Talk:Mythology/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead

This may seem like a small point, but here it goes. The lead currently starts with the sentence

Mythology is the study of myths or a body of myths.

On a strict logical/semantic level, this sentence makes no sense. MYTHOLOGY is not a body of myths (unless the "body of myths" in question is the body of all myths). Rather A mythology is a body of myths. For example, Greek mythology is a body of myths, and Norse mythology is a different body of myths.

When I performed a major rewrite of this article back around Feb 09, I worded the first sentence as follows:

The term "mythology" can refer either to the study of myths or to a body of myths.

Later someone changed the first sentence, presumably because he/she wanted "mythology" to be the first word. I do not see why this is necessary. If it is, can someone tell me why? (If I'm wrong, just let me know.)

If no one objects within a week, I will change the first sentence back to its original form for the sake of logic and clarity. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

greek mythology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.169.95 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no one has responded (substantively) to my post. I will now proceed to make the change. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mythology

Please explain the revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mythology&diff=prev&oldid=334877906 BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference was from oxford dictionary http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myth BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been explained to you on other talk pages. Please see WP:TEND. Ben (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Circular references

I'm not quite sure what to do with this, but I thought it was worth pointing out that

• "Myth" redirects here.
• The first sentence of this article contains the word "myth" which is a hyperlink back to this page.
• The first sentence of this article reads "The term mythology can refer to either the study of myths or a body of myths" which may have been helpful at one time but is no longer, due to the point above.

I should also note that there is a brief discussion about redirecting to this page in Talk:Myth, followed by an agreement to do so. Any suggestions about how to resolve this? Mike Duskis (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor flaws and inconsistencies

- This does not seem appropriate [in 'Related Concepts']: " ==Origins of myth==BY Ezra Griffin "

- Where do you find a caduceus on the 2000 Belga note? If you are referring to the lion in the middle front, this is the Belgian Lion, according to the Wikipedia entry for 'Belgian Franc'. A caduceus is the insignia of the greek God Hermes and I cannot find it in the picture.

86.51.114.108 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)js

Definition of "myth"

The first paragraph of this article is not written well and is not well referenced. The part that I don't like is this:

In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[5][6][7] Many scholars in other fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[7][8][9] In a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[10]

The references are not specific. For example, "sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form" is essentially plagiarized from a book called, Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth by Alan Dundes which says the same thing except with the word "man" instead of "humankind." Source

Alan Dundes is actually the only major reference I could find who defines myths as being essentially "sacred." Everyone else refers to myths as being "traditional" or "legendary" stories. It would be more accurate to reword sentence with "myth" being defined in the broad sense, while noting that a some authors, such as Alan Dundes, refers to a myth as being, "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form."

For a more comprehensive and balanced coverage of the complexity of defining "myth" see Chapter 2 of Myth: a handbook, by William G. Doty. (Preview: [1])

All of the citations in the quoted paragraph (currently 5-10) need to be verified because they're missing critical information like full author name and title of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndm85 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Adjectival term

Is it more appropriate to say "mythical" or "mythological"? Most of the lists which include that in the title us "mythological", but wikipedia's the first place I heard that term.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor split needed

A Mythology (fiction) article is needed, as too many uses of this "term of art" link to this article, which really has nothing at all to do with "mythology" in that sense, a term closely related to universe (fiction) and canon (fiction). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the use in fiction is in fact closely related to mythology as academics use it; the only difference is the mythographers openly disacknowledging veracity except on an allegorical level. But AFAIK the Egyptian writers of the Book of the Dead might have done the same thing! The best answer is to add a section to this page that summarizes the universe and canon articles. JJB 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Collections of mythical knowledge

Was there a collection of knowledge, sort of like an encyclopedia, that provides detailed information of any of the ancient myths that was written at the time they were concieved like encyclopedias written in stone tablets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jung to Campbell Citation Needed Issue

Although I am not the originator of the citation needed template on this page , I can see the issue clearly and would like to impose this simple request:

Could the original author of this section (20th Century...) please do a re-write so as not to insinuate that all 20th century scholars of mythology think alike? The attempt to include a segue from each preceding paragraph is implying such a premise. In particular to the Jung/Campbell reference, the highly notated current citation is attempting to do this specifically and, while Campbell and Jung may have had some congruent views on the subject of mythology, The phrase "Following Jung,..." is attempting to segue from the previous paragraph wherein the main discussion of Jung is in reference to his theory of archtype and, while some of Jung's work was an influence to Campbell's own theories on mythology and an inspiration for Campbell to expand his cultural knowledge further, it can not be said that Campbell directly agreed with Jung's archtype model. The current citation provided, explanation and all, still does nothing to prove this in any concrete manner and could be considered original research. WP:OR

