Talk:Mythology/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives
7 October 2005

Contents

Lead section

I have changed the definition of mythology in the lead section. My sources are as follows:

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica article Mythology:

In the distant past, however, before any sciences existed, the beginnings of the world and of society were explained by mythology. /…/ How comprehensive a developed mythology could become was given written expression in Greece by Hesiod. [1]

According to the MSN Encarta article Mythology:

Mythology, the body of myths of a particular culture, and the study and interpretation of such myths. /…/ The term mythology might include all traditional tales, from the creation stories of ancient Egypt to the sagas of Icelandic literature to the American folktale of Paul Bunyan. [2]

According to H. R. Ellis Davidson in Gods and Myths of Northern Europe:

A mythology is the comment of one particular age or civilization on the mysteries of human existence and human mind …

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Mythology 1. a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. b. A body of myths associated with an event, individual, or institution: "A new mythology, essential to the . . . American funeral rite, has grown up" (Jessica Mitford). 2. The field of scholarship dealing with the systematic collection and study of myths. [3]

According to the Merriam-Webster:

Mythology: 1 : an allegorical narrative 2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : mythos 2 <cold war mythology> 3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth [4]

--Salleman 08:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, good. I approve wholeheartedly of this change. elvenscout742 23:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement about "creation myth"

One notable type is the creation myth, which describes how that culture believes the universe was created.

I have removed this statement from the article and reassembled the conjoining segment accordingly. This is atheist bigotry, and might offend those who hold their religious beliefs to be of a higher sacredness than mere "myth." Salva 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting... this is neither atheistic nor bigotry, and I can;t for the life of me understand how you could think so, unless perhaps you assumed that the word myth means false, in which case you should read the article to get a better understanding of the word as it's being used. DreamGuy 06:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Spirituality template

DreamGuy and 172.167.18.52 deleted Template:Spirituality with virtually the same derogatory comment (same person)? Do any other users have any substantive objections or support for this template here? — RichardRDFtalk 01:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost definitely the same person - if one examines 172.167.18.52's edit history his few history comments are directly akin to DreamGuy's. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he just forgot to log in (rather than using a sock puppet), but I'm still certain it was him. I'd support this template being put in here, if everyone else (except one) does. elvenscout742 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't a question of forgetting to log on, it was that Wikipedia was having technical problems at that time and logging me out by itself constantly. Wouldn't be a question of sockpuppeting anyway as it wasn't trying to appear to be anyone else. But then leave it to elvenscout to try to sneak in a hint of wrongdoing when none exists... You lost your arbitration case, so give it a rest already.
This template is a god-awful mess... it lists anything and everything but the kitchen sink and some all-encompassing umbella term of "spirituality". It's like looking at the bottom of a page on Dogs and seeing a template listing "things with fur" that includes rats and coats and mold and stuffed animals. Templates are supposed to be used for closely-related topics, not a mish mash of whatever someone decides to throw together in one huge long list.
Furthermore, I am obviously not the only one who thought the template was horrible, as people on other articles who didn't want to see it put it up for deletion, and there are many, many responses from people who want to see it kicked off Wikipedia completely and not just this article. So much for the "(except one)" condescending talk from the peanut gallery. DreamGuy 06:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't really care about the template. If others don't want it that's fine. But, DreamGuy, did I not make it clear that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt? And were you not the one who assumed the worst in me, claiming that I was only editting this article to undo your work? elvenscout742 08:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If you don't care about the template, why are you even posting? Oh, that's right, to make more attacks. Giving the benefit of the doubt means not making baseless accusations in the first place, not making them and then talking out of the side of your mouth and pretending that you are giving the benefit of the doubt. Stop showing up solely to complain. Your arbitration case went down in flames as they found your accusations "utterly unpersuasive."ou honestly were here for some reason other than undoing my edits and attacking me, there's be some evidence of that on the history of the article, and there isn't. To the contrary, your edits on the article and on talk are pretty clear cut. Just let it go and stop whining. DreamGuy 14:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I did give you the BotD. I made no accusations, if you re-read my post, but rather said that you had probably forgotten to log-in. I now accept what you say about technical problems not letting you log-in. You are the one that keeps bringing up old arguments (the above being just one example - and, BTW, it did not fail: it just mysteriously disappeared without a word). I'm not going to try to verify what you say about opposition to this template - I'll just accept it. My User Page and my User Contributions clearly indicated months before I had ever even heard of you that I have an interest in mythology, and that is why I edit the article of that name. Feel free to check them. Indeed, if you look at the history of our conflicts with each other, it began with you changing a mythology-related article that I had written. elvenscout742 15:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Myth and legend

The basis of my latest round of changes it to distinguish between "myth" and "legend" and to urge contributors to this page to maintain a more precise use of the term "legend" which in common parlance is bandied about imprecisely and inaccurately. Also, I deleted to the references to the Brothers Grimm, although that might want to be kept in reserve for later expansion on traditional elements found in myth. I have left in the reference to Lévy-Bruhl, although like the reference to the Grimms, it's an antiquated source. There has been research on this topic within the last hundred years, and I'd like to see this article reflect that someday. Bruxism 19:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


unbiased.

The beginning of the mythology section only lists Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology and Norse mythology. Now it includes some more great examples. (unsigned, but by User:69.245.196.132)

I think those edits are going to be troublesome. It's best not to list modern religions there yet until the later section explaining in more detail, so as not to offend those who are used to the less precise meaning of myths as false. From the tone of your comments it sounds like you perhaps don't know the meaning either and are perhaps listing them to try to lash out at those who believe them. DreamGuy 09:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Myth" is ambiguous

