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

Explanation

Just to make it clear, my 'revision' was pretty much reverting the page back to the last article form it had before the one I ended up with when I came to read the article-- that is, some really stupid vandalism. I mean, jesus fucking christ, that's lame. Yes, takes two seconds to fix, and all that, but I figured I'd leave a comment just so any REAL editors can rest assured that I'm not taking any potshots at them.

I just, y'know, would like to see a goddamn article when I click a link to a goddamn article. If I wanted vandalism, I'd go to a public bathroom-- at least THERE the one-liners are actually amusing. --72.224.72.24 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Archived

Everything from prior to the re-creation of myth on January 18, 2006 has been archived. See the link above. October 7, 2005 and January 9, 2006 archived discussions are also available. JHCC (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Made an archive infobox. See it for past discussions. Lemegeton 14:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

myth

In view of the fairly clear consensus articulated above [see archive ], I moved the content of Myth/temp to myth and made Myth/temp a redirect to myth. For the edit history of Myth/temp, please see here. I also archived the old content of Talk:Myth, which is now here. I had made a couple of changes to Myth/temp earlier, so I've included the rationale for these here (lest anyone accuse me of deceptive editing practice). JHCC (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth vs. fiction again

I just created Category:Mythological kings to rescue Zeus out of Category:Fictional kings. - Haukur 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done. JHCC (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work; even the king of the gods needs to be rescued every now and then. KHM03 19:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jollly good, i'm sure zeus gives a crap::::

I restored the above uncredited comment by 220.233.65.105, because my understanding of Wikipedia policy is that Talk page comments are not supposed to be deleted, only objected to if objectionable. Coyoty 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, article talk pages are for discussing the article. Stray comments that do absolutely nothing to further the article can (and probably should) be removed. This isn't a blog. But then no big deal on that one either way, other than it looks like some anon with a dynamic IP address lurking in the shadows and mocking people. DreamGuy 15:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As for policy, see WP:VAND#Types of vandalism. The relevant section (Talk page vandalism) states: Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove outside comments at their discretion. Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is a guideline, not a policy, and there is not a clear consensus on this practice. JHCC (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove Personal Attacks is a guideline now, altho a disputed one. Regardless, Use Common Sense in cases like this - if its nonsense or personal attacks, removing it is perfectly reasonable. Removing others posts is only vandalism if they were legitimate posts to begin with. Nonsense "crap" comments by an anon does not fall into that category. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Onward and upward

Well, since discussion of multiple senses of "myth" has moved to myth and Talk:Myth, and since the article is still locked, we need to discuss what edits are planned for once the article is unlocked.

I see three areas for immediate attention:

1. putting together a good, clean definition of the academic sense of "myth" and "mythology,
2. crafting a suitable disclaimer regarding not ascribing truth or falsity to any religious or cultural beliefs, and
3. removing such disclaimers from the rest of the text.

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, move the contrast to the colloquial usage up to the bottom of the lead, and otherwise leave completely as is. We do not need a full "disclaimer" we just need to set up the two definitions at the top. Prior attempts to craft a "disclaimer" have really been strong POV-pushing trying to separate out the religion you and Codex believe in and separating it out from the rest. No disclaimer is needed if the definitions are where people can't miss them. DreamGuy 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that both definitions are sufficiently clear, this should be fine. JHCC (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Unprotecting. - Haukur 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Prior attempts to craft a "disclaimer" have really been strong POV-pushing trying to separate out the religion you and Codex believe in and separating it out from the rest." This hardly seems like promising language if a cease-fire is to be maintained. Your own pov is crystal clear and far from moderate, yet you define it as the standard of neutrality that must be adhered to, when its a pov. May I remind that the edit warring was provoked, because out of all the possible examples for an "eschatological myth", you chose to insist that the Book of Revelation in the New Testament was the only possible example of what "simply is" a myth, without explaining how it is one or in what sense it can be called one. You simply will not allow any dispute or discussion as to whether or not prophecy qualifies as "mythology", or acknowledge that there are significant denominations that do indeed dispute that "prophecy" is "mythology" in any sense. You would not even allow it to read "is considered" a myth. Only that is just "is" a myth. You had the article locked in this state to prevent this reference from being altered or deleted. I have not asked for any special treatment for any religion. But it seems when there are more neutral examples to be chosen that aren't canonical to anyone, you are the one who demands that Revelation be given the "special treatment". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Grow Up

This argument is pathetic. Just write the page and get on with your lives. (usigned, but comment by User:61.72.76.213, the only edit it ever made on Wikipedia)

I'm inclined to agree. Would anyone mind if I just unprotect the page and we get things moving again? This argument on what exactly should and should not be at myth is getting a bit esoteric and shouldn't completely stop work over here. - Haukur 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. JHCC (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am frankly worried about unlocking it, simply because both JHCC and Codex have specifically already edit warred on the new myth article to add content explicitly discussed here previously as totally inappropriate and violated the agreements we made on this talk page. The fact that JHCC above is back to talking about some "disclaimer" even though previous discussion clearly dismissed that idea as overkill and subtle POV-pushing is also very troubling. It's like this whole lock and discuss thing never happened, because he is suggesting the EXACT SAME THING he was trying to do that led to the locking of the page. If this page gets unlocked I anticipate (based upon prior and recent activity), that they will again use the opportunity to start doing whatever it is they want to do despite the discussion here and clear consensus already established. They both need to agree to follow consensus and not play cowboy hoping to win by sheer force of will over all the comments placed here.

On the other hand, those two are unlikely to ever change their minds or edit responsibly, and this can't stay locked forever... DreamGuy 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nifty idea: instead of speculating on my motives and possible future actions, why not assume good faith and discuss individual edits and proposals on their own merits? You may not have noticed that I agreed with your statement above: "We do not need a full "disclaimer" we just need to set up the two definitions at the top." How's that for willingness to compromise? JHCC (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not really all that speculative to assume that the way you are CURRENTLY edit warring and inserting info we agreed not to put on myth is the way you'd act on this article. If you couldn;t be trusted to follow the consensus and extensive discussion we had on that, how can someone even giving you the benefit of the doubt supposed to assume you'd do any different here, especially when you had just brought up something that was overwhelmingly rejected as an idea for the article when it was unlocked. DreamGuy 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"inserting info we agreed not to put on myth"? If you are referring to my suggestion that myth include more information on the religous sense of "myth" (i.e., "myth = something true"), then show me where "we" agreed not to insert that info. Your claim that this was "against the consensus" was already refuted at Talk:Myth#Senses of "myth". The only other info that I added was undisputed disambiguation links, none of which were challenged by you or anyone else. I did remove some disputed language (and was supported in so doing by another editor); my response to your disagreement with this action remains unanswered. JHCC (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it can't stay locked forever, that's the important point. If it degenerates into a mindless revert war we can protect it again. But I hope we/you can work something out. - Haukur 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While I sort of left this discussion having been scared off by very lengthy proposals that I was a little too lazy to read, I must point out that the article already had pointed out the different definition of the word "myth" long before this dispute started. It was in fact started over Codex trying to enforce Christian POV by removing a valid reference in the article, and then trying to "compromise" by including what was blatantly meant to be a "Wikipedia would like to apologise for...". It still does specify the different definitions in the first section. elvenscout742 15:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

