-Pierre Vernant and Claude Levi-Strauss weren't studying mythology? The first was a classicist, the second an anthropologist, and both are fairly notable figures in the study of mythology. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're both partly right. DreamGuy, I don't understand why you consider folkloristics to be "the field" that studies mythology. Folklorists certainly don't think of themselves as having any kind of monopoly on mythology. They recognize that classicists and anthopologists are just as immersed in myth as they are. In fact, the folklorist Alan Dundes writes, "Among scholars interested in myth, no group has written more on the subject than classicists" (Sacred Narrative, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984, p. 53). However, I do think that the folkloristic definition is somewhat more "official" than the scattered definitions offered by other scholars: unlike classicists, anthropologists, and historians of religion, folklorists have at least bothered to formulate a standard definition that is recognized by almost all people in their field. As the most standardized definition of "myth", I think that the folkloristic definition may deserve to be prominently mentioned.

Akhilleus, you're right that we can't give folklorists some kind of special authority. However, that still leaves the problem of what definition to put in the lead. We can't turn the lead into a list of definitions. If we were to add such a list at all, it would belong in the "Term" section. Unless we want to use the broadest definition ("traditional story") in the lead, it may make the most sense to use (ironically) the most restrictive definition, e.g. the folkloristic definition. Why? First, the folkloristic definition is the most standardized definition. Second, it excludes both legends and fairy tales; this is nice, because it explains to the average reader why we have separate articles for legend and mythology. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should put a definition in the lead. We can't afford, per WP:UNDUE among other things, to choose one or two definitions, and we can't possibly give them all. Instead, I think we should explain there is no universal definition, describe some common characteristics that these definitions are likely to share, outline some relationships between the concept and other fields (in particular its role within religion) and be quick to link myth and mythology. Of course, there should be a section of the article that goes into depth about definitions. I'd look forward to working with a few people on getting this article up to scratch if you are all keen. At the very least I think it would go a long way in curbing complaint about the term. Ben (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course we need a definition in the lead -- how else is anyone supposed to know what we're even talking about? And it's not WP:UNDUE weight to use the definition of the people in the academic field in question. The people complaining about the use of the term aren't complaining about the definition used here, they're complaining about the non-academic usage, in which case they may as well be objecting to talking about the science behind evolution based upon some non-scientific definition of the term for all the good it does. Taking the definition out of the lad would jut increase their complaints because people would be more confused about the meaning, not less. DreamGuy (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If the folklorist definition of myth is as standardized as people say, I don't have a problem with using that as "the" definition in the lead. After that definition is given, we can proceed to say that many different definitions are offered in other fields, and perhaps give a sourced statement explaining why there are so many definitions. More detailed coverage of different definitions of myth can then be given in the body of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think there are that many definitions. There's the common usage one (=false), which we of course have to mention, and then there are some people who just are lazy and want to lump all sorts of otherwise distinctive seperate terms under the same heading, but that's about it. But, again, per WP:UNDUE we can't focus too much on the opinions of people outside the field. It's all in the context of the presentation. DreamGuy (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Classical Dictionary, s.v. "mythology": "No universally accepted definition of myth exists, but Walter Burkert's statement that 'myth is a traditional tale with secondary, partial reference to something of collective importance' gives a good idea of the main characteristics of myth."

Then there's Bruce Lincoln, who once said something like mythology is ideology in narrative form. There are plenty of definitions, and the range of what scholars in different fields do with myth is something that this article can usefully cover. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that in many of the arguments on other pages about the word "myth" editors are often told "there's a wikilink, use that to get a definition", I think it is very important that the definition presented here be completely unambiguous. Anybody following that advice (to click the link) will almost certainly expect the lead to tell them exactly what a myth is. Whatever definition is placed there needs to be fully verified. You will also need to be careful because, if "clicking the link" is going to provide the "working definition" then all existing articles with such a link must conform to the definition provided.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is why I don't like the idea of Wikipedia endorsing a particular definition. Although many definitions share traits, the definitions are often dependant on context to some degree. If we favour a particular definition, then it's likely people will argue against using the term in particular articles because Wikipedia's definition doesn't suit, even though reliable sources use the term to describe the topic. Of course, reliable sources trump our mythology article, but it's going to be a point of friction I'd rather avoid. If you can find reliable sources that explain a particular definition of myth is 'the standard' definition, then I don't have a leg to stand on and I'm happy to let that definition play a dominant role here. Ben (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely should not be used to provide a reductive, standard definition of "myth" that will solve all problems related to the use of "myth" and "mythology" on Wikipedia. Mythology is a complex subject, and this article shouldn't be used to create the impression of an artificial simplicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely what I'm worried about happening. I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just asking that we be mindful of the possibility that some people may see it that way. If we can include a definition in the lead, and not give the impression that mythology is reduced to that definition, then I have no objection. Ben (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur in general with Ben's last comment. It must be made clear what is "usually" meant by the term if we are to link so often. However, I would suggest that the lead also needs to make it clear that other definitions exist (this is consistent with MoS). In articles where a different definition (to the "standardised" lead) is used, it is encumbent upon the editor of that article to clarify which "other" definition is intended.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