Please do not attempt to tell people the Bible is a myth. That may be your POV, but it is not shared by a majority of people, and the Orthodox Church, that is official in 12 countries, has declared that the Bible is NOT a myth... Wikipedia has agreed by consensus that it will not take sides in this dispute, much as I'm sure some would love to have it "declare" the exact opposite of the Orthodox Church and say the Bible IS a myth... Find something else to do than make peoples minds up for them; Wikipedia MUST be neutral and not tell people their sacred book is a Myth. I can point you to Pages and pages full of argument on this. See also the article Religion and mythology. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong on a large number of things. Mythology does not mean false. Calling something as belonging to a certain type of mythology does not mean that it's false and does not attack the religion in anyway. Go read the lead to this article, for crying out loud. A myth is a story that the culture telling it believes to be true about supernatural events and etc. -- it's all there. We can;t very well change the entire meaning of mythology because you got confused into thinking we're talking about myth = false, because then this article would not discuss the field using the correct terminology. Wikipedia most certainly does NOT have a consensus to not label something as mythology when it most definitely is, and by labeling narrative stories in this way it's not taking any side for or against any religious belief, it's simply taking the side of the people using the word the way the word actually means. Wikipedia MUST remain neutral, and that means using the words the way they actually mean and not dumbing things down just people people who don;t understnad the meanings of words and don;t bother reading the article in question get upset. DreamGuy 22:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Look up myth in a dictionary. If you or any other Christians are offended by the fact that the Bible IS mythology, then it is only because of the ignorance and bigotry bred by Christianity: a myth is NOT a falsity; it is a particular brand of story. The outright lie that a myth is a falsehood was invented by Christians to ridicule other religions that they called "mythology". It is NPOV to treat Christianity and Judaism the same as other mythological and religious systems; it is POV to say that the myths of Christianity are not myths but hard facts, setting them apart from those of other religions. elvenscout742 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not wrong. I've seen all of this argued before at Category talk:Christian mythology. Every dictionary of the English language states that "myth" and "mythology" mean FALSE. When you say the Bible is "myth", you are using an ambiguous word, one of the meanings of whicj is FALSE. Just because some are trying to pull the wool over the people's eyes with semantics doesn't chjange what all the dictionaries say. If you say the Bible is false, it's only your POV. Other people have a different POV. You must respect that and find some wording that is Neutral, ie one that doesn't state that the Bible is false. You will find the same problem if you state that the Quran is false. It's called an attack on the faith of people here and wikipedia policy expressly forbids it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[5]: 1 and 2 are the real definitions; 3 and 4 (relatively rare secondary usages) are informal, non-academic language that have no place in an encyclopedia article that should be taken literally. NO good dictionary says "myth=false"; a myth is a simply a kind of traditional story, and whether it is true or not is irrelevant. To say the Bible is not myth by this definition is an outright lie, and to use the informal definition as justification for advancing a Christian POV is against Wikipedia policy. I don't know about the article on "Christian mythology", but if it has reached some "consensus" that "myth=false", then it no doubt needs my help. Anyway, sometimes consensus doesn't work. Remember? "Wikipedia is not a democracy"? English Wikipedia is overrun by Christians out to advance Christian POV that the Gospels are fact, and it has few mythology experts (like any other community of humans) to disagree. That doesn't mean the latter isn't right. elvenscout742 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
EVERY dictionary says that "Myth" means FALSE, and this has been discussed already ad infinitum at Category talk:Christian mythology especially the two archive pages. The overwhelming conclusion there was that calling people's Scriptures a "myth" is blatant POV, because of the ambiguity of the term, and looks like I will have to take it up the chain of command again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you not check the link? Dictionaries generally give the definition that I cited (a traditional story with symbolic significance, etc.) and do not say that such stories are false. See Hindu mythology and Buddhist mythology: followers of those two religions are not trying to hijack Wikipedia with fundamentalist propaganda that set the two apart from other mythological systems. I don't know if expressing my well-researched views on Christianity in general here would count as a personal attack or POV, but the fact is that any religion that actively seeks to corrupt knowledge by doing such things as perverting the definitions of words so as to discredit and ridicule others is a moral evil, and fervent supporters of this evil have no place on Wikipedia. elvenscout742 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Elvenscout, your POV regarding what religions do or do not have a place in wikipedia, or what religions are or are not evil, are solely your own POV, and in fact, according to wikipedia policy, should be kept to yourself, even on a talk page. How many wikipedia articles would you like me to point out where the word "myth" is used explicitly in the sense of FALSE??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, recently I've discovered quite a few instances where the fact that Wikipedia can be editted by anyone led to articles using inaccurate definitions of the word (check Special:Contributions/Elvenscout742 for some such). In fact, I'd quite appreciate you to point out a few dozen, to speed up my search. Could you do this? Thanks!
The fact that it is sometimes used in Wikipedia does not make it right, and does not give you the right to push your POV based on it. The Apocalypse IS mythology, and no fundamentalist who doesn't know what the word means because their religion has explicitly perverted it is going to change that. BTW, I did not say that Christians have no place on Wikipedia. I said that POV-pushing fundamentalists have no place on Wikipedia. Check my User page. Many of my "hero"es listed there are Christians, but they did not get there for being such, whereas Lafcadio Hearn got there partly for hating missionaries and Tokugawa got there specifically for saving his people from them. elvenscout742 00:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, for starters, how about the article Historicity of Jesus... This is supposed to be an "academic" article, yet it clearly uses "mythological" (ie FALSE) as an apposite of "historical" (ie TRUE) in the following sentence: "The difficulty of distinguishing which parts of Jesus' life are historical and which are mythological is one of the main obstacles for Biblical historians." I will add some more examples up here fairly soon. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Mythology has been understood in roughly the same way in both articles: as a story -- believed by the culture in question to be true -- that explains events in supernatural terms. However, I think that the Jesus article uses "mythological" in too broad a sense, because as you note it's implying that myths are by definition not true, whereas the definition here is clear that the culture in question believes in their truth and makes no claims about their actually being true or not. This article is not POV, but the other is. James James 00:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
When mythological is used to contrast with historical, the reason it comes out sounding like false is the framing of it... By definition, myths can have historical basis and be completely true, but in that case they'd be BOTH myth and history. By saying history versus myth you are really saying history versus those myths which are not history. The sentence could be phrased so there's less confusion, but its inclusion there doesn;t support your statement. And, in fact, going around and quoting what editors who don't know the ins and out of mythology use as the meaning of mythology in no way, shape or form automatically means that they are right. That'd be like going to the Evolution article and telling all the people there who use the academic meaning of the word and understand the basics of the field that they aren;t right because someone over on some religious article used the term differently. Similarly, if I want to know the meaning of "immaculate conception" it seems logical to me that the editors on the article about that topic would know more about it than some random article trying to make a reference to it. It seems like this is a case of someone off on some side article not knowing what the heck is going on trying to raise a fuss and trying to force the main article to be wrong because he's so used to being wrong elsewhere. DreamGuy 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed section

Please stop removing disputed tags. The fact that you dispute that there is a dispute is preposterous; I am allowed to dipute something, and if you dispute that there is a dispute, it only proves further that there really IS a dispute here in re: your POV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV, as per all the info above. Try to listen to reason, Codex. elvenscout742 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool down, fellas