If there is no correction or discussion in one week's time, I'll do a re-write of the section.Hyzerflip (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hyzerflip (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, unclear, and seemingly unrelated passages removed

I removed the following text from the section on the functions of myth:

The figures described in myth are often the result of circumstances which may have a moral interpretation. They are worthy role models of human beings because they embody certain combinations of human and animal traits. For example, the Centaur is part man, part beast. The upper body, being human is a symbol of rationality. The lower body, being of a horse is a symbol of animal instinct. The Centaur thus represents the uniquely human psychological challenge of animal instinct in relation to the rational mind. This example shows that myths are not only valuable due to cultural assumption (or 'spirituality'), but because they portray a set of symbols which can be interpreted morally. It is not necessary to introduce divine experience to explain these symbols, since a symbol is by definition a depiction of an idea in physical form. (bird = power, horse = beast, tree = knowledge).

Prior to the modern age, the experience of life is embedded in religion or in cosmology (story-telling) and not separate from it. This is because, in pre-modern cultures, religion was not an "experience to enter into", but a way in which life was organized around story-telling and was thus present in all aspects of life..

In the function of myth, it is important to distinguish between mythology itself, and the concept of a mythical era. Claude Levi-Strauss shows that mythology may be derived, like science, as a natural outcome of the relationship between conscious human beings and nature. Cultures create mythological beings in order to explain human behavior. For example, a person who acts maliciously may be described as like a snake. Over time, this becomes a myth of a snake-man. The idea of a mythical era, however, is a modern construct which is not real in any sense, because it is not possible to a specific time in the past or present when human myths did not exist.

Mythological beings are still being created today. One modern myth, Frankenstein , is an abominable, part-human creature resulting from a scientist who has lost touch with any moral sense. Another modern myth is the android, a machine which resembles a human in ever other way, but does not actually exist in reality. However, one of the primary reasons they are considered in science fiction, now, is because they represent the idea of a rational machine attempting to be human. Both examples, although they do not exist, introduce moral questions which are useful to humans.

Most of it was not sufficiently sourced (e.g. the stuff on Frankenstein). Remember, we cannot add things into the article just because it seems "obvious" to us that they are myths; we need published sources saying that they qualify as myths. Also, the bit from Levi-Strauss was sourced, but it was put in the wrong section (i.e. the section on function rather than the section on origin).

Finally, I fail to see the direct relevance of the claim that pre-modern religion was not an "experience to be entered into". The editor seems to have added that to justify his/her decision to reword the section so that it no longer claimed that "traditional societies" use myths to attain "religious experience". I changed it back. The source (Eliade) for the "religious experience" statements explicitly states that pre-modern, traditional societies do use myths to attain religious experience. There may be other sources with other opinions, but they can be mentioned here only if they explicitly discuss myth (not religion in general).

If anyone disagrees with my edits, please discuss it here. Thanks.

--Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

General edit for clarity

I edited the "Function of myth" section to sound less authoritative and more properly attribute the ideas presented to the specific scholars form which they originated (as is already done throughout most of the article). I moved Joseph Campbell's specific definitions of the functions of myth to this section form '20th century theories' for obvious reasons. I have properly linked and cited all changes. I would appreciate cogent discussion of these edits here rather than broad-brush reversions.Hyzerflip (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section Needed

Hey, I noticed a few problems with this entry. First off, it needs a criticism section. This would include the critiques of mythology given by the Pre-Socratics (such as Heraclitus), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as the Skeptics and probably the Epicureans. This criticism section should also include the work on those opposed to myth such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Kaufmann, and mention and give a link to Demythologizing (and inevitablly its friend Deconstruction). Why is there no mention in this forsaken entry of the great philosopher, Ernst Cassirer? Anyone ever heard of his study, "The Myth of the State"? Wherefore critiques by George Santayana? And of course, the blatant Orientalism that is part and parcel of the whole enterprise of explaining away and summing-up other people's belief systems (a la Edward Said)?

