Talk:Hylistics

Expert opinion

On 1 April 2024, barely a week after its creation, this article was flagged by User:Klbrain as needing an expert's attention. The concern was: "A technical term, relatively recent in origin and used in few sources. Does this warrant inclusion?"

The same tag was added by User:StarTrekker to the related article Hyleme on 5 April 2024, apparently with a similar concern.

In my opinion, those concerns are unwarranted. While the concept and methods of Hylistics are relatively new in the field of narratology, they are valid concepts which have already been taken up by other scholars. For example, Manuel Ceccarelli applied the methods of hylistics in his papers "Remarks on Mesopotamian Divine Epithets and Their Use in Incantations and Incantation-Prayers" (Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21, 2021, 131–160 [1]) and "Der Mythos als Wirkstrategie in den Beschwörungen: Interdisziplinäre Betrachtungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des mesopotamischen Materials" (E. Zomer/ N. Heeßel (edd.), Legitimising Magic. Strategies and Practices in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Magic and Divination, Leiden 2023, 91–145 [2]), or by Daria Kondakova and Jakob Kohler in a presentation at a conference in Brussels in 2023 ("Messy Myths: Applying Linked Open Data to Study Mythological Narratives" [3]), where they also showcased a database using hylistic terms and concepts. Their database Messy myths: how can we compare mythological narratives? is available online.

The appreciation for Zgoll & Zgoll's method, which indeed constitutes a new field of study, is also illustrated by their being awarded the price of the Peregrinus Foundation of the Mainz Academy of Sciences and Literature in 2023.

All in all, I think Wikipedia can do without a warning label on this article (and the other one).

Best, Jonathan Groß (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan Groß: My main concern is that the article is written very technically and might be hard to understand for the average reader.★Trekker (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

My concerns remain, that in reliable sources this seems to be a neologism of Zgoll which hasn't had widespread acceptance. We also have a similar new page at Hyleme, overlapping in content. Given this a merge would seems to the best approach (for reasons of overlap if there is a notable topic at all. Checking this is precisely why we need an independent expert Klbrain (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(Not a fan of endless indentations.) Thanks for your comments. @StarTrekker: I personally find it hard to put myself in somebody's shoes who hasn't already a technical understanding of the topic. Can you highlight a few examples on Talk:Hyleme so we can discuss them there?

@Klbrain: What exactly do you mean by "widespread acceptance"? I have cited a number of examples for acceptance by scholars from Switzerland, Belgium and the UK, as well as a prestigious award. I would say that this narratological concept is well-established. If it hasn't been adopted universally (which wouldn't be reasonable to expect even if more time had passed), this is because it relates to a specific way of describing and understanding myth which does not cancel out other, pre-existing approaches, but rather complements them. Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan Groß: You make some good points. While the article you've mentioned above aren't primarily on the method, I accept that the argument that it demonstrates use, and the prize does indicate some independent accessment of the importance of the work. The question of why two pages are warranted rather than one still remains though. Klbrain (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think hyleme can be an independent article, if it's expanded to be more independent.★Trekker (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan Groß: I think a good thing would be to explain what field the term is primarly used in (mainly studies of Greco-Roman myth/religion I think I can gather?) and what expertise and notoriety the mentioned scholars have. Preferably the first thing should be done in the lead section, and the second possibly in a "definition" or "history" section that explains how and why the term was coined. As of right now the hyleme article feels like someone needs to read another article first to understand it.★Trekker (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@StarTrekker and Klbrain: I can look into making the articles more easy to digest, as well as setting the hyleme article apart from hylistics. Both terms are indeed deserving of their own article and I appreciate that their current setup and phrasing is not ideal. I don't have time right now, but I will try and make some time next week or the week after that. Until then, please don't merge anything. I know wikiwiki means 'fast', but I am not that fast nowadays. Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal discussions are usually slow, and I tend to approach the list from the back end! Klbrain (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. I admit that my unfamiliarity with enwiki's way of operating makes me a bit nervous, but I see I've come across the right people. Jonathan Groß (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn by proposer; there is no support for the merge, and some counterarguments. The articles haven't improved since May, so I think that improvements along the lines outlined above would help readers. Klbrain (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)