Please, no more reverts from either side, and DreamGuy, remember that Codex is trying to edit in good faith and just doesn't see your POV. No need to be rude to him for that. Codex, please don't keep trying to insert text that has no support here. Put you preferred version on the talkpage and let's discuss it. It's the only conceivable way you're going to get anything inserted that makes you happy.James James 02:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While there are stories in the Bible which are "mythological" in nature, not everything in the Bible is mythological. The Acts of the Apostles, for instance, while it contains some accounts of miraculous events, is largely a prose explanation of the earliest Church (albeit from a particular and biased POV). To label the entire Bible as mythological is not only extremely POV, it's also inaccurate. Mainstream, respected Bible scholars - even those who don't affirm the Christian faith - don't believe it's entirely mythological. KHM03 13:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
But you see, we have been arguing that mythology (or, in Dreamguy's case, myths) can be true or false - it doesn't matter to whether or not it is mythology. Even if the content of the New Testament is historical fact, it is still presented as a part of a greater mythos. And even then, we are not arguing about whether the whole Bible is mythology, only whether a particular incident in the Book of Apocalypse is an example of an eschatological myth. Two users have not disputed DreamGuy's POV (which in this case is not really POV, but accepted fact) - one obviously conservative Christian who couldn't be bothered finding out what a myth is has been hijacking this article, and a vandal with a grudge against DreamGuy helped them once, without any more than an ad hominem remark that ignores the fact that consensus is with DreamGuy on this occasion. elvenscout742 13:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you...yes, myths can be true or false. I agree. But not everything in the Bible is "myth". Genesis 2...yes, mythological. Daniel in the lion's den...Jonah and the great fish...yes. The Sermon on the Mount? Certainly not...whether or not it's an accurate record of an actual sermon by Jesus, it's not myth. It's a sermon. Revelation, too, isn't technically myth. Apoclayptic literature, while containing symbols and "general strangeness", is a separate category altogether. It's not the best exapmple one could pick to say that the Bible contains mythological elements (or, for NPOV reasons, "may contain mythological elements"). Understand, I have no problem saying that Genesis 2 is mythological...true or not. But, from the POV of a writer/editor, does the Revelation stuff really add to the article? Is it worth it? Is it so important? I don't think so. Maybe a better edit would be (if you can get a source, of course) something like: "Some scholars believe that Biblical stories such as Daniel in the lion's den and Jonah and the great fish contain elements of the mythological." If you can source something like that, you'd probably be on safe ground. KHM03 13:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, we are not arguing over what is myth and what is not. (BTW, it could be argued that whether or not the Sermon of the Mount happened, its mythic content is comparable to the Havamal or the Bhagavad Gita - accepted as being mythological in nature.) Look at the context of the disputed wording: it is only giving an example of an eschatological myth, and noone is ever going to dispute that Revelation is not about the "catastrophic end" of the "present world order of the writer". elvenscout742 14:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
But can't we find a compromise? KHM03 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Not when it is only being used as an example of apocalyptic literature, which is in turn only being used as an example of a type of myth. elvenscout742 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Understand, too...
I think Codex is a good editor who has made some invaluable contributions to WP. He is attempting, sincerely, I believe, to make this article NPOV. "Myth" raises the hackles of many Christians, many of whom view it as POV language. He's trying to improve the article. KHM03 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you must understand that this is a misunderstanding on the part of Christians who do not understand the word, and they should change their views to fit this encyclopedia, not demand that the encyclopedia be changed to fit their narrow point of view and cater specially for Christians who may be offended by a correct use of the word when it does not do so for Hinduism or Shinto, or indeed for other religions that were more willfully and brutally oppressed and destroyed by Christians, such as Asatru. I blame the Christian majority that exists in the English-speaking world for this problem. elvenscout742 14:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, many Christians don't "get" the full meaning of the word. No question. But, that's an awfully large group...and when we can compromise for the sake of being NPOV, isn't that best? We certainly don't want to upset anyone when we can find a compromise. KHM03 15:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, refusing to acknowledge the meaning of a word, or even pay attention to the article as a whole is always going to cause problems. And Codex is not demanding that we enforce NPOV; rather demanding that we give special treatment to Christianity, and enforce Christian POV, or at least use awkward language to appease intolerant and ignorant people who will not listen to the correct definition of a simple word. elvenscout742 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well then I am asking that we find a compromise which will satisfy academic integrity while appeasing the concerns of Codex and others who have honest concerns about the terminology. KHM03 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Elvenscout742, with all due respect, saying "Christians...do not understand the word [mythology]" and "they should change their views" is at best unhelpful and at worst inappropriate for Wikipedia, as is calling anyone "intolerant and ignorant". There are many Christians who understand that "mythology" has a particular usage in academic discussion (to denote a body of stories that carry belief) and who have no problem with that usage, whether applied to their own beliefs or to those of others. There are also many (among whom I would probably count Codex), who also understand the academic usage but who find it ambiguous and therefore inappropriate when applied to any religion.
"Mythology" is by no means a "simple word", as you maintain. Its ambiguity comes from the multiple meanings of "myth". The sense that you seem to favor here is "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural" (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) — which is a perfectly legitimate and correct definition and entirely appropriate here. However, it is not the only definition.
"An unfounded or false notion" is also a dictionary definition (Merriam Webster Online), as are "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology" and "A fictitious story, person, or thing" (both also from the American Heritage Dictionary) — all of which are equally legitimate and correct definitions, but entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia.
To quote a comment I made on Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#Dictionary definition:
A good NPOV solution will not affirm, deny, or imply that any belief is true or false. Since anyone who looks in a dictionary can see that "Myth" can imply an unfounded or false notion, "mythology" is not a good NPOV solution.
Yes, there are many faiths that do not have a problem with being called "mythology" (although the Hindu, Islamic, and Shinto examples most commonly cited come from non-English speaking cultures and therefore may not be so closely attuned to the niceties of the English language). There are even certain faiths that prefer "mythology" (certain neo-pagan traditions, in particular). However, since the "myth = false" usage is widespread, commonly understood, and well-established, great care is necessary to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality policy when discussing anyone's beliefs.
Regardless of why the English language is this way or who has oppressed whom, using ambiguous language without qualification is a straight and smooth road to bitter battle. I therefore second Keith's request for "a compromise which will satisfy academic integrity while appeasing [those with] honest concerns about the terminology." JHCC (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:KHM03 wote: "While there are stories in the Bible which are "mythological" in nature, not everything in the Bible is mythological." -- And I don't see anyone anywhere making the claim that everything in the Bible is mythological, so this argument is particularly pointless. The sentence in question was about a specific story, which is definitely a type of myth. We have a long, long article here with many, many myths mentioned, but the person in question freaked out because he wants a story *he* apparently believes in to be treated as if it were somehow more deserving than all the others referenced on the page. That is an extreme case of POV... If he were actually worried about the idea that myth = false and it being a value judgment that was unfair, he'd be objecting to everything in the article for disparaging the Norse beliefs and Hindu and everything else. That's not what he did at all. He distorted the meaning of the word, as clearly spelled out in the article for those who only knew the imprecise slangy defintion, and only applied it to a mention of a story -- not a belief -- as part of a larger religious tradition he subscribes to.

How, pray tell, are we supposed to avoid uptight religious people who don't bother to read the article from being upset and come up with some way of rephrasing things, when doing so applied fairly across the beliefs of all cultures, would prohibit the mention of myth and mythology entirely on the article about them? The only objection this person has is rooted on his inability to read and understand the clear meaning of the word and to distance himself from the preconceived ideas of what that means to his own one faith while apparently perfectly fine with the supposed disparaging of all others... Do you have a realistic solution for this? I think the problem lies in Codex's head and not the article at all, as his suggested changes just add bias in favor of his religion. DreamGuy 19:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Codex is not the only person with concerns about calling religious beliefs or narratives "myth", even if his/her edits usually (but not always) apply only to Christianity. Others have discussed this as well; see Talk:Christian mythology, Talk:Christian Mythology (different page than the previous), Category talk:Christian mythology, Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 1, Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 2, not to mention (lest I be accused of Christiano-centrism) Talk:Hindu mythology and Talk:Religion and mythology. Even if Codex does have a limited focus, that does not mean that he/she is wrong. If I corrected someone describing The Seven Samurai as a documentary film, would I be wrong unless I also corrected someone so describing Citizen Kane? JHCC (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like way may have to have people from the main Mythology article take a look at all of those discussions and clear up the misunderstandings there. It seems ludicrous to me that people could have had discussions on these subtopics and side areas of mythology while completely ignoring the main Mythology article. The switching of Christian mythology to Christian narratives as a category is EXTREMELY biased and just plain wrong. It looks like a bunch of people made all sorts of decisions upon how to treat the word without actually knowing what the word meant in the first place. This is the main article, someone totally screwing things up on side articles that didn't have informed people on them certainly is not a reason to change the main article to fit in with the mistaken and jumbled up notions on little hidden away parts of Wikipedia. Of course the wonderful thing now is that you now know the defintion of the word and can go update all of those sections and instantly resolve any problems there. Religious peoplpe trying to claim that "Myth" is offensive can be educated and grow intellectually and accept that since whether it is true or not makes no difference, it's all myth. Boom, end of any problems. If someone wants to make it clear on some other page all they have to do is refer to, gosh, it's almost too simple, the main article on the topic for the full explanation. It'd be nice if elvenscout, myself, James James and others on the main article could patrol every single last mythology article and reference on Wikipedia to make sure people are doing it right, but we have limited time here. I'd have hoped people would read the main article to clear up any confusion, but I guess not. The fact that they are confused over something that was already well hashed out and taken care of on the main article on the topic -- the one with the most traffic, most editors, best references and broadest consensus -- doesn't mean that we can suddenly throw out everything ont he main topic to satisfy the haphazard whims of people off doing their own thing in nooks and crannies. Wikipedia needs to be consistent. This article did it right, we've been over it again and again, so it's time for these other people to actually read and educate themselves on the fundamental underpinnings of the entire field, which they can easily do right here. But to say that lots of peoplpe were upset about the meaning of the word when they didn;t know the meaning of the word isn't an argument that holds much weight. There's no excuse for them to have not learned the definition by now. DreamGuy 10:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
In answer to Dream guy's question: "How, pray tell, are we supposed to avoid uptight religious people who don't bother to read the article from being upset and come up with some way of rephrasing things [...] ?"
Here's a simple suggestion on how to do just that in the future: Instead of stating categorically "Revelation IS a myth" as if it were unassailable, indisputable, proven fact (when this terminology is most definitely disputed, and this can easily be sourced, just look at the Pope's latest book) instead, phrase it as "Revelation MAY be a myth", at a minimum for NPOV. Otherwise, this is liable to crop up repeatedly, but maybe you really enjoy that sort of thing. Also, instead of trying to make this issue about one person, what I would call a "Clintonian tactic" (yes that's my POV) it's already clearly gone way past just one editor, just like it did with your attempt to make the issue of sourcing "Religious neutrality.org"'s verifiability about one editor, but I'm not falling for that one because I know better than to think it's just me. The Pope alone speaks for millions, and I'm not even Catholic. Since when has it been wikipedia's business to decide what Bible books are canonical and what are "myth" (by any definition) ???ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
But Revelation is a myth regardless whether it's true or false. You are simply muddying the water by confusing "myth" as defined here with another, less commonly used, definition of the word. "Myth" means "untrue thing" when you say "They're saying I went out with her last night. That's a myth, man." The problem with your discussion, Codex, is that you want an article that is primarily about religious (in a broad sense of that word) narratives that involve the supernatural to say that a prime example of what it is talking about may be one. But Revelation is one. Perhaps you'll consider the wording I suggested, or similar, that the upfront definition reads "a narrative etc that people believe to be true without prejudice to its actual truth or otherwise"? James James 07:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Continuously going back to try to claim that myths mean false and that therefore saying Revelation is a myth is POV is to wholly ignore the fact that we spelled out our terms at the beginning of the article specifically so people like you couldn't be confused if you'd actually bothered to read it. Claiming Revelation MAY be a myth is to suddenly change the definition midarticle. And the particular definition you use there if applied to the entire article would make EVERYTHING in it be a "May or May Not Be A Myth". But, again, you want to give Christianity some special status and declare it more correct than any other belief system out there, so you don;t care about everything else on the page being called a myth. That's an extreme case of POV-pushing, and in order to pull it off you suddenly have to get rid of the academic definition as fully spelled out earlier in the article whenever the article mentions the Bible. These complaints simply do not work in the slightest, as they are inherently extremely biased and based simply on preconceived incorrect ideas. The problem isn;t with the article, the problem is with you. DreamGuy 10:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest "neutrality" tag