By the same token we should not use this article to add complexity that simply does not exist within the field. OF COURSE specialists in literature or religion or other outside fields might use some other definition. We can note those in a subsection, provided we do not outright agree with their conclusions (as some previous wording on this article did). And, mnost of all, this article should not be used to foster false conflict so that people who are offended by some completely different use of the term "myth" feel justified in being offended when it's used in the academic sense. The recent RfAr provided a wide number of definitions from various sources, and those definitions all fell into a standard basic range. All we need to do now is more adequately source that in the article and we are good to go. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I've started to work on a draft for a revised version of the Mythology article. I'm trying to address a number of issues in the revision, such as logical organization, conciseness, proper sourcing, and (most importantly for our purposes) definitions, without removing any legitimate info that was in the old article. The draft is still very much in progress, but feel free to look at it and offer comments. It's located at the bottom of my user page. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This might surprise people since I have a (probably well deserved) reputation as being difficult to work with, but I think the basics I've seen there (changes to the lead, mostly) are perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't object to that working it way over to the main article. I know I've been leaning on the idea of trying to keep any mention of other definitions out of the lead, but introducing them there without going into major detail is a good compromise, and more fair now that I think about it. Guess it was one of those had to see it before being able to fairly comment on it situations. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent start, Phatius. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is a good start, Phatius. In particular, I appreciate the way that each definition is tied to the appropriate field. I believe this goes a long way towards dealing with some of my concerns over the use of the term (and I realise that that is not the objective here - I just mention it as a "bonus" as it were).--FimusTauri (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@Phatius: I think (as I've said elsewhere) that we need to disambiguate the colloquial use of the term 'myth' (which implies falseness and or fabrication). maybe add something to the lead to the effect: Myth is commonly used in casual conversation to imply a false or fabricated story, but in scholarly use it is used.... you can site Oden (or I'm sure a number of other scholars) on that point. --Ludwigs2 15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs: I just changed the header of the draft to accommodate your suggestion. Let me know what you think. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, that definitely works better. --Ludwigs2 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How about: The term myth is often used colloquially to refer to a false story; .. Much easier to read and to the point. Also, something needs to be done with that giant parenthetical. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben: Took your suggestion with regard to wording. As for the parenthetical, I decided to simply remove the parentheses, because on second thought it flowed perfectly well as part of the sentence. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Small point, really. In the line "The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story; however, it is generally used differently in academia," the 'generally' is open to misinterpretation (by implying that sometimes academia uses the 'false story' definition). Perhaps something along the lines of "Whilst the term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story, in academic usage there is no assumption as to the veracity of the story." I am sure something less verbose can be found, but I hope you get my drift.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Fimus, it isn't quite as simple as that. The Christ myth theory (if that is indeed the theory's "official" name) certain seems to use "myth" to imply "false story". Now, in my brief skimming of the Christ myth theory article, I saw no indication that "Christ myth" is the conventional name of the hypothesis. In fact, the name "Christ myth theory" seems to be completely unsourced (as indicated by the "citation needed" tag). However, suffice it to say that the existence of an article entitled Christ myth theory, which questions Christ's historicity, would create confusion when placed alongside a statement in Mythology that academics never use "myth" to imply falsehood.

Ultimately, it's a small point: the Christ myth theory is currently supported only by a very small minority of non-mainstream scholars; and at any rate, our goal should not be to show that no one uses "myth" to mean "false", but simply to show that "myth" has an academically-recognized non-pejorative meaning, and that that's the meaning we're using here. However, it's a point worth noting. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is easily dealt with by saying that the academic use of "myth" generally does not refer to truth or falsity. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice taken, Akhilleus. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Myth box

Template:Myth box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.Goldenrowley (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)