The current introduction has the following for the Greek derivation:

(from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυϑολογειν mythologein to relate myths, from μυϑος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λογος logos, meaning speech or argument)

While this is all quite correct, I wonder if it might not be improved. Most dictionaries that I have seen note that "mythology" came into English by way of the French Mythologie; we may or may not want to include this fact. Also, the Greek μυϑολογία means "romance", "fiction", "legend", or "storytelling" [1]. (See also the LSJ entry for μυϑολογειν, which has some more details.) I'd suggest:

(from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, storytelling[2]; from μυϑος mythos, a narrative, and λογος logos, speech or argument)

and leave it at that. JHCC (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourced, referenced, cited Etymology (removed from article)

Greek μυθολογια "legendary lore" is derived from μυθος "speech, thought, story, myth", itself of unknown origin. English mythology is in use since the 15th century, in the meaning "an exposition of myths". The current meaning of "body of myths" itself dates to 1781 (OED). The adjective mythical dates to 1678; English use of myth is later, first attested in 1830, in its original English meaning of "untrue story":

"These two stories are very good illustrations of the origin of myths, by means of which, even the most natural sentiment is traced to its cause in the circumstances of fabulous history." Westminster Review 12:44 (1830)

--ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Supernatural

I'm also wondering about the universality of the supernatural element. In particular, examples given at Founding myth and National myth are exclusively secular, with no supernatural content at all. Should the definition be qualified to "that often use the supernatural"? JHCC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been good discussion of this at Talk:Myth#Definition, where DreamGuy pointed out that such a story that does not include the supernatural is technically a legend. The distinction between the academic senses of "myth" and "legend" is important, and not currently well stated. The best we've got at the moment is "Many legends and narratives passed down orally from generation to generation have mythic content" from the Definition section and "Myths are not the same as [...] legends [...], but sloppy usage has blurred the distinctions in many people's minds" from the Related concepts section. Neither of these even suggests the important distinction that DreamGuy made at Talk:Myth#Definition. Perhaps we could include a note to this effect in the Definition section. JHCC (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and added the sentence :"Stories which contain similar features, such as heroes, but do not include a supernatural element are legends." to the first paragraph. Modify freely for clarity, accuracy and flow. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys need to slow down... When I said not involving supernatural is a legend, that did not mean that all legends do not contain supernatural, just that what we were talking about would be a legend if the supernatural were totally removed. For example, if I say that a firetruck without hoses and ladders is a truck, I am not saying all trucks lack hoses and ladders. Some of these definitions overlap a little i some parts. Hercules can be both a legend and a myth. The legend of St. George has supernatural elements. DreamGuy 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify the distinction between "myth" and "legend", then? Your last comment seems to imply "myth – supernatural = legend"? Academically speaking, then, are all myths legends or are there myths that are not legends? The article says that there is a distinction, but doesn't say what the distinction is — if the presence of the supernatural is not the distinguishing feature, what is? JHCC (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth = definition we've give a billion times here already. Legend = something like "tales of heroes or other larger than life people or happenings with some sort of semi-historical tie". Note that that does not rule out supernaturalism. There can be a lot of overlap. Many legends fall within the blanket of mythology, as they can have spiritual/supernatural signficance. Many legends are outside of it. Many myths are outside of the realm of legends as they are kind of above the world and historicity (but could still be considered to be true). Legends are typically a bit father along than the "beginnings". If it has a deity in in it's usually too far along to be just a legend though. But if you had something that was a story with significance to the culture and believe to be true but lacked supernaturalism completely, it'd almost have to default as a legend, which is what my first mention that confused you was all about, not giving a full definition of legend. DreamGuy 18:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, two sets which intersect, but neither of which includes the other. JHCC (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(REDUCE)

DreamGuy, would you be willing to frame this in such a way that we can incorporate it into the Mythology#Related concepts section? This is some good stuff and should be included in the article. Perhaps you would be willing to do the same for some of the other Related concepts as well? Thanks. JHCC (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic mythology

Accidentally hit enter while typing edit comment... Academic mythology is a redundant term. Mythology studies myths per the academic definition. There is no non-academic mythology. It'd be like a non-academic biology. DreamGuy 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What you're ignoring is that "academic mythology" has shifted its focus in only very recent years, expanding iytself as a field to cover modern religions. This can be easily demonstrated by picking up any Encyclopedia from the 20th Century and looking up "Mythology". Chances are, it will only talk about Greek and Norse mythology, and other largely extinct beliefs. Expanding the academic field of "mythology" into the domain of religious texts held sacred today is really a bold, new ground that encyclopedias have not traditionally attempted to cover before now - just so everyone realizes that here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent or no, it is the case. Concur on academic being redundant.

Miracle I would like some clarification on: miracles are supernatural; I believe some myths include miracles, but as the actions of deities, so unless there is a case of a myth with a miracle and no supernatural element to cause the miracle, then that too is redundant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears you don't even wish for any link to the article miracle to appear, even though this is clearly another example of a "supernatural force" other than deity... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A miracle is not a supernatural force. It is the result or effect of a supernatural force. In other words, an incident not a force. I suppose we could add 'demons' if you really must have another word there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No no no NO, Codex, it's not recent, would you stop with that nonsense, because we've been over this a million times. Maybe you only recently became aware of the fact, but the field of mythology has never been about the definition of myths meaning mere falsehoods, it's always been about narrative stories of the supernatural of a culture and yada yada yada. When someone says "The top ten myths about taxes", mythology has NEVER studied those. Ever. This should be obvious. DreamGuy 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with dreamguy here. My interpetation of the OED (second edition) is that the entry for Myth was wrong. The third edition is a correction, not a "recent" reinterpretation of modern usage. In the preface to the third ecition they specifically say that:

"Each entry already published is being comprehensively reviewed in the light of new documentary evidence and modern developments in scholarship, and further entries are being added both to fill gaps in the historical record and to record changes in the language today." [3]

As it stands today the OED has the academic usage as the primary definition. Codex, does this not suggest to you that the historical usage of the academic term predates the common vernacular? If not, why not? The one doubt I may have from such a statement is from the last bit of the preface when they say "and to record changes in the language today". The question is would this involve placing the academic definition from a secondary usage to a primary usage? To me this seems unlikely when the academic usage does not appear to be the same as the common usage. Rather, I would interpret that part of the preface to mean adding negleogisms and new usage. Anyone want to contact OED and find out the real story.? David D. (Talk) 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

When I added "academic" to "the field of mythology", this was simply to emphasize that this sentence is about mythology as the study of myths rather than mythology as a collection of myths (a definition also included in this article). Now that I think of it, "The academic study of mythology does not use this definition" would be even better. Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Per what I already said to Codex, mythology simply does not apply to the non-academic definition of myth. Those studying myths do not study the falsehoods, and a collection of the colloquial version of "myths" (i.e. false stories) is not referred to as a "mythology" either. "The academic study of mythology does not use this definition" is actually a triple redundancy, or 2 and a half times redundant anyway. Mythology is already "academic", and "study" is already included in the main definition of mythology, although slightly less so in the "collection of" definition. "The field of mythology does not use this definition", as it currently stands in the article, is much better, because it clarifies that it's the field and not the collection without being too repetitive. DreamGuy 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with "a collection of the colloquial version of 'myths' (i.e. false stories) is not referred to as a 'mythology'"; the COEDCE gives "a set of widely held but exaggerated or fictitious stories or beliefs" as its second definition of "mythology", after "collection" and before "study" [4] (although I quite agree that "mythology" as an academic discipline certainly does not mean the study of false or unfounded notions). Regardless, this is a minor point, and I'm not going to get in an argument about it.