Teetotaler 4 October, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Hi my name is Mitchal could you explain me of why early people would write it down even know If they dont exist. I may sign in this wikipedia but i havent decide yet so I'm 14 year old and maybe if you could help me understand this so I can work in my project Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.66.28 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding the school I graduated from regarding Mythological Studies

Under External links I added the school I graduated from in Mythological Studies. It is the only school in the country strictly offering an M.A./Ph.D. in the field, therefore I felt it may be appropriate to include in this section. thoughts or comments? Nholly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Euhemerist / Evemerist transliteration

Many of us would appreciate seeing the alternative transliteration of "euhemerism," to wit "evemerism," included in the dictionary/wikipedia. This word "euhemerism" is currently enjoying some degree of popularity, but the fact remains that nobody is running around today saying "Euhemeros," "euhemerism" or "euhemerist" because these transliterations are difficult to pronounce. Thus, these words have been transliterated from the Greek also as "Evemerus," "evemerism" and "evemerist," for the same reason that the word "euangelion" became "evangelism."

Here are a few book citations where the transliteration "evermerism" is proffered:

In "Christianity and Mythology" (1900, p. 315), J.M. Robertson comments about "Euhemerism (or Evemerism, as the word ought to be written in English)..."

A search of Google books will reveal the use of this term and spelling as "evemerism" dating back to at least as early as 1856, in the London Quarterly, v. 6, which has an entire chapter entitled "Evemerism Fills All History with Fictions."

In the mid-20th century, Edouard Dujardin said:

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

Furthermore, a Google Book search for the transliteration "evemerist" or "evemerism" reveals 208 books using those terms. Many of those books are 100 years old, given the transliteration authority.

Experts in ancient and modern Greek assert that such a transliteration is appropriate, pointing to the word "evangelist," which, like "Euhemeros" is spelled with a "u" or upsilon in the orignal Greek. Yet, in modern Greek the "eu" is pronounced "ev." As Wikipedia states:

"The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word e?a??????? (transliterated as 'euangelion') via Latinised 'Evangelium,' as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists)....The verb form of euangelion, euangelizo (transliterated "evangelism")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism#Etymology

The same process may be found with the Greek word "I thank" or "thank you," which is spelled "eucharisto" but which is pronounced "eVkhareesto." Because of the difficulty in pronunciation and the fact that the word is in reality pronounced "evemerism," we are requesting that you included this transliteration in your dictionary/website.

The following relevant link may be helpful: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2160

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jose5643 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Mythicist Position

Many of us would like to see the mythicist position worked into the article here.

Acharya S has created the first succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists in her book, Christ in Egypt (2009):

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."

As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 11-12

"What is a Mythicist?" article

The Mythicist Position video

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

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

Phatius is right. A mere "see also" is more than enough. In my view, this article needs to remain completely off-limits to the Christ myth nerds. It is enough that they cause havoc at the dedicated Christ myth theory (now unhappily called "Jesus myth theory") article. It is unacceptable that this red herring should have even the slightest influence on the main "mythology" article. A definition of "Mythicism" as, essentially "Mythicism represents the perspective that mythological characters are mythological characters" is idiotic. "Mythicism" in the Christ-mythers sense of the term is "the perspective that Christ is a mythological character". Period. Acharya S cannot be cited as a relevant source to anything other than Acharya S. This is pulp literature on what would be a serious topic. But since it is clearly impossible to turn the "Christ myth" topic into something encyclopedic without going insane, I prefer to turn a blind eye to such stuff being discussed there as if it was "literature". But I cannot see myself agreeing to any such stuff being submitted to mythology. There is enough good literature on the topic to make this WP:UNDUE by several orders of magnitude. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This article should at least acknowledge the existence of modern religions, or non-modern religions that have survived modern times, and how the only thing that separates these religions from the notions of mythology is that many people still believe these modern notions. The article should not act like modern religion doesn't exist or that it's something completely different from mythology. At least make mention why modern religion is not discussed in the article, rather than acting like it is completely irrelevant to mythology. Modern religions and mythology are essentially identical and should not be treated as though they are completely different. Pulseczar (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead as summary