Do we really need to put a tag anywhere on this article because one solitary editor objected against consensus to one sentence in which he fails to read or understand the very clear defintion of mythology earlier in the article? Come on, let's get real here.

The newest tag claims: "The neutrality of describing religious beliefs as mythology is disputed", but that's not an accurate. Beliefs are not mythology, and haven't been presented as such in this article. The stories within certain religious texts are accurately described as mythology, but the beliefs about them are not commented upon in any way. DreamGuy 19:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As the person who added the tag, allow me to answer your two questions in reverse order:
1. Quite correct; the beliefs are not being described as mythology. I sit corrected and have changed "religious beliefs" to "religious narratives", which more accurately reflects the article's content.
2. Given the inherent ambiguity of "mythology" (please see my comments above), a warning tag is quite appropriate. It gets people talking about the issue on the talk page rather than constantly rewriting and reverting, which in turn can create some interesting and unexpected solutions. Codex has referred to the lengthy discussion at Category talk:Christian mythology. The same issue came up there, with all the arguments presented here eloquently (or not) advanced there as well. The ultimate solution was to create a new category for "Christian narrative", which turned out to be a much more useful and precise categorization that avoided the entire "myth=story+belief" / "myth=false" issue. I hope that adding the warning to the article will involve more people in the discussion and hopefully bring more minds to bear on finding a creative and widely acceptable solution.
JHCC (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the definition of "myth" pretty much is "religious narrative", we're a bit stuck. James James 22:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The article has to stick to one definition of the word. If you suddenly switch it to some alternate meaning in the middle of nowhere, the whole thing falls to pieces. If you deny the meaning of the word as used by academics, there is no article anymore. We define our terms at the beginning of the article, so anyone taking the time to read it would not be offended. Anyone not bothering to read the article and switching meanings of words around can find all sorts of things to be offended by, and it's not like we can prevent it, because adding yet more words to claarify it again won't help because we already have someone not bothering to read the words. DreamGuy 09:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article simply cannot carry a tag saying that the description of religious narratives as myths is disputed. Given that that is what myths are, disputing it means that there is no article! Codex's dispute is with the English language, not with this article.James James 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally separate issue

The introduction defines myths as "stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity." While many (if not most) myths involve the supernatural, many do not. For example, one could argue that the various stories of George Washington's honesty, courage, and natural leadership all contribute to the mythical figure, "The Father of our Country" — even though none of these are supernatural, leaving aside the superhuman strength necessary to throw a silver dollar across the Potomac. Suggestions? JHCC (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your example is again one of not knowing what the words mean. Washington is not a mythical figure. He's a historical figure, with legends and folklore built up around him, but sloppily using the word "myth" would be wholly incorrect, and thus invalidates your whole argument. 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's truer to say that myths are stories that are believed to be true regardless of any consideration of their literal truth and that means they include the supernatural to interpret natural events etc. It does not matter whether Washington really did cut down a cherry tree. In this sense, the events can be considered "supernatural", actually.James James 23:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that we ought to work out a compromise. Can we discuss the concept of "myth" and still be respectful of those who have a problem with using that term in refernce to the Bible? Can the article still work? KHM03 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Editing help

From WP:NPOV:
The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.
That's all I'm saying. Thanks...KHM03 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that a myth just is a religious (broad sense) narrative that (usually) involves the supernatural, and is believed as an explanation, prophecy or justification. This has no regard to truth or otherwise, because the key to the definition is that it is believed regardless of its truth. Largely, this is because myths are not open to falsification in the same way other items of belief are. Revelation is a good example of an eschatological myth. To say it "might be" a myth is just wrong. It quite simply is one. To say that it is not is to misuse the word. You can't appeal to a dictionary, because dictionaries define a wide spread of usages of a word, and one definition might not apply to a particular context. A for instance would be that here in Australia we say that champion footballers are "legends". We don't mean that they are imaginary figures, or that they didn't actually do what they are said to have done! That definition does not apply.

You quoted the NPOV policy. I think you need to give it another read. It doesn't require us to bow the knee to tiny-minority views. Most people who talk about "myths" are aware that they are not making judgements about their truth or otherwise. Such judgements would be besides the point, because what counts is the culture's believing them to be true. When it says "describe the controversy", it does not mean "describe the controversy among editors". It means "describe the controversy among those who discuss and study the subject".

So, I think that if Codex can find someone saying that Revelation is not a good example of a myth, he can include the sentiment. I wish him luck in his search for a reputable source for that. James James 07:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, the argument over the ideal has been lost in the argument over the semantics. I read over the article as written, and cannot find anything in it that offends my particular spiritual sensibilities; at the same time, we must take into account that if this article has caused this much debate amongst those of us involved in the writing thereof, how much more might it cause in the minds of those who come to it for answers? Except for a small minority view, the definition of mythology commonly ascribed hereto (and implying therein the explicit statement that "myths" may be true or false) has been accepted; perhaps the question, then, is might we expand the lead-in paragraph to diffuse this topic from the beginning? If we state clearly, at the start, that we recognize there may be confusion involved with the word, and explain our point (as it is explained clearly later on), then we have done our service both to ourselves and to our readers. Those, then, that still take offense with the whole concept are free to argue all they like, but I'd consider the matter closed for the time being; and Codex, brother, do not take this as an attack: I fully understand your point of view; in our sensibility, this article is equivalent to saying that Jesus and Zeus have the same level of validity. I assure you that this is not the case truthfully, nor even the expressed ideal of this page. We must let the Spirit anger us into righteous acts, not destructive ones....this is a lesson I myself have only recently started to understand. Peace! Jarrod Jabre 11:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (edited again to change some horrific spelling on my part)
An excellent suggestion, upon which I expand below. JHCC (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
To claim that Jesus and Zeus do not have the same level of validity is highly POV -- you may personally believe that, but you cannot edit the article with that goal in mind. Period, full stop. DreamGuy 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

we must take into account that if this article has caused this much debate amongst those of us involved in the writing thereof, how much more might it cause in the minds of those who come to it for answers

Frankly, if they don't bother reading the intro, in which mythology is clearly defined, I don't really care what debate it causes in their minds. James James 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion

There has been a good deal of discussion of the various dictionary definitions of "myth", which has to some extent highlighted its ambiguity. That ambiguity is at the center of the current debate. It might, perhaps, be useful to step back and take a look at the history of the word "myth" and how it has been used over time (language being a flexible and evolving thing), which may help us resolve this difficulty.