"The field of mythology does not use this definition" is fine, and I'm willing to live with it. I still think that doing more (if not here, then elsewhere) to emphasize the academic focus of this article will improve it. Remember that we are writing for a general audience, not an audience of scholars, and being a little more explicit will save headache and confusion (both theirs and ours) down the road. JHCC (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What about mythography or academic/scholarly mythography? Also, myth is a legitimate sociological term that is applied to all myth systems regardless of the specific religious context. In sociology, the term "myth" isn't used to denote absolute values of truth and falsity, but neutral operative cultural functions. Phyesalis 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Things to be deleted or moved

Since we seem to have agreed that definitions and disclaimers basically belong at the top of the article, the following bit in Mythology#Related concepts needs to be either incorporated higher up, deleted, or moved to myth:

"The term myth is sometimes used pejoratively in reference to common beliefs of a culture or for the beliefs of a religion to imply that the story is both fanciful and fictional. Myth is often used to refer to a commonly held but erroneous belief or a misconception."

This could be put either in the intro (to expand "In common usage, myth means a falsehood" etc) or in the Definition section (which currently only contains the academic definition). I hesitate to delete it entirely, as the "used pejoratively" bit is obviously relevant.

This brings up another issue: if we restrict this article to discussion of the academic senses of "myth" and "mythology" (as seems to be consensus), should we not make that clear in some way? We could change Definition to Academic definition or change "Myths are generally narratives..." to "In academia, myths are generally narratives..." or something like that, to avoid the misunderstanding that the article is making universal statements about all uses of "myth" and "mythology". Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, "academic mythology" is a redundant term and unnecessary repetition. This being the Mythology article and not myth, there's no need to clarify that this article is about the academic definition, as that's self-evident.

Regarding the quoted section to be moved or deleted, deleted looks fine to me. No need to say it again and repeat ourselves.DreamGuy 17:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted this section, and added a small note about pejorative usage to myth. JHCC (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree that it is self-evident that the article is about the academic definition (I do agree that the article assumes said definition, but we need to be clear about the fact that said definition is assumed). In any event, what is the harm in including "In academia, ..." where appropriate (especially at the beginning of the Definition section)? JHCC (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think some movement is in order. IMO, "Religion and mythology" should be dropped down beneath "Formation of Myths". It makes more sense to go from the more general "Definition" to "Classifications" to "Related Concepts" to "Formation" in order to establish what it is we're discussing with which terms before we get into more specfic areas of myth and it's interrelation with things like religion, historicity and RL events, and the ambiguous "Other Theories". As for as the delineation of academic contexts, I agree. I'm not sure that this article is strictly about academic views on myths, I think it should be explicitly addressed. I suggest something about the disciplines of sociology, anthropology and mythography would be useful, maybe a brief blurb in the "Defs" and then more elaboration after "Related Concepts" and before "Religion and mythology" to demarcate the shift in the article's focus from general to specfic contexts. I'm going to look over the Mythography page to see if there aren't some useful solutions over there. Phyesalis 09:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up, it seems that the Article Ábartach already exists on Wikipedia, it is under the name: Abartach. Justs wanting to know how to remove the old title and replce it with the new (correct) one. --Grich 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Aetiological myths?

Is the term Aetiological myths being used formally in academia? I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include this term in the types of myth section. For example, "how did the tiger get his stripes"... is that a myth? Well, that's kind of a whimsical example. What about Prometheus, and the introduction of fire to humanity? I'd call that an aetiological myth. Is that the same as an Origin myth? --Torgo 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the term "Aetiological myths" (causes, origins, reasons) is used by academics. I think this is a useful term that deserves inclusion, also "Cthonic myths" (death/rebirth/underworld), and apotropaic (warding off evil). Any objections? Phyesalis 09:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

revert

I don't quite understand how the edit summary

"removing some unnecessary and very unhelpful sections, existing content already explains it much better -- not liking how the definition was settled but the main loser in that conflict is back again"

relates to this edit (what loser?), which I would revert in any case, already for removing the {{fact}} templates, dumping etymological information (which is of utmost importance in any article on a polysemous term), and for reverting to the childish "Myths are not the same as" bulleted list. I have attempted to replace that list by a coherent account of how myths tie in with other genres. An account that may certainly still be improved, but not by reverting to something like

• "Rationalized" explications of myths that are no longer understood
  • This is an approach attributed to Euhemerus
• Narrative drama
• Enriched history
  • Song of Roland

dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Science myths

I would like to propose a small section on myths in the world of science (such as gum taking 7 years to digest) However, I am quite aware that the type of myths may differ...but still =P --DNA 13:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really a kind of urban legend or urban folklore. Coyoty 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Behavior

I don't really care to get involved in yet another histrionic, juvenile playground fight with Dreamguy, but I certainly don't think that my contributions to the Modern section were "massive fuck up" and I hope that some day you will recognize that such comments and behavior are completely unacceptable and embarassing. If you would like to discuss the content of the article I am definetly open to it. Please let me know if there is anything I could do to help create a decent adult relationship. BarkingDoc 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The only one acting "histrionic, juvenile" and so forth here is you. If you have a problem with following the WP:NPOV policy (as demonstrated by removing objective statements and replacing them with cheerleading pom pom style advocacy for some author you like), that's something you need to work with. "Massive fuck up" was a rather blunt but completely accurate description of what you did to that section. Now, if YOU would llike to discuss the article, as you claim you would, nothing was stopping you, but it's apparent that you just want to toss off personal attacks and namecalling. Your claims to want to be an adult mean nothing when you are acting worse than a child at the same time. DreamGuy 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is Dream Guy's private property. About once a month, he routinely reverts 99% of everyone else's contributions and additions, to the last version as he wrote it. I've been obseerving this page for quite some time, and never seen anything quite like it anywhere else on wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great, this coming from the guy who about once a month puts his false claims about the definition of the word back into the article to try to advance your religious agenda (as well demonstrated in previous comments) despite clear consensus in prior discussion that your version was completely unacceptable and copious references that your statements are totally false. The only problem here is that you can;t get your way and like to try to continue your personal feud instead of realizing that we're here to make an encyclopedia and not to rewrite history so you can try to win an argument. You should count yourself lucky I don't have the time to go undo your POV pushing to all the articles you think you own, because every page I've seen you contribute to has been the same story. DreamGuy 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