The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Because of prior editing cycles it is primarily an apologetic "usage" section to ensure readers don't argue over the word usage later. I will add to and rearrange the lead with the view of demoting some of its current text to the "related concepts" section (which would be better titled "terminology") at a later date. JJB 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's a good idea to split the 2 examples (comparative mythology and Greek mythology) off into their own paragraph? While reworking the article a while back, I specifically wanted those examples to illustrate the fact that "mythology" can mean either the study of myths (as in comparative mythology) or a body of myths (as in Greek mythology). Removing them to a separate paragraph makes it less clear what specific point they're supposed to illustrate. (I also think that the phrase "As examples" should be changed to "For example", but apparently people disagree with me.) I won't press the point, because I don't think it's that important. But I thought I'd put in my two cents. By the way, I think your edits, overall, are a step in the right direction. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no, and thank you. That paragraph indicates text that is overweighted on a single point and can be demoted from the lead to its own section. But I think you'll like how I do so. JJB 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Science slap

"Because it is not the job of science to define human morality, a religious experience is an attempt to connect with a perceived moral past...". Ummm, dont tell that to the secular humanist, the humanist secularist, the agnostic, the athiest. We dont need religion to make us humane. 108.23.43.73 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mankind" versus "Humankind"

An IP keeps edit-warring removing "Humankind" and replacing it with "Mankind". I think "Humankind" is a gender-neutral term and so it has to stay in the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Bahá'í Faith

He is also edit-warring on Mythology with mocking edit-summaries to the effect that "the SPI went well". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You´re the one pointedly edit warring over a minor edit. The summary was in response to your last revert in which you gave the reason as socking on my part. In response to Sound, I think humanity sounds much better. I don´t see anything wrong with it while humankind has several problems which have already been said. Edgth (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are edit-warring without discussing your edit on the talkpage of Mythology. If you had bothered to read the many edit-warring notices on your talk, before you blanked all of them, you would have noticed that you are not following the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle WP:BRD but you are blindly reverting without discussion. I opened a discussion on the talkpage of Mythology, you are invited to participate there. Otherwise you have no consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion you opened was in response to the mankind edit in which you say the gender neutral word is preferable. It´s now humanity which cannot be controversial and doesn´t need discussion. Edgth (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. For the same reasons we are having the discussion here. You cannot go on different articles unchecked and keep replacing "humankind" with "humanity". This needs either a centralised discussion or at least consensus on the talkpage of the article as we are doing here. Not an opportunistic, edit-war assisted, replacement of the word every time you feel like it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn´t. ´´Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy.´´ You still haven´t provided a reason why mythology shouldn´t say humanity. Unless humanity contains some controversy I haven´t heard of, then there´s no reason to revert the change on mythology. Edgth (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Being bold does not give you the license to edit-war in multiple articles to impose your POV and to reignite edit-wars on the same two articles using deceptive edit summaries that there is no consensus, especially after being blocked for the disruption you caused in round 1. And you still have not proved that "humanity" is a more apt or more frequently used word in Mythology-related literature and why it should be preferred over the word "humankind". Therefore you cannot come here and demand that the word "humankind" be replaced with the term "humanity" without a serious review of the literature to establish the superior usage and more suitable meaning of the latter term as applied to Mythology. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It´s not a deceptive edit summary. When three users express dissaproval of humankind, there has to be many more to support it for there to be consensus. There were not many more. I don´t have to prove that humanity is used more in mythology related literature. I feel that humanity sounds better and so I changed it. It would be a huge pain to edit Wikipedia if we had to follow your made up rules. Edgth (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it is not an excuse to erase a word that has wide usage in Mythology-related literature. And these are not "my made-up rules". This is common sense and relates to the currency and common usage of the term. I feel that humanity sounds better is not sufficient. You have to prove it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Google results: "The creation of humanity" About 307,000 results (0.14 seconds) vs. "The creation of humankind" About 331,000 results (0.17 seconds). Conclusion: When combined with the noun "creation", "humankind" is the preferred term. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m replacing humankind with humanity. Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind. I don´t need to follow all those conditions you laid out. Your combination of creation and the words don´t prove that humankind is preferred in sources discussing mythology, just that a certain combination of words is slightly more popular than another combination. Edgth (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mankind gets double those hits but you edit warred to keep that out of the article so I don´t think you value Google hits too much. Edgth (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community and just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to get your way. Consensus also doesnt' mean that everyone has to agree, but in this case the vast majority of people (everyone but you) is ok with the current version of the article. Your comment "so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind" doesn't abide by Wikipedia's policies, and if you are going to be a useful contributer to Wikipedia, you have to learn to play within the rules. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Jeff3000 said. Also Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind.: Unacceptable. Please read WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Mythology deals chiefly with the creation of humankind. Google results just established that the common term when dealing with creation is "humankind" and not "humanity". Google easily trumps your IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response. You have submitted no valid reasons for keeping your massive edit-warring-imposed edit on Mythology. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mankind gets double those hits but you edit warred to keep that out of the article so I don´t think you value Google hits too much. Not so. There is the added restriction as you have been told many times that it must also be a gender-neutral term. This discussion is about the two alternatives. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are actually enjoying the way this has been going round in circles. Forgive me if you really are concerned about the quality of the articles you have been attacking but that is not the impression anyone would get from reading your comments. Read WP:EW - YOU are the one edit warring - the people you are accusing of "edit-warring back" (???) have been doing no more than defending a sensible compromise consensus. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m not, I hope he´ll drop this pointless conflict. We´re discussing the mythology article, not this one. On the mythology article he is pointlessly edit warring to keep humankind when there´s nothing wrong with humanity. Edgth (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn´t see the other text amongst this jumble. To Jeff I was talking about the mythology article in which there´s nothing wrong with using humanity instead of humankind, so I can change it just because I prefer humanity. To Dr.K, humankind beats humanity by just a few percent and it just proved that a combination of words gets that few percent more, not that humankind is used more in mythology sources. Edgth (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have proved to you using Google that "humankind" is the preferred term in creation-related accounts which is exactly what Mythology covers. End of story. No amount of obfuscation on your part or I just don't like it or I didn't hear that arguments can refute this fact. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The mythology article is broad and here is a more relevant result: [2] over 7 million for humanity while humankind has less than 10% of that: [3]. Edgth (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, these are unconnected occurrences of the two terms. Your edit-warring addition to Mythology is connected to the "creation of humankind", not just "humankind". This combination of terms is important: usually explaining how the world or humanity came to be in its present form [4], i.e. "was created". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also: "humankind was created" About 303,000 results (0.30 seconds) vs. "humanity was created" About 270,000 results (0.31 seconds). Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the article doesn´t use those words ´´creation of...´´ so how many other sources haven´t used that exact language you typed into Google? Your Google hits are pointless because it just compares a specific combination of words. My hits accurately show that humanity is preferred when discussing mythology while, again, yours doesn´t show anything like that. Edgth (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. We don't have to use the exact language. But when the Gods "create" something, that something is described more often as "humankind" not "humanity". Therefore when your refer to "creation" or equivalent terms, the more popular term associated with them is "humankind". However let's wait for other editors to chime in because I can see there is no way you will accept these results. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is correct. This article doesn´t use the word create, it says came to be. Your hits don´t count that and many other sources that similarly don´t use that exact language you typed in. Sure, let´s waste the time of others on this ridiculous debate. Edgth (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