First, to review. The American Heritage Dictionary's definitions sum up the various definitions quite well:

1a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

All of these are current, legitimate, and correct usages in the English language as spoken today. We cannot discount any of them, and we cannot ignore any of them. This means that anyone who insists that "myth" has only one correct meaning, whether "myth = false" or "myth can mean either true or false", is simply wrong.

This article deals with myth and mythology in the first two senses, as Elvenscout742 points out above. That is not to say that the other two senses do not exist, or are wrong, or are incorrect. It is to say that we must be extremely clear, in the interests of NPOV, that the latter two senses do not apply here, that the focus of the article is limited. We must be sensitive to those of any religion or of no religion who have concerns about using a potentially loaded term to describe religious narratives, whether from their own religion or from any other religion.

The problem with the article as it stands is that the various aspects and definitions of "myth" are spread out through it, with little organization and occasional imprecision. For example, the leading paragraph contains a definition of "myth" that is limited to the first sense above, the "What is mythology?" section mentions the sense of "mere story" but dismisses it, and the "Related concepts" section finally mentions the pejorative sense of disparaging cultural or religious beliefs, as well as the sense of "commonly held but erroneous belief or a misconception." (This last section, while rightly pointing out that "Myths are not the same as fables, legends, folktales, fairy tales, anecdotes or fiction" helps no-one by claiming that "sloppy usage has blurred the distinctions in many people's minds" but not clarifying the distinctions. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.)

Expanding on Jarrod Jabre's comment above, I would therefore suggest the following:

1. Begin the article with a discussion of ALL senses of the word "myth", starting with the etymology of the Greek Μυθος and the late Latin mythos and discussing the development of English usage over time. Putting all this information at the head of the article, clearly and neutrally presented, will make it much easier (and less potentially objectionable) to restrict the following discussion of mythology to an academic sense of religiously or culturally meaningful narrative, which does seem to be the purpose of this article.

2. I would strongly advocate including a very clear disclaimer that, in the context of the Mythology article, Myth is to be understood in the limited sense of a type of narrative embodying religious or cultural meaning and not in the sense of something that is false or untrue. We could also add a note to the effect that Wikipedia takes no position on the truth or falsity of any religious belief, in adherence to its policy of the Neutral Point of View.

The article could therefore begin something like this:

Mythology (Greek μυθολογία mythología, from μυθολογειν mythologein "to relate myths", from μυθος mythos "narrative" and λογος logos "speech or argument") literally means the retelling of myths – stories used by a particular culture or religion to explain the nature of the universe and humanity and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events. In modern usage, "mythology" can mean a body of such myths (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths.
Etymology and usage
The English word Myth carries a number of different meanings, which bear close examination. The ancient Greek Μυθος originally meant simply word or speech, and by extension, a story or narrative. This quickly took on the sense of fiction, and both Pindar (d. 443 BC) and Plato (d. ca. 347 BC) contrast Μυθος with Λογος as "historical truth." Most ancient usages of Μυθος are specifically as fiction; see here for details in the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon entry on Μυθος.
The English language has retained this early usage as myth as fiction. The 1961 Oxford English Dictionary defines myth primarily as:
A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. Properly distinguished from allegory and from legend (which implies a nucleus of fact) but often used vaguely to include any narrative having fictitious elements. (Volume VI, p. 818)
More recent dictionaries also include this sense:
An unfounded or false notion (Merriam Webster Online)
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology and A fictitious story, person, or thing (both from the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition)
With the development of Mythology as the academic study of myths (as opposed to simply a body of myths or their telling), Myth has taken on a wider meaning. Since many — indeed, most — ancient myths "embody some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena" and particularly the origin (often supernatural) and meaning (often religious) of those phenomena, myth has come to describe any traditional narrative that embodies religious or cultural meaning, especially in reference to a particular community's worldview or cultural identity. Thus, the traditional stories that different religions use to describe the origins of the world would be considered examples of a creation myth.
Initially, academic usage of myth and mythology was restricted to ancient (often obsolete) religions and to the so-called "primative" religions of non-Christian and non-European peoples. In this usage, there may have been an element of cultural and religious bias, an implied prejudice that these beliefs were necessarily false. The earliest usage of myth as "a fictional narrative" would certainly have contributed to this implication. However, in time, growing respect for non-European and non-Christian traditions, objection by practitioners of those religions to the implication that their beliefs were false, and the expanded application of "myth" and "mythology" to all religions led to the gradual elimination of the notion of "falsity" in the academic sense of "myth". In this sense, myth is understood simply as a type of narrative, with no implications of whether it is true or false. Indeed, this sense has proved so useful that it has been further expanded to also include stories that carry secular meaning and that do not necessarily have any supernatural content. Thus, stories describing the beginnings of a local community or nation would be examples of a founding myth or a national myth.
This later academic usage has become more and more common, to some extent displacing the earlier meaning of "myth equals fiction." This is reflected in the change in the OED entry; the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (Third Edition, 2005) defines myth primarily thus:
1 a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural. 2 a widely held but false belief. 3 a fictitious person or thing.
2 a widely held but false belief.
3 a fictitious person or thing. [6]
Thus, the earlier meaning of "myth equals fiction" has not disappeared and remains both current and common in everyday usage. This often causes confusion when it is not clear whether the common usage or the academic usage is intended. Academics may unintentionally cause offense by seeming to imply falsehood in religious belief, and denying the "truth-neutral" nature of the academic usage misses the point of a useful academic categorization. Of course, individual motivations vary, and a particular academic may indeed wish to exploit the ambiguity of myth to imply that particular belief is false. Nonetheless, it is advisable to tread carefully when using myth and mythology and to make clear which sense is intended.
IMPORTANT NOTE
It should be understood by all that, in the context of this article, Myth and Mythology are to be understood in the limited sense of a traditional narrative embodying religious or cultural meaning and not in the sense of something that is false or untrue. The inclusion or mention in this article of any narrative does not affirm, deny, or imply that that narrative is either true or false in any sense. Wikipedia takes no position on the truth or falsity of any religious or cultural belief, in adherence to its policy of the Neutral Point of View.

This is by no means perfect, but it seems to me to address the major concerns expressed here. In particular, I'd like to see more material on the difference and overlap between myth and legend or mythological and historical, as well as including somewhere in the article how historical events can take on a mythical significance (there's some good stuff at founding myth on this). If we include this (or something like it), we can then tweak the sections below to remove redundancy and make the entire article more consistent. Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