where do we give the full range of meanings ""speech, thought, story, myth" for μυθος? Where do we assert that (unlike many other -logies), μυθολογια is itself attested in Ancient Greek? How is it 'pov' that the word means "legendary lore"? That's straight from a reputable dictionary. How is it pov, or where is it covered that the English word is in use since the 15th century, or since 1781 in the modern meaning? Dates directly taken from the OED? How is it already covered, or how is it biased to say that the English term 'myth' is younger than 'mythology'? I agree we don't need stuff about Star Trek or Scientology here, but why do you keep reverting a perfectly sound discussion of the word's history? If you have other sources contradicting the OED, by all means add them. I don't understand why I even have to point this out to you, an experienced Wikipedian, in such painstaking length, as if you were a passing anonymus. dab (ᛏ) 10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And I don't understnd why I have to keep explaining to you that the reasons why that info is not only POV-pushing but false (cites that are incorrect, inaccurate, and calculated to distort the true history of the meaning of the word) is ALREADY IN THE TALK PAGE HISTORY and thoroughly discussed over and over and over again. You can't keep ignoring the explanation while at the same time demanding an explanation. DreamGuy 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

doesn't anybody here work in academia?

I came to this page after stumbling across the myth disambig page. I was shocked at how the subject was beginning to disappear under a side issue of whether myth was truthful or not. strange? so I tried to clarify it without treading on too many toes - I hope it meets with approval.

Anyway. what I really couldn't understand is why there is no myth page itself - when I got here all became clear, there is a dispute...

So for what its worth I would like to offer a possible solution to the problem. As with most disputes of this type it seems to stem from valid positions being over-written by other valid positions. Here I see a lot of justification based on the terms 'academic' and 'academia' as though that somehow lends authority to the subject. Well perhaps it would if the opposed voices here just recognised that mythology isn't an academic discipline in itself. Mythology is studied from several academic perspectives, including the anthropological, literary, psychological and philosophical. not to mention the fields of political science and sociology (which actually justifies the inclusion of non-sacred, text based forms as myth). All that needs to be done here is to define and separate out the various academic claims on the subjects and compare the approaches under headings - not so tricky really, you've already managed to coexist with the definition meaning both 'the telling of' and 'the study of' myth.

Once the page was formed of a definition and headings for the various academic views and findings relating to mythology. It would probably make sense to put the list of myths on a separate page called, strangely enough myths.

So if all you supporters of 'the academic' would care to nail your colours to the mast and own up to the discipline you are supporting we will be half way to getting rid of all this one sided stuff about truth, if you are worried about your subjects golden calves being smashed, cheer up, a seperate heading for your own discipline will surely show the world how wrong everyone else is. and perhaps in the process the original scope of mythology, the poets and storytellers might get a word in sideways too.

DavidP 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

sounds all very well, do continue editing! dab (ᛏ) 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mythology is studied from several academic perspectives, including the anthropological, literary, psychological and philosophical. not to mention the fields of political science and sociology (which actually justifies the inclusion of non-sacred, text based forms as myth)."

You can have theories within a discipline without it meaning they are separate disciplines. Most of what you are talking about are outsiders to the field trying to apply their views on the topic. Philosophers, politicians and sociolofist still comment on biology, for example, but that doesn't mean that biology isn't a discipline. And, for the last time, political interpretations of myth does not mean that politics are myths or that there are non-sacred myths. That's like saying there are political animals that demonstrate there are non-animal biolifeforms. It makes no sense at all.

"So if all you supporters of 'the academic' would care to nail your colours to the mast and own up to the discipline you are supporting "

The discipline being supported by the academic information in this article on mythology is the discipline of MYTHOLOGY, which, contrary to your claims, is a field unto itself, though certainly people from other fields try to make comments on it. 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:KillerChihuahua

Was that just a kneejerk revert on Mythology or what? You blindly reverted everything in that edit, even things that were obviously needed (we don't link to foreign language sites in External links, etc.). You say discuss sweeping changes on talk when all of the changes of any controversy were already discussed on the talk page quite extensively and were only changed back to what was decided there after much discussion. I've been editing logged out a few times here, and I see a lot of editors just blind reverting anything and everything, probably because they can't be bothered to check to see if the changes were good or not and just assume it must be if it's an anon user. Please take some time to check over what you are doing before undoing so many edits at once. 172.164.87.241 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anon bias and never revert without looking.

1. In common usage, myth often means a falsehood -> In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe but which is not true. "often" is more accurate. Not everyone is ignorant enough to conflate "myth" with "untrue"
2. Myths are generally narratives -> "generally" deleted. Why? There are myths which are not about "about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests." Some are about non-divine and non-heroic figures, some are damn incoherent, and some are not endorsed by rulers or priests.
3. While in common usage of "myth", the word may indicate a fiction, or half-truth (and nearly all dictionaries include this definition), "myth" does not always imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions All deleted - why? This is information you are removing which helps clarify what is myth and what is not.
4. For the purposes of this article, therefore, the word mythology is used to refer to -> The word mythology is used to refer to the study of This one I feel should stay the same becase it adds the caveat that we're not getting into bickering about various other useages, but that now that we've defined it as used here, etc.

I have this page on my watchlist and read the talk page regularly. I see no consensus for these changes. I do see a few comments concerning too much focus on Truth but there is certainly no consensus, and your edits were not specifically discussed there at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your revert, KillerChihuahua. dab (ᛏ) 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks dab, appreciate you weighing in. I would like to note that as the last previous edit to this article talk page was June 7, and none of the above edits were discussed here, I fail to see how the editor is claiming "consensus". I am copying the discussion here for any additional input anyone who edits this article may care to give on the edits made (and subsequently reverted by me.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was held PREVIOUS to June 7, hell, for the last two years -- these are all lonstanding debates that have been hashed and rehashed countless times and come to firm conclusions of consensus. 172.144.20.69 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I have refactored the following, which was inserted into my numbered post, above. Do not modify my posts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The common usage is falsehood, the academic usage is where it does not necessarily mean untrue. If someone lacks tghe ignorance than they understand the academic, actual, longstanding usage and not the sloppy common usage.

Myths are ALWAYS natrratives. They are always linked to religion. If you think you have a "myth" that is non-divine, non-heroic, etc., what you have is a legend or folktale or some other related but different term. We've covered this a million times here.

All deleted because it is redundant with what was covered above. This is just another way of saying what was already said, but more awkwardly and less accurately.

It's not just for the purposes of this article. It's what the word means. We don't have to bicker about othre meanings, we are giving the meaning, period, full stop.