[5] may prove interesting to all concerned in this discussion. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We´re debating humankind and humanity now. I compromise on mankind with humanity but for some (Personal attack removed) reason, that wasn´t good enough for Dr.K and we have this long and very, very boring discussion. Edgth (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

for some OCD reason....Be careful, thin ice ahead. Do not personally attack a fellow collaborator. Perhaps you should discontinue your input into this "boring discussion". Read the article. It deals with all 3 words. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr.K would you be happy if it read ´´the human race´´ instead? Edgth (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I find "the human race" a bit dramatic in its tone, but this is just a personal opinion with no encyclopedic value. However, given Buster7's input and the paper he linked to about the two previous terms and also your constructive proposal, I'll let this go. I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As I already explained on your talk your latest edit was not what I agreed to and I asked you if you could revert back to the previous state. What I said above was: I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer., which meant "I will not contest the word 'humanity'". Your edit removed not only the word "humanity" but also the last remaining occurrence of "humankind" and replaced them with the phrase"human race", a result which removes one occurrence of each term from the article and replaces them with two occurrences of the phrase "human race". This is unnecessary repetition and it is not what I had agreed to. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay it´s now humanity, hopefully that pleases everybody. Edgth (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

To avoid repetition and return to the status quo before your "human race" edit I replaced one "humanity" with "humankind". Now everyone should be happy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am too. But Edth has started the edit-warring as soon as he was released from a 48 hour edit-warring block because now he insists that "humanity" must be at lead. I see no good reason why this should be so, especially given the Google results discussion, and in fact I agree with Paul August that both occurrences should be "humankind" but as a compromise I am ok with one of each, but "humankind" is better to be at the lead, since I agree with Paul that it is also less ambigupous. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the satisfied is in response to the lead containing humanity. As that is what this whole discussion was about, your pretend compromise is transparent. Also, the google results show that humanity is far more common when combined with mythology, rather than yours which is just a certain combination of words which is useless. Edgth (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for "humanity" to be explicitly at the lead. Paul August prefers both words to be "humankind" anyway and I agree with him. So overall the present arrangement is a fair compromise. Let's wait also for Buster7 to clarify his position. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes there was. In fact, you explicitly said so, claiming that it only included the lead and not the rest of the article. Besides, what else could it be? This whole discussion revolved around our edit war in the lead. Edgth (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. Here is you removing all occurrences of "humankind". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That was after the discussion when I realised that there was another humankind.... so irrelevant. Edgth (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. It is still edit-warring and you had no consensus to remove it. Neither do you have consensus now. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don´t need consensus every time I make an edit. The discussion and consensus was for the lead to be humanity, not also for all other humankinds to stay in the article. Edgth (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes you do. You cannot go about replacing the word "humankind" with "humanity" in every occurrence. You have some sort of POV ideological opposition to the word "humanity" and you have no consensus to keep replacing it. None. Zero. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No I don´t. I can go about replacing humankind with humanity. They both mean the same thing so unless there is a good reason for a specific article to have humankind instead, I can change it. Please begin a fruitless search for a policy or guideline that says otherwise. Edgth (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You have already got two blocks for doing just that. If that doesn't tell you something I cannot advise you any further. Plus, as I said before, let's wait for some othe people to chime in, including Buster7. It is fruitless to keep going around in circles just between the two of us. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A policy or guideline could advise me further. So after the long and boring discussion we had that resulted in humanity, you want to have another discussion to come up with humankind. You´re depressing me. Edgth (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to still be a misunderstanding. WP:DR tells us: "Most situations are not urgent. Give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! Because there are no deadlines, you can always fix the problem later." It really amounts to composition and creating a well written article. Using the same word throughout when others are available detracts from the overall interest of the reader.```Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Consider: Optimizing the flow of our writing is an important aspect of article editing. Flow comprises a number of aspects. The continuous use of the same word when other words are available ruins flow. Flow can make our writing smooth, and therefore clear and enjoyable to read; a lack of flow can make it bumpy and disjointed.```Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Buster7. By the way, are you ok with the present balance and location of "humanity", "humankind" and "mankind"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I support the present balanced use of the 3 choices. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Buster7 for taking the time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the article managed to get protected, and I see Nishidani resorting to poety at User talk:EdJohnston, but for those without the patience to work it out for themselves, would someone please outline the current state of play? I gather the article is in its "established" state (how it has been in recent weeks)? And someone proposes this edit to the lead to change "humankind" to "humanity"? My dictionary is quite happy with "humankind"—why would it need to be changed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We currently have had two discussions and consensuses. The first is humanity in the lead and the second is one use of humanity, one of humankind and one of mankind in the entire article. The reason for the change to humanity is that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before and google hits show that humanity is far more commonly used, both by itself and in conjunction with mythology. That´s why I find having a single use of humankind pointless when we have humanity to replace it. Edgth (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently there are two humanities, two mankinds and one humankind. It is not redundant. It doesn't repeat itself. A fair distribution of descriptive words. Maybe it's time to Call for a request for comment if that simple fact isn't obvious. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No it´s fine, I can live with a humankind buried somewhere in the article like the terminology section. Edgth (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Words are not "buried" somewhere in Wikipedia articles. They are used to convey meaning and clarity to our reader. Aside from that, are you now saying that you support the use of the word humankind in the terminology section? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I´m betting you write poetry :). Support would be a bit strong, but I can live with it, as long as the previous discussion and consensus is finally implemented and it is no longer in the lead. Edgth (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Concensus is that humankind is in the lead. That's where it stays based on the consensus of every editor except you. What I'm asking is if you now want to change the "humanity" in technology to now be "humankind"? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

After the long discussion, as seen above, humanity was to be in the lead. Why is it now to be humankind? No, I obviously don´t want more humankinds in the article. Edgth (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question, but I have yet to see a response to "My dictionary is quite happy with "humankind" [in the lead]—why would it need to be changed?". Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It´s just below your comment: ´´The reason for the change to humanity is that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before and google hits show that humanity is far more commonly used, both by itself and in conjunction with mythology.´´ Edgth (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the change to humanity is that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before and google hits show that humanity is far more commonly used, both by itself and in conjunction with mythology. Both statements are demonstrably wrong. The term "humankind" is a very widely used and understood term of the English language so the claim that few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before. is patently absurd, meanwhile the Google results claim is also wrong because I demonstrated exactly the opposite with my search as outlined above. You have some ideological opposition to the word "humanity" and you have declared multiple times that you don't "like it". You have also issued some weird manifesto under which