An excellent analysis. - Haukur 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
An interesting idea, but way, WAY way too long, and not entirely accurate either (you left out the all-important distinction that myths are believed to be true by the culture they come from, otherwise people confuse it with ficiton). Frankly, be going to such extremes not to offend, especially with that completely unnecessary last paragraph reiterating for the 100th time what the definition we are using is, you have gone from trying to be an encyclopedia to excessively coddling people who might be offended. If something like this is to be added, it should be a slight (maybe a paragraph) expansion of what's already there. If the problem as mentioned above is that the "myth = false" nonprofessional meaning is too ingrained and not brought up until later, just bring it up at the top and point out that it's not how academics in the field use the word. Simple, and not a ten billion word essay added solely to try to soothe the egos of people who a) aren;t likely to read that either since they didn;t read the current version, b) clearly won't be satisfied until they try to find some way to try to give Christianity more "truthfulness" than others, as demonstrated byt heir comments above and c) are notoriously easy to offend so will just as likely be offended about something in there too.
An important point behind NPOV is to not give a side more space in an article than it deserves in order to avoid slanting people's perceptions into thinking that it's the main topic in the field. While the section does much to try to further your side, it doesn't fit in the article as is without overwhelming the entire thing and giving inaccurate ideas of the "controversy" in the field. DreamGuy 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is clearly too long to insert wholesale into the article. We should also avoid referring to Wikipedia itself. But there's good stuff in there. - Haukur 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to make clear that the only "side" that I am on is neutral, unambiguous comprehensiveness. I'm certainly not trying to coddle anyone or soothe anyone's ego, but neither am I willing to ignore legitimate concerns simply because someone's views do not match my own. The entire point of this proposal is to neutrally present all aspects of Myth and Mythology — not simply a limited academic sense or a limited popular sense — in a way that is fair to all sides.
If the proposed material takes up too much space, what do we think about this:
1. Currently, Myth redirects to Mythology. The material proposed above (plus the bit about "believed to be true" - good point, that) could form the core of a "Myth" article. Information about specific types of myths (in the academic sense: creation myths, escatological myths, national myths, etc) should remain in the Mythology article. Distinctions between myths, fairy stories, legends, etc can go in Myth.
2. As DreamGuy suggests, put a paragraph at the top clearly pointing out the difference between the common usage and the academic usage, making sure that we do not imply that either is the one and only "real" definition, merely which is being used here. We can also direct people to the new Myth article for a fuller discussion of the different uses.
3. Add a disclaimer to the effect of the current "Important Note", which will do much to defuse potential arguments such as the current one. (If this is the first mention in the article which definition is being used, then it's not "reiterating for the 100th time what definition we are using"!)
4. Finally, clean up the rest of the article to remove redundant definitions and qualifications and to expand, elaborate, etc as necessary.
Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
1. I see no reason to split Myth back out as a separate article again. It'd basically just be a WP:FORK file. 2. Well, in the sense as being used by mythology scholars, the one in the article certainly is more "real" than the one used by the general public as a synonym for "falsehood" - I don't think we need to state that they are both real, just point out that general public often uses it to mean falsehood, which is not what mythology is about. 3. Absolutely no disclaimer, as that's highly unencylopedic. Say how professionals use the word, say how general public uses the word, say they are different, focus on the professionals... simple. We don't need blinking text or anything. Give the readers some credit to actually read the article, even if we obviously can't give Codex any credit, 4. Not sure what you mean on that... what redundant defs? DreamGuy 04:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem. We're quite clear upfront that we are talking about "myths" only as "cultural or religious narratives" and not any other definition of the word. Mythology is only about myth type one. Suggesting it is the study of untruths is bonkers. That simply is not what mythology considers and it would be wrong to suggest it does. I am not saying myth does not have the meanings you suggest, but you've totally ignored that the other meanings are simply not used in this context (see my discussion about footballers as "legends"). It's a perverse reading of "myth" to see it as claiming that Revelation is untrue in this context.

I think we are clear that we are discussing sense 1, because we define mythology upfront. We don't at any point say that we are discussing the word "myth" meaning "untrue fiction" or anything similar. You even note that the "What is mythology?" section mentions the sense of "mere story" but dismisses it. Precisely! We're clear that we're not using it in that sense. What more do you want? If we dismiss it, why do you insist that the definition can still apply?

I think you should stick the etymology stuff in the myth article and leave this one alone. The reading you and Codex are trying to enforce is perverse. The article takes care to note that it is only dealing with mythology in a restricted sense, which bizarrely you seem to condemn here! Your "IMPORTANT NOTE" is not needed, a/ because the article already is clear to anyone who's not determined to take umbrage at the description of Revelation as a "myth", which it is and b/ Wikipedia does not refer to itself in articles.

This is a textbook case of how a perfectly decent, balanced, NPOV article can be destroyed by editors who are determined to be offended by a perfectly neutral description of their beliefs. There's absolutely no sourcing for any of your "analysis", not a scrap, no scholars who suggest that there's any difficulty with describing Revelation as a myth; no scholars who suggest that there is any problem with "myth" as a concept (good luck trying to find one!); no source whatsoever but Codex's upset that Revelation, a good example of the type of myth described in the article, is described as a myth, and his dictionary says "myth=untrue". Jeez, man, that's on a level with someone complaining that Wally Lewis is not a "legend" because he has a proven factual basis. It's utterly perverse. There's no way we should tolerate that, and no way this article, which was perfectly decent, should be mangled to accommodate that point of view. James James 23:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Question - on what Calendar date exactly did "myth" come to stop meaning false, and to start meaning only "narrative", and how and by whom was this decided??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you read the article? Or any of the discussion here about it? The word means "narrative" in Greek. It didn't have any connotation of truth or falsehood. In later times, the word "myth" has taken on the connotation of falsehood because most myths are clearly untrue, as most stories that are believed without regard to their factual basis are likely to be. But that doesn't mean that the word always meant "something untrue", nor that it means that in every context. Your understanding of the word "myth" is faulty, Codex, and you are trying to apply your faulty understanding to an article that's perfectly clear about what myths are. James James 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You're ignoring the sources that contradict your position. Plato and Pindar were already given above. Furthermore, every occurence of the word "mythos" in the New Testament is used to mean "fable", ie something untrue. Then you have every dictionary that has ever come out since then. So I don't think it's my definition that is "faulty", nor, as these sources prove, is it anything "new". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You're abusing the Plato thing, Codex. He contrasted logos as historical truths with mythos as narratives that are believed without regard to their truth, exactly as we say here. He did not say that mythos was necessarily not true. If you think he did, find the section of his writing that says so. Your wilful misreading of what someone else says Plato says is not a "source". James James 01:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
But what's your solution? Avoiding the word entirely? Deleting the article? :) There's no workable neutral way to define "myth" so that it includes Zeus and excludes Jesus. - Haukur 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If there were any sovereign nation today that had Zeus-worship as its official creed, then I would also object to that being labelled as "myth" by some academics from the desired standpoint of neutrality. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Lots of people worship Zeus, Odin etc. - including some contributors here, if I'm not mistaken. Being the official creed of a nation seems to set the bar rather high. Mormonism, for example, is not the official creed of any nation. Would you be comfortable with the word myth being used to describe Mormon beliefs? - Haukur 01:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe some of them, maybe not - but I definitely am not confortable with the neutrality of saying such-and-such a nation has myths for its official doctrine, so I would not describe Buddhism or Hinduism as myths for that reason. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Those are your personal sensibilities and I respect that. But treating religions differently based on whether or not they are the official doctrine of a nation is not something I can see us doing on Wikipedia. We cannot, for example, treat Lutheran Christianity differently from Mormonism on that basis. - Haukur 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is crazy. You are saying that if anyone believes a myth, it can't be a myth. I give up. The central point about myths is that they are believed, not that they're true or untrue. James James 01:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The central point is that myths are believed (by someone) to be true in some sense, regardless of whether they are history or not. The "regardless" part is what Codex is focusing on, and in fact, the "regardless" part also plays a very important role in the academic meaning of the terms. The plain meaning of the word, which contrasts myth with history, is continually referred to derogatorily as "the popular view". This is contrary to the academic use of the word. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, James James, I've made no comments at all about describing Revelation as myth, either for or against, so please do not say or imply that I have. Furthermore, did you look at the source I provided for ancient Greek usage of Μυθος as fiction? Here it is again, unless you do not accept the authority of Liddell & Scott giving citations of Aristotle and Herodotus using Μυθος as fiction.