These were all discussed in EXTREME detail over and over and over again. I went away for a while, I came back, the same errors that have plagued the article for years creeped back in, in some case specifically by editors who know pointblank that they lost out on consensus and do it hoping nobody will notice. 172.144.20.69 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as does dab and now Bunchofgrapes has also reverted your edits with the edit summary KC has made good detailed points about a number of these changes being bad. Stop it with the sweeping reversions. Focus on one thing at a time if you want to move forward. I strongly suggest you pick one of the items above and counter my objections, and attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes. Claiming old consensus is irrelevant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

anon, if you mix 'good' edits with 'bad' ones, you risk getting them all reverted. it is not the job of other people to sift your edits for anything salvageable. If you think that part of your edit was rolled back accidentially, kindly make an edit consisting only of that. It is not even clear what "things" you claim have "firm consensus". this article needs a lot of work an is a long way from stability. Just because it has been quiet for a while doesn't make it any better. I do not even see any factual disagreement here. We all agree on the article scope, the 'academic' meaning of the term, etc.; since everybody fully agrees about the facts, I don't see any reason for your hostility (not that I would see such a reason if you were in factual disagreement, either) dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RE these_edits:

First. "Myth" does not necessarily mean false in common usage within the last decade or two, ever since Joseph Campbell, Bill Moyers and others helped give widespread public attention to the "academic" usage of "myth". I suggest a discussion begin (a genuine duscussion with proper sourcing) about the diverse common usage of "myth", including "urban myth" and other variations.

Second. The sentence "Myths are generally narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests." The word "generally" may not be perfectly accurate here, but is better than no qualifier at all, as proposed by anon 172.144.20.69. Perhaps after analysing all the various usages of "myth" and categorizing them, as well as defining "mythology", it would be possible to arrive at the appropriate qualifier within the appropriate sphere of commentary about the concept or word "myth".

Third. The sentence " While in common usage of "myth", the word may indicate a fiction, or half-truth (and nearly all dictionaries include this definition), "myth" does not always imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions." This set of observations has some value, and it should have been placed on the talk page for further consideration, even if it were removed.

Fourth. There were other changes too. Mass edits without explanations for each substantive change are looked on with an extra measure of doubt, even if they are made by well-known usernames, but especially when made by users who choose not to get a username to which some reasonable association can be attached by other users of Wikipedia.

Fifth. Please stop attributing motive to other editors actions.

Sixth. Please get the hell off my talk page unless you have something substantive and productive to say there, and place your comments on the relevant page, which in this case is here. ... Kenosis 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

cherokee?

why under myth by region is there no cherokee mythology? i mean did someone not think of cherokee or is there nothing to put down?Hicups0002 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell inaccurately characterized

Joseph Campbell is a well-respected interdisciplinary scholar, he is qualified to discuss mythography, religion, psychology, history and textual criticism of religious and ficitonal literature, among other things. His contributions to the field include numerous editorial projects, including collections by Maya Deren, Carl Kerenyi, and Carl Jung. He is one of the world's foremost experts on the subject of myth. He was a member of the editorial board for the interdisciplinary Bollingen Foundation, and finished four volumes of Heinrich Zimmer's academic papers. If his work isn't scholarly, I don't know what is. I am going to change the article's mention of him to reflect his expertise and wide spread contributions to the field. Phyesalis 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (added sig)

Wording and citation in "Definition"

The line "Not every religious narrative is a myth however; unless it is deeply rooted in tradition, it may also be trivial pious anecdote or legend." is problematic at best. I think, at the very least, it needs a citation and have noted it within the article. I also think the wording is far from optimal. First, many discourses acknowledge all religious narratives as myth. Also, the term "pious" is questionable. The issue is and should be addressed under "Related Concepts". I suggest removing the line. Any objections or alternate suggestions? Phyesalis 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the words "deeply" and "trivial", as they imply unsubstantiated determinations. Phyesalis 10:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording in the line "This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history which may, or may not, exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story" (Preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes "the story" and the literate become "the authority")." is unclear. To what does the "This broader truth" refer? As this is the first phrase in the paragraph, I suggest a rewording which explicitly states what is being refered to and avoids use of the phrase "broader truth". It is the first use of the word "truth" in the section and has no correlative antecedent. Phyesalis 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Primative?

That "primitive" quote is kind of problematic, in the context of the paragraph it imples that Greeks and Romans were primative, along with all other religions, like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Can we do something about that? Thanks. Phyesalis 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

are you talking about the Lucien Lévy-Bruhl quote in definition? I have more of an issue with the use of the "t" word in the sentence preceed (truth.) Let's bury that one with a stake through its heart, shall we? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stakes in hearts...cool..heh-hrh. •Jim62sch• 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I can make neither heads nor tails of this "sentence", hence I removed it. "This broader definition runs deeper than the advent of critical history which may, or may not, exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story"." •Jim62sch• 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"take your complaints to talk"

User:Jim62sch completely blind revert a badly needed edit to this article with the edit comment: "revert - dreamguy, take your complaints to talk" -- This is simply nonsense. The things that my edit changed to the article were for problems EXTENSIVELY discussed on these talk pages OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

We do not link to Encyclopedia Mythica, as it is horribly unreliable.

We have a definition of mythology that was thoroughly discussed and backed up by cites, but some people want to change it to whatever nonsense either comes off the top of their heads or to support some religious definitions (as the "Codex" guy and others were continuously doing despite that they did not have consensus to do so.

For the love of god, if a bunch of people new to the article who didn;t bother to read the prior thorough discussions -- or any reliable book on the topic as far as I can see -- feel like they can change it to whatever they want, I certainly have the right to change it back to a better prior version that was hammered out through long discussion here. DreamGuy 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, by referring to a "hammered out" version, you seem to be ignoring the {{cleanup}} tag which has been gracing this article for ages, and which does explicitly contain the invitation to drop by and help us out. I do not think there is much factual disagreement here at all, our problem is just finding a lucid exposition of the involved situation. I am now looking to unravel things by introducing a new "Definition" section that deals with word sense exclusively, and is directly informed by the OED. dab (𒁳) 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 71.126.9.70

DAVID SUNG quit vandalizing! some of us have reports to do on mythology by next week!!! im going to go to ask.com or a better search engine that does not have vandalizers! speaking of my report i should get working on that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.9.70 (talk • contribs)

If you have a problem with vandals, then use a previous version of the page by clicking on the history link, and the date of the revision. In addition, you can revert any changes as necessary. --Sigma 7 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring?

The article has the "please restructure" message, but as a lay person, I cannot see what needs to be restructured. Restructuring is little discussed on the talk page; the content as a whole is discussed, but there is no consensus. I suggest that the "restructure" tag be replaced with an "expert" tag or something like that. -Pgan002 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting (what might be) a major restructuring of this article, namely to better represent the study the meanings of myths. See User:Ephilei/Mythology for version under construction and the talk page there. --Ephilei 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OR

I tagged two paragraphs as OR in the myth nad history section. They seem to be the two major paragraphs, describing all the means and methods for the examination given, but only specific examples are given any citation; this leaves the major paragraphs to read as if they were OR or synthesis shoehorned around the examples. Please fix with citation or a rewrite, thank you. ThuranX 14:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

• Dreamguy, you've reverted the sentence that suggests that "The catastrophic interpretation of myth, forms only a small minority within the field of mythology and often qualifies as pseudohistory" (my emphasisis), and you pointed me to the article on pseudohistory
• As I mentioned in my history comment, I can find no verifiable sources linking: (a) The catastrophic interpretation (b) Velikovsky, with pseudohistory.
• I note that the article on pseudohistory includes Velikovsky (but not the catastrophic interpretation of myth), but again, there is no verifiable source. There should be many sources if these subjects "often" qualifies as pseudohistory.
• Can you supply some decent sources, since the statement reads as if it is an editor's personal point of view? --84.9.191.165 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are two fast and easy:

Skeptic's Dictionary: http://skepdic.com/pseudohs.html

"Examples of pseudohistory include Afrocentrism, creationism, holocaust revisionism and the catastrophism of Immanuel Velikovsky."

AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS by Leroy Ellenberger SKEPTIC Vol. 3 No. 4 1995

at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html

DreamGuy 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And as far as the "many sources" thing goes, how often do you think people even sit around and discuss catastrophism? Historians and scientists dismiss it outright whenever they bother to discuss it at all. The catastrophists are unable to get their work published in mainstream journals on any topic that would overlap with the concept (history, archeoology, astronomy, etc.) so they started their own. If there were any scientists or historians that treated it as anything but pseudoscience and pseudohistory their ideas would be present in mainstread academic journals. In fact it is the very lack of "many sources" showing that that proves it IS considered pseudohistory. DreamGuy 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bob Carroll himself considers Velikovsky to be pseudohistory, and while many others may agree, I can't find corroborative sources.
• Leroy Ellenberger appears to be referring to the destruction of Atlantis as pseudohistory, not Velikovksy's catastrophism.
• If people do not sit around and discuss Velikovskian catastrophism, then I suspect there are very few sources suggesting it "often qualifies as pseudohistory"
• The article already says it "forms only a small minority", but if we are going to include statements sourced to one or two individuals, then the entire article will fill up with subjective opinions.
• You are also a liberty to drawn the conclusion that "the very lack of 'many sources' [..] proves it IS considered pseudohistory", but again, this is your opinion, and a non sequitur. --84.9.191.165 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of what Carroll and Ellenberger are saying are at odds with what those sources actually say, and the point is a ton more sources could also be found to say the same thing, if necessary. But i provided sources and all you did was naysay them and not provide any sort of sources that say the opposite. Therefore you have nothing to complain about.

Stop removing it. You clearly don't understand how things work here and seems like you are trying to push a pro-catastrophism agenda. DreamGuy 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't accused you of pushing an anti-catastrophism agenda, nor judged your understanding; so don't patronized me, nor tell me what to do. Either engage in the discussion, or leave it.
• There are no sources that say that Velikovskian catastrophism is not pseudohistory, just as there are no sources that say that Robert Graves, or Joseph Campbell, are not pseudohistory. The statement in the article is yours, and the onus is on you to provide sources, not for other editors to provide counter-sources. See WP:V "Burden on Evidence"
• I would be grateful if you would point out where in Ellenberger's article he describes Velikovskian catastrophism as pseudohistory. --84.9.191.165 11:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see your edit history, so I can see you have a pro-catostrophism agenda. Ellenberger calles it pseudoscience and compares it to the pseudohistory of Atalantis. That clearly shows his intent. But if you'd rather it be switched to pseudoscience to focus on the ridiculous impossible astrony of Velikovsky instead of the ridiculous falso history, that can be done. I've given you the sources you asked for, you have no sources that contradict those sources, at this point you are just ignoring responses to lie and say no response was given so you can revert to your own version. DreamGuy 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to respond. My agenda is irrelevant, as long as my posts conform to policy, that's what should be judged; not any preconceptions. I don't criticize your anti-catastrophism agenda... I'm criticizing specific edits that you have made.
• Firstly, I do not need to provide any contradictory sources. The statement regarding pseudohistory is yours, and the onus is you to provide supporting sources. I will provide sources for any statements that I include, and the onus is on me to do so.
• Secondly, I have not ignored your responses. I have replied to them in good faith, as you can see above. If you feel I have not answered your specific points, then you merely have to request clarification, and I will gladly try and provide it.
• Switching "pseudohistory" to "pseudoscience" is not appropriate. We are writing about mythology which is not considered a scientific subject.
• Ellenberger is saying that one may interpret the Atlantis myth as pseudohistoric, and consequently the "Pleiades myth" may be interpreted in the same way. This is not the same as saying that Velikovskian mytho-catastrophism often qualifies as pseudohistoric.
• I propose two changes. (1) We change the text to read: "The catastrophic interpretation of myth, forms only a small minority within the field of mythology, which some have described as pseudohistory." (2) We provide sources attributing Bob Carroll and Ellenberger. --84.9.191.165 00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think going to WP:ANI is a bit excessive, and I'd suggest going to WP:3O instead. DreamGuy, discussion does not mean resolution. I do not see a consensus or agreement of any kind. You did not respond to the latest comments, so it is still being disputed. You shouldn't revert the edits. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, I commented on DreamGuy's behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --84.9.191.165 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was referring to. Lots of Wikipedia pages have acronyms for easier use, WP:ANI is the shorthand for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I note that you have reverted my edit for the third time,[5], without commenting on my suggestions above,[6], and contrary to advice.[7]. In addition to your incivility towards me,[8] which notes your intent to "reverted on sight", I felt I had no choice but to make a comment on the Administrators' noticeboard, here --84.9.191.165 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

User:DLX recently reverted an edit I made to the "religion and mythology" section. I accidentally reintroduced the reverted material due to an edit conflict. Sorry for the confusion there, DLX. You can revert my edit again if you want to, but before you do, I'd like to ask a few questions.

It's not at all clear to me why the stuff I added was "unsourced, OR" while the stuff that was already in the "religion and mythology" section wasn't. Let me first quote, in full, what was originally in the "religion and mythology" section:

Myth is not intimately connected with religion. Myth in this sense does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions. Literalism refers to the attitude of some adherents of modern dominant religions that regards the traditions surrounding the origin and development of their faith as literal historic accounts. Such a position has only become possible with the advent of the critical method that counters mythos with logos. Literalists often object to the classification of their traditions as myths because of the connotations of "falsehood" mentioned above, while the mythologist's classification is not a statement on historical truth or falsehood, but refers to the subjective importance of the theme within the community in question. Thus, one can speak of a Hindu mythology, a Christian mythology, or an Islamic mythology, in which one describes the mythic elements within these faiths, without implying any statement as to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history.

Now, let me quote, again in full, what I replaced that with:

Significantly, none of the scholarly definitions of "myth" imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, many scholars call the sacred stories of Christianity and Islam "myths" without intending to insult those religions. However, this application of the word "myth" may cause confusion and offense, due to the popular usage of the word.

I can't see how what I put is substantially different from what was already there. (Granted, I afterward added some more info to the "religion and mythology" section, some of which I think I may get hammered for; but that's not what I'm talking about right now.) I can see only two differences between what I put and what was already there:

• What I put is (I think) more clearly phrased.
• I made smaller claims, not bigger claims, than the original passage. (The original passage implies that all myths are meant to express non-literal, metaphorical truth--a questionable claim, to say the least.)
• I included at least some "references", in the sense that my text refers back to other parts of the article, whereas the original passage included no references whatsoever.
• If anything, what I put is less like "original research", because it leaves out that totally unsourced and confusing bit about "logos" and "mythos". (I've heard the "logos vs mythos" argument before, but it's not exactly common knowledge.)