No I don´t. I can go about replacing humankind with humanity. They both mean the same thing so unless there is a good reason for a specific article to have humankind instead, I can change it. Please begin a fruitless search for a policy or guideline that says otherwise. Edgth (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your POV-driven ideological bias against the term "humankind" speaks for itself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: This story started on 20 July 2013 (UTC) with this edit where IP 190.43.168.63 replaced the stable version "humankind" at the lead with mankind and got reverted by me. Then a similar IP 190.235.46.44 came into the fray and reverted me. IP 190.235.46.44 then started an edit-war and finally replaced the longstanding "humankind" with "humanity" as a compromise. IP 190.235.46.44 is a self-admitted sock of Edgth. Conclusion: the logstanding stable version had "humanity" "humankind" at the lead and it was only changed recently by IP edit-warring and Edgth, before it was restored in the present version. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that was my IP, not a sock that I used once and decided to continue using on this article so that it wouldn´t appear as though two users were in favour of my edit, as that would be socking. But of course this has been explained many times to you. Also, your results do not show that, it shows that you came up with a specific combination of words and humankind managed to come out first. Whilst my hits are useful as they are not an exact combination of words. They show that humanity and the word mythology got 7 million hits on google while humankind got less than 10% of that. Edgth (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

'stable version had "humanity" at the lead' I think you mean, had "humankind"? Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. With all these edit-conflicts I had to write fast. Corrected. Thank you very much for pointing this out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. Good catch. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Buster. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I´d like the clause that contains humanity in the terminology section to be removed, as it is just a repeat with one word changed of the clause in the lead. Thus, the lead would then be changed to humanity and there would be no repitition problems with humanity and the current repitition would be removed. I suspect that would require a different RfC, as you´d be eagre to revert that. Edgth (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Invalid concern. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to provide an overview of the article contents, including details of the definition. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Valid concern, as the lead is supposed to be a ´´summary of its most important aspects´´, not replicate them. This in the terminology section: ´´Alan Dundes defines myth as a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society".´´ I would remove ´´a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form,´´ as it is unneeded due to the quote that follows and it repeats the sentence in the lead. Edgth (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The terminology section expands on the definition and explains it, while the lead, quite properly, just borrows the short definition and presents it at the beginning of the article. No reason or need to obliterate it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I´m sure there´s a sentence in some guideline that we shouldn´t repeat things exactly in an article. As the lead already contains a summary of Alan´s views, the terminology should just show his quote, as the quote doesn´t need to be explained. The article is essentially saying that same thing three times, first in the lead then twice in the terminology section. Edgth (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Linguists like humankind

A trip to my bookshelf found this,

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

That´s only relevant if we´re debating between mankind and humankind. Edgth (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparative mythology

Is this statement :"However, modern-day scholars tend to be more suspicious of comparative approaches, avoiding overly general or universal statements about mythology"

is generally representative of all views or its only according to Northup? (Northup, Lesley. "Myth-Placed Priorities: Religion and the Study of Myth") --PLNR (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

garbled text in article

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

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

I have no idea what's meant, so I'm going to mention it on the pages of the three projects that claim interest in the page. --Thnidu (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Page Link for hyperbolic

Hi,

In second paragraph, the link to the word "hyperbolic" (phenomena to truthful or hyperbolic accounts of historical events) taking us to the page "Euhemerism" where there is no definition for hyperbolic. 

Thanks, Allwinalexbaskar (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm New

I just recently joined this project because I'm a big fan of mythology and I looked at the to do list but I'm not sure about how to do some of those things. You guys seem to have been involved in this project more than I have so if y'all can help me out in any way shape or form it would be appreciated.(PythonessofDelphi🐍 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

"Modern mythology" needs citations

The section titled "Modern mythology" needs to be rewritten to incorporate inline citations using the Wikipedia style. Right now all it has are authors' names and page numbers making it look like a college term paper. I realize this will take some time but it would make this article much better. Be a hero or a heroine and fix this! Thank you! Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)