Since both James James and Haukur have expressed support for creating a new Myth article separate from this one, I have done so. JHCC (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend you not jump ahead right now and do so, as many of the things you claim should be there defintiely need to be on this one. It sounds like you plan on creating a WP:FORK file to try to have your way. Please wait until the issue has been discussed. It was previously its own article but got merged back. Please do not dismiss the earlier decision based upon a couple of comments in less than 24 hours. If you truy to make a new article there I will just redirect it back, per the earlier decision, until such time as it has been discussed throroughly and you give reasons the contradict the earlier ones merging them. DreamGuy 04:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As discussed in the further proposal below, this is less a POV fork than a spinoff article. JHCC (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing I said was intended as expressing support for splitting the article, I'm sorry for being unclear. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not - I haven't really thought about it. - Haukur 12:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your intention. Nonetheless, thank you for calling what I wrote "An excellent analysis"; I appreciate the compliment. JHCC (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Myth/Mythology proposal

The original suggestion to merge (at Talk:Myth#Redirect and merge the article with Mythology?) was because Myth was rapidly becoming a duplicate of Mythology. That suggestion received two additional votes of support, plus one implied vote from Reddi, who created the redirect and actually did the merging, and possibly another from DreamGuy, who put up the mergeto/mergefrom tags (although DreamGuy may have been simply and neutrally taking care of procedure). Given the low number of votes, the minimal discussion, and the fact that I am not proposing reverting to the pre-merge Myth article, I don't see much consensus. However, rather than start a revert war, I am more than happy to discuss my actual proposal here.

There is some material that should be on both Myth and Mythology. However, keeping everything in one place creates an conflict within the article that makes it hard to be encyclopedic.

As has been demonstrated and as everyone seems to agree, "Myth" has multiple meanings in English. Keeping Myth as a redirect to Mythology while restricting Mythology to the strictly academic usage does not do justice to all the senses of "Myth". At the same time, the non-academic senses of "Myth" cannot be fully discussed in the Mythology article without taking up too much space and diverting attention from "Mythology" as a scholarly field. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles for the relevant WP guideline.

I propose this:

The Myth article can discuss "Myth" in all its senses: academic, religious, everyday, common, etc. This discussion can include etymology; history of usage; comparison with "Legend", "History", "Fable", etc; and whatever else is relevant to the word "Myth" in all its senses. Since one of these senses (the academic) has an obvious connection with "Mythology" as an scholarly discipline, this creates a strong tie-in with the Mythology article. Much of the current "Related concepts" section could go here, properly edited and expanded.
The Mythology article, on the other hand, can be divided into two sections:
The first (perhaps Mythology as a body of myths) would focus on "Mythology" as a collection of religious narratives believed to be true by their tellers that embody belief; e.g., Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc. A comparison of those groups that avoid "mythology" because of its potential ambiguity or other reasons (e.g., certain English-speaking Christians) with those who actually prefer the term (e.g., certain neopagan traditions) might be an interesting inclusion here and would also provide a tie-in with Myth for a more complete discussion of the various meanings of "Myth".
The second section (perhaps Mythology as the academic study of myths) would probably take up the bulk of the article. It should begin with a clear statement limiting the definition of "Myth" and "Mythology" to the academic sense; that is, neither affirming, denying, or implying truth or falsehood. The inclusion of any particular narrative (Revelation, for example) in this second section would therefore be explicitly as an example of a particular type of narrative, with no implications about its truth or falsehood. This section could have a number of subsections; most of the current sections (Classification, Modern Mythology, etc) would go here. I would also suggest a subsection for History of Mythology as an academic discipline (or some such title) to describe how "Mythology" made the transition from Religious narratives believed by people to Religious narratives studied by people, as well as a subsection for Prominent mythology scholars, for Joseph Campbell, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and the like, perhaps with synopses of their individual theories (to be expanded in the other subsections). Perhaps an Overview of mythological theories subsection would be helpful.
Note that the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on mythology makes this same distinction in its opening paragraph:
MYTHOLOGY: the science which examines myths or legends of cosmogony and of gods and heroes. Mythology is also used as a term for these legends themselves. Thus when we speak of "the mythology of Greece" we mean the whole body of Greek divine and heroic and cosmogonic legends. When we speak of the "science of mythology" we refer to the various attempts which have been made to explain these ancient narratives.

Much of the dispute that I've seen here and elsewhere has come from the conflict between those who wish to restrict discussion to the academic (no "truth-value") sense and those who are uncomfortable with the popular ("no truth" value) sense being applied to religious beliefs (whether their own or those of others). As long as "Myth" and "Mythology" are forced to share one article, that conflict will never be resolved. By splitting the two into their own articles, Mythology can be restricted to the academic sense without confusion, and Myth can be discussed in all its senses without limitation. JHCC (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dicitonary. Trying to create Myth to discuss the meaning of the word in more detail is clearly just a dicdef and also a very clear WP:FORK file, as the relevant info needs to be here anyway, just not in the extreme amount of detail you propose. Furthermore, your claims that there was no consensus to merge the two articles is false, as I proposed it, agreeing with others, and then someone else did the move, and people here and elsewhere all agreed with the decision. It's getting very tedious to see your longwinded rationalizations for something that serves no encyclopedic purpose. Whatever you think needs to be done on Myth needs to be done here, and in a compact and clear way instead of going around and around in circles. Furthermore, quit harassing me on my talk page. DreamGuy 22:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
While there may well have been consensus to merge the articles at the time (and I'm willing to concede this point), that's really not the issue. The question now is whether our readers would be better served by a single article that focusses on a limited sense of "myth" (and thus is the subject of frequent POV challenges) or by separate articles that can (in the case of Myth) discuss all senses equally and (in the case of Mythology) be free to focus on its subject. The Mythology article has grown substantially since August (as has the specifically "myth"-related material), so spinning off a Myth article is entirely appropriate. I refer again to the WP guideline for spinoff articles:
Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style that explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is one about which people are bound to hold strong POVs, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Even if the new article was created because it's a particularly controversial aspect of the article subject, that does not mean that the new article is a POV fork; if one aspect of the article subject is more controversial than the others, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate that aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.
The full text of this guideline is at Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles JHCC (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Claims that this article has expanded greatly since the merge is simply not accurate. The only expansion of any significance it did have was the merge. Everything else has been minor tweaks. And there is NO controversy in the field on myth being separate from mythology, so there's no reason for a separate topic. The only "controversy" is from people choosing to be offended over things that are not offensive unless you purposefully twist words around. Creating a separate article to discuss that clear would be a WP:FORK file. And, honestly, think about it here, you want people to be clear ont he point, so why split it up into a sub article so that most peopple don;t see it? Or... oh, let me guess, it's all the people currently linking to myth instead of mythology] -- so you can sneak around and try to make your version of the article the default version people see.... unacceptable. DreamGuy 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
(Side note: Karl Barth, one of the top Christian theologians of the 20th century, proposed using the word "saga" in reference to Biblical stories rather than "myth", in order to avoid these issues. Obviously, Barth's suggestion didn't really catch on!) KHM03 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, for good reason. It was yet another attempt to elevate Christian myths into a position above other myths, which academics instead of theologians obviously had no use for, especially as a number of the myths in the Bible do not fit the definition of a saga. Just more people trying to distort definitions in order to advance their own belief system. DreamGuy 22:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there was a lot more to it than that; be careful...your ignorance is showing. And Barth is one of the best respected "academics" of the 20th century; no need to dismiss him or his important work. KHM03 00:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm abstaining from the vote, although I see the merit in such a split, which would allow a very short paragraph at the beginning which explains that there are multiple definitions listed here (insert link to myth), and that this article uses "______." It could then go on, AS WRITTEN, with no further modifications. I would also agree with the myth redirection here, so long as there is a scholarly treatment of the word's definition at the beginning of the page, rather than scattered throughout. Just because "academics" only utilize two usages of the word, we cannot discount the other two as invalid. In language, there is no law, only practice. This type of discussion would serve the academic purpose of an encyclopedia being (supposedly) inclusive and all-encompassing. I would also appreciate it greatly if we all (on all sides) could refrain from treating each other disrespectfully...if I have shown disrespect to anyone here, please inform me, and I will apologize in public. I am doing my best to remain impartial, and I believe most of us are doing the same. Can we not also strive to be at least cordial, if not polite? Peace, Jarrod Jabre 02:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Lest I Sound Partial