I'm not trying to be billigerent or pick a fight with anyone. However, I can't see what's wrong with my addition to the "religion and mythology" section.

Forgot to sign; sorry. --Phatius McBluff 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think providing an external link that's really linking to another section on the same page is just clumsy. There should be a way to write that so you don't have to do that at all. I don't particularly like some of the changes -- for example there's now a long list of "most important" people in the field, which is surely POV, especially as the source is just one source and not speaking authoritatively for the field (if such a thing were even possible). I also think some of the sections were people decide they want to using myth to mean something other than what other people think is pretty odd too, as the evolution page doesn't just quote random people who decide they want to use evolution to mean something else. That whole beginning section is just too long now. If some people prefer to include religion in a different sense, or argue against the definition, that should be handled separately and with plenty of context. See the NPOV policy on "undue weight" -- merely mentioning minotiry views can give the idea that they are widely accepted and slant people's perception. There must be a better way to handle that. DreamGuy 11:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that linking back to another part of the article is a bit awkward. However, aside from that, don't you think that what I put is an improvement over what was already there? My idea was just to make what I felt to be necessary substantive changes, and then leave the aesthetics to others: if others want to rephrase the section so it doesn't have to link to another part of the article, then they can be my guest.

As for your dissatisfaction with the numerous different definitions of "myth" being used in this article, that's an unfortunate consequence of the actual usage of the term. As pointed out in the "Term" section, there's simply no consensus about the proper use of the word "myth" in a scholarly context. Folklorists, in particular, have their own definition of the word that's no necessary recognized by other scholars. I realize that, outside of the "Term" section, editors have been using the term haphazardly, with inconsistent meanings, throughout the article; and I'm not defending that. I'm just pointing out that the situation is a bit complex. Maybe we could correct the problem by specifying, at the beginning of each section, how the word is being used within that section? --Phatius McBluff 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ritual myths vs. cult myths

At the bottom of the "characteristics" section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Characteristics), the article lists a number of different kinds of myths. Included are "ritual myths" and "cult myths". Could someone please explain to me why these must be listed separately? A cult is "the totality of external religious practice and observance". That includes ritual, doesn't it? Or if we go with this article's definition of cult, as "elaborate festivals that magnify the power of the deity", then cult should be one kind of ritual. Shouldn't cult myths be one kind of ritual myth or vice versa? --Phatius McBluff 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose such a classification will be arbitrary no matter what you do, and the items will always overlap. Unless we can cite a notable source with exactly this division, I suggest it will be better to convert this into a less committal prose paragraph mentioning various types and functions of myths. A list of isolated mythemes properly belongs on mytheme anyway. dab (𒁳) 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Myths as depictions of catastrophe

For the not uncommon interpretation, I've created the section on "Cosmic interpretation", and a subsection on the less common catastrophic interpretation, of which I have given a couple of sentences to the older "cometary" catastrophists (there's perhaps a dozen more writers that could be included), and finally qualified the single sentence on the "planetary" catastrophists. --67.136.238.48 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it. See The Wikipedia Neutral point of View section on undue weight. Catastrophism is a fringe group within the field, unscholarly, not taken seriously, and cannot be given a huge section because it would confuse readers into thinking it is more well accepted than it is. DreamGuy 21:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• DreamGuy, it would have been courteous if you had discussed this first, before making a statement, and removing the material.
• The section was not a huge section, and added just three small paragraphs, and every sentences was thoroughly referenced. Authors such as William Whiston, Ignatius L. Donnelly, W. Comyns Beaumont, Bill Napier, and Mike Baillie are all notable enough to have separate entries in Wikipedia. It seems me that that the "cosmic" field is, or was, taken seriously by some, and under Undue weight, we can indeed name "prominent adherents".
• If you think the section would confuse the reader, then use your skills as an editor, to qualify it, and add sources supporting your point of view, rather than forcing it, and confusing readers into thinking there has been no work in this direction.
• Now we have Hamlet's Mill's back in the Theoretical section. Is there a theoretical school of mythology? Surely it is "Cosmic"? I also note that you mentioned "acceptance". It was not claimed that these views were readily accepted. --84.9.191.165 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Although DreamGuy has not replied, I've restored the section on "Cosmic interpretations", changed some of the subheads to better reflect the sub-category, and added a new related section on Geomythology which is full peer reviewed (and includes cosmic interpretation), and demonstrates current interest. --84.9.191.165 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a large section gives the topic undue weight. I have reverted and suggest you work an any changes here first. Sophia 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• There was only about a couple of sentences on each interpretation: cosmic, cometary, planetary, catastrophic and geomythology, all thoroughly referenced.
• Although larger than catastrophic interpretation, the cosmic interpretation of myth has now been given NO weight, despite the weight of literature from many notables (as mentioned above), and others.
• Neither have you given ANY weight to Geomythology, a now-recognized peer-reviewed and current field of academic research.
• I also don't understand why Hamlet's Mill's is back in the Theoretical section. --84.9.191.165 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, it is absolutely deceptive and bad faith to revert to a disputed version of the article over the long-standing, consensus-approved version just because one editor didn't bother to respond to some anon editor on the talk page. Don't tell me it's not courteous to discuss it on the talk page before removing it when you didn't discuss it on the talk page before tossing it all in there. Pretty much everything you are trying to do in that section is wholly unacceptable by multiple Wikipedia policies. If you would like to try to come up with some addition that fits policies, please make suggestions here, and if you can get a version that is acceptable as following policies by others here, then you can add it. Until then if you try to put anything like that back it will be reverted on sight. DreamGuy 00:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Accusing me of being "absolutely deceptive and bad faith" is incivil, especially after accusing me of lying.[9]
• I did not just revert to a previous version, I made additional changes in an attempt to improve the text,[10] as did 67.136.238.48 (whom you reverted as well).
• There is no such thing as a "long-standing, consensus-approved version" of an article (except perhaps Featured articles). Editors are encouraged to be bold and can offer edits at any time with discussion. I entered into discussion immediately you made your change
• I asked you some specific questions in my discussion, and for whatever reason you decided not to reply. Not only is this considered bad etiquette, but it is recommended proceedure that "If no reply comes, make the substitutions"[11]
• Reverting my edits "on sight" is not part of the Wikipedia editing process which requires an element of consensus. That requires discussion, not statements.
• All my edits have been in good faith, and extensively references. I note that you have provide no evidence to support your statements. --84.9.191.165 01:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 84.9.191.165 (talk · contribs) ("84.*") and DreamGuy (talk · contribs), lemme see if I understand the problem:

• It seems the argument is over addition of content by 84.* to the page as an issue of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight.
• Judging by 84.*'s edits, 84.* argues that a mention of the fringe theories should be included or at least reworded from within their respective sections.
• Judging by DreamGuy's reversions, DreamGuy would argue that the fringe theories should not be included or reworded from their present state.
• Therefore: Might I suggest the addition of another section to the article referencing the alternative research; or, even better, I might suggest to 84.* to create a new page on, perhaps Catastrophic mythology or something similar? Let's try not to belittle anyone. If Intelligent design gets its own article, then it would make sense that other minority fringe theories should be heard as well, just so long as they adhere to Wikipedia's list of policies.
• However, it would stand to reason that fringe theories should only receive extremely small mentions on the widely-accepted theories' pages.
• If anyone has any other ideas/suggestions, please share them. Remember, please avoid personal attacks of other editors, assume good faith, and above all Don't be a dick. Cheers. --slakr 01:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone is editing without an account does not mean you should assume bad faith. This appears to be what DreamGuy is doing. If no one is participating in a proposed edit made on the talk page, especially for a week, I would say it is safe to assume that there are no objections. I see DreamGuy as acting fairly uncivil at the moment, as he did not make any objections prior to 84.*'s edits. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with slakr and Zero1328. The person seems to have not posted any more offensive or non-agf remarks since his initial ones so I don't think it's a big deal.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

guys, elaborate discussions of policy and courtesy aside, the fact remains that the anon editor has added a bunch of fringe authors to the article, and reverting him was the right thing to do. Ideally, the reverting should be done courteously, but the important point is that the revert is made. This article should mention catastrophism, but any further discussion of this fringy topic should go to the main article. This is covered by WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions

I also agree with slakr in that putting a rather large paragraph on the mythology article would be quite the case of undue weight. However, given the amount of sources, it most definitely can qualify for its own article (remember that notability =/= correctness). I would suggest the IP pursue that course. I also agree with the above editors that DreamGuy was a bit too harsh in this case and should definitely apply WP:AGF in the future when dealing with any editor, registered or not. Sasquatch t|c 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. The criticism was that the catastrophic interpretation of mythology was fringe, on which I agreed. I had then expanded the section to include the cosmic interpretation of myth, which is a much larger interpretation than the catastrophic, and as highlighted by the notable authors included as references.
• Additionally, Geomythology is a recognised and current research area, of which only a couple of sentences was included in order to describe it? --84.9.191.165 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Myth: Cosmic interpretation

I appreciate the recent discussion, and would welcome discussion from DreamGuy too. I acknowledge that the catastrophic interpretation of myth is a minority subject, and the one sentence we have is sufficient. However, there is also the cosmic interpretation of myth, which is a larger minority subject. I had suggested:

• We add a section on the Cosmic interpretation of myth of which the catastrophic interpretation is a small part, and Hamlet's Mill should also be part (isn't also a comic interpreation?)
• We add mention of the cometary and planetary interpretations (which are different from the catastrophic ones); there are numerous notable authors such as William Whiston, Ignatius L. Donnelly, W. Comyns Beaumont, Victor Clube and Bill Napier, and Mike Baillie are all notable enough to have separate entries in Wikipedia.
• Related is Geomythology which also deserves mentions as an emerging science with a significant academic interest.[12] --84.9.191.165 11:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome discussion? The catastrophism end of things has been thoroughly discussed above. DreamGuy 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You were unwilling, or unable to, answers my earlier questions posted in 13 May 2007.[13]
2. The proposed discussion above was on the cosmic interpretation of myth, and not the catastrophic interpretation, and again it appears that you are unwilling or unable to answer them, or unable to distinguish between the two.
3. But if reverting my text [14] (for the forth time) gets your own way, because you are unable to continue with a discussion, then so be it.
4. I would still welcome discussion with you. Brains beats brawn any time. --84.9.191.165 17:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

what is it with all these fruity claims that "myth is 'really' this or that"? Such an approach can only ever yield fringy pseudoscholarship. What do we even mean by "cosmic events/catastrophes"? A catastrophe of order? Sure, we can link geomythology and what not, but leave it at the linking, please. dab (𒁳) 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by claims that "myth is 'really' this or that". I'm making no such claims, only trying to describe of the views of people like William Whiston, Ignatius L. Donnelly, W. Comyns Beaumont, Bill Napier, Mike Baillie, and others. --84.9.191.165 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am aware that the claims aren't your own, and by all means, they should be discussed. Just not on the main mythology article. We may well discuss sensibly how to best present this. of your authors, Whiston may qualify as a bona fide author in the history of Mythography#Myth_theories. Donnelly is a Victorian crackpot. Beaumont is a textbook eccentric. Napier and Baillie seem to be modern pop culture mythographers. You can mention their views in mythography provided that they have been voiced in peer-reviewed publications relevant to the field. If you can document these position in context, it may also become clear what you mean by "cosmic", and if the position has sufficient notability (cranky as it may be), it may warrant its own article. dab (𒁳) 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agreed with the earlier editors that the catastrophic interpretation of myth is a minority viewpoint, which is why there is only one sentence. But the cosmic interpretation (that myths derive from cosmic events), is a more significant view, but except for the quote from Hamlet's Mill, other authors are completely excluded from the article.
• All the references I provided are from reputable academics and I believe accurately describe the views of Whiston, Donnelly, Beaumont, etc. I would welcome peer-reviewed sources that judge them as you described, as I couldn't find any.
• The notability of the cosmic interpretation of myth is represented by the number of authors who described it, such as William Whiston, Ignatius L. Donnelly, W. Comyns Beaumont, Bill Napier, Mike Baillie, Johann Gottlieb Radlof, Franz Xavier Kugler and others. We don't have to agree with them. --84.9.191.165 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

indeed -- it appears that by "cosmic interpretation" you mean "comets and stuff". The problem is that cosmos is itself a mythological term, and only secondarily used to refer to "outer space". The question thus arises, whose term is "cosmic interpretation"? You are more than welcome to provide a detailed discussion of these ideas, closely referenced, and I assure you it will find a place on wikipedia, either at mythography, or at a separate, dedicated, article. The burden to establish terminology and its notability lies with you, however. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL gives us a few hits, but nothing coherent at first glance. I have no doubt the idea is floating around, especially in 19th century literature, but it is your task to establish that this is in any way a coherent hypothesis that has been discussed in academia. If you're going to discuss comets, you are back to catastrophism, and to lunatic stuff like Comets and the swastika motif. Incidentially, it would be nice if you could take the latter article and incorporate it into a larger discussion of "comets in mythology" or what. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• We can solve the semantics simply by not using the term "cosmic" (or by qualifying it), even thought it's not used elsewhere in the article. And as I've mentioned previously, the sources I used are by academics (except where referencing the original works). I propose the following paragraph (excluding footnotes):

In their 1969 book, Hamlet's Mill, Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend suggest that myth describes actual "cosmic events",[ref] a view shared by some 19th and 20th century writers who have attributed comets,[refs] and mythical planets [refs] as the origin of myths. More recently, writers such as as Immanuel Velikovsky have suggested that planetary and cometary catastrophes in their interpretations of myth,[refs] but their work finds only rare mention in academic publications, and their consideration is "away from the mainstream academic debate"[ref] --84.9.191.165 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• This represents less article text than was present yesterday, and briefly mentions the cometary, planetary, and catastrophist interpretations of myth. And yes, it would make sense to have a separate article on the subject. --84.9.191.165 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Velikovsky does not belong on this page as this he represents a tiny minority view regarding mythology. See WP:UNDUE. --Velikovsky 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)