For Codex, and anyone reading who might hold a more fundamental view on the dispute: ( http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200009/ai_n8913973 ) There are better articles on the subject, but this was what I was able to find online and free; it is not a final word on our discussion, merely an attempt to show that there is Christian discourse in which myth is used in the way this Wiki article intends to use it, and that remains faithful to Christianity. Peace, Jarrod Jabre 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You guys aren't being consistent here

After all the complaint above that we supposedly didn't spell out the fact that most people use "myth" to mean "false" clearly enough, why then are you guys yourselves removing the main section that did mention it. You changed:

In common parlance, a myth is generally considered a "mere story" — that is, a story that holds meaning for people, but the core of which is untrue.

where it specifically brings up that in common (unscholarly) parlance it is used to mean false, and then went and replaced it with:

In common parlance, a myth is generally considered a "mere story" — that is, a story that holds meaning for people, but the core of which is not necessarily historical factuality.

Not necessarily historical factuality? What is that supposed to be? The whole point you were complaining about above is that we glossed over the very important common definition that myth = false, and here you put in a jumbled string of wishy washy terms that actually is closer to the academic definition than the common public meaning? What on earth is that suposed to accomplish? I mean, seriously, whoa, huh? It's missed the entire point. Common parlance = false, pow, period, full stop, not sort of maybe possibly not entirely totally completely historically facutality... whatever it is you're trying to spit out. That's not only poor writing but it's wrong, that's not the common meaning (parlance should probably be replaced with a better word) at all.

And then the second one isn't quite as bad, but still not a good change at all. It was:

However, it is important to keep in mind that while some view myths as merely stories, others may hold them as a religion.

As a religion isn't quite accurate. As part of their religious beliefs would be better. But what you put instead was:

However, it is important to keep in mind that while some view myths as merely stories, others may hold them as accounts of historical facts that have religious significance.

That's not much better. Well, maybe historical facts could be worked in there, but "religious significance" is another wishy washy phrase that implies the opposite of what the sentence is supposed to be explaining. "Religious significance" is roundabout and weak compared to straight out religious belief. "Significance" isn't what we are talking about, and in fact when people do talk about "religious significance" it's usually to find significance in stories that they don't necessarily believe were historical, but that they have metaphorical meaning. The whole point is it's not supposed to be "significant", it's (in their minds) FACT.

Seriously, while I think the need for changes in the article in the comments above were blown way out of proportion, these changes do exactly the opposite of what you were arguing, not to mention in the first example end up completely wrong by mangling what the common meaning is.

Now, I've reverted it one more time, because we simply can't have the article have information that is incorrect. Please detail what exactly you hoped those changes would accomplish so we can discuss a way to actually make them happen, which obviously is going to require a rewrite from what you were trying to go with. DreamGuy 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are obsessing over minutiae, and losing perspective. Compare these examples:
  • The "myth that cell-phones cause cancer" is "myth" in common parlance. But this is not a story that "holds deep meaning for people". It's simply false.
  • Stories that hold deep meaning for people, which even they might call "myth", are not being called "untrue". But by the use of this word, they are implying that it would be a mistake to think of those stories as strict historical fact.
Stop reverting, please. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you are obsessing over inaccuracies. Your own arguments here argue AGAINST the changes you made. Myth in common parlance equals untrue, yes. The holding deep meaning for people is the academic definiton. You were the one trying to shove the deep meaning into the common parlance section, so you were the one who introduced that particular problem. I will revert anytime you or your buddy here tries to change the meanings of the words to mean something they do not. Perhaps if you paid attention to "minutiae" you wouldn't keep making things worse. DreamGuy 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep straight who has done what. Reverting accomplishes no more than your bullying talk does. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related issue, the phrase "not necessarily historically factual" has been repeatedly reverted to say "untrue", or presently, "not historical fact". This overstates the issue. When liberal and neo-liberal theologians, and mythologists, treat "the Christ myth" for example, they are interested in the development of the captivating idea that has come to surround Jesus of Nazareth. Some of them believe that Jesus actually existed, some of them don't. But regardless of whether they believe that Jesus existed, all of them are treating "the Christ myth" as an issue of history, of development.

The distinction that Wikipedians keep trying to draw between "myth in the popular conception" and "myth in the academic sense" is being drawn too sharply. Compare:

  • Do you see that it doesn't matter to the myth, whether Jesus was born in a barn, or in a cave, or in the lobby of the boarding house?
  • But it does matter to the doctrine, the religion of orthodox Christianity that Jesus was in fact an historical person, and not a myth - that he was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, in history and in fact.

History is not the central truth of myth, and Christians believe many myths to be true in some sense. Many believe in the myth about the eerily quiet baby Jesus, born in a cave because the innkeeper had no compassion on his poor pregnant mother, without for a minute thinking it matters whether there really was a cave, a barnful of animals, an innkeeper, or even if baby Jesus cried. In contrast, it cannot be said in any honesty, that history is similarly not central to the truth of Christianity's claims. It is for that reason that speaking of the Bible as myth is inherently offensive and controversial.

I've had to say all this to defend using the phrase "not necessarily historically factual"? That shouldn't be necessary. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, your arguments are actually arguing against your changes. You keep trying to blend the two definitions together, and doing so from a clearly theological/POV-pushing view. Whenever you talk about not necessarily being true, that's the academic version. Theologians can and due use that version. "Not necessarily historically factual" is not only worded extremely awkwardly (you sound like a 13 year old trying to stretch an essay for English class out to 500 words and not knowing what you are saying) but that's NOT the common parlance defitnion, which is where you keep trying to insert it. You are making edits completely opposite of both the truth and what you are now and previously arguing. DreamGuy 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed "not necessarily historically factual" to "not historical fact" for the sake of clarity. "Untrue" means false in all senses, whether historical factuality or essential core truth, while "not historical fact" leaves open the possiblility that a myth may carry an essential truth. "Not necessarily historically factual" does have a useful subtlety of leaving open the possibility that a myth may be historically factual, but only at the cost of (forgive me) weak wording. I'll see if I can reword to include that sense. JHCC (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
That was a simple edit that accomplished what I wanted more effectively. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
No no no, for crying out loud, what is wrong with you two? "Essential truth" isn;t part of the common usage. Common usage is "untrue" -- you keep trying to stuff the definition of one into the definition of the other and then hide away the real academic definition because you changes the common usage one to have whatever part of the academic one you want while still clinging to the allegedly insulting tone of the common usage. You are jumbling everything up so it makes no sense at all. Until you two start paying attention to the problems pointed out to you (and, I don't know, LEARN what the freaking definitons mean instead of making it up as you go along), there's nothing left to do but to revert them... And, believe you me, unless you start paying attention here, you're going to end up reverted anytime you try to stumble forward with your making things up as you go along nonsense. DreamGuy 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
You really aren't much fun to work with. If you want to be listened to, stop reverting, and stop ranting. Maybe also, LEARN (sic) how the word is actually used. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New section

Since the proposal to spin Myth into its own article seems to be on hold (at least for the time being), and since there was fairly broad support for putting the various senses of "Myth" at the beginning of the article, I'm going to move these various definitions to a new initial section entitled "What is a myth?" Lest anyone be worried that I am trying to redefine "myth" or push a particular POV, I will restrict myself to creating the section, writing a neutral introductory sentence or two, and then simply moving text and making any small changes necessary for the sake of coherence and correct grammar. JHCC (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So you took the real definition out of the lead, put the common usage defintion in the next section ABOVE the professional definition, and moved the description all the way down the article and you think this is a good thing? Give me a break. My patience has worn out here, as it's obvious you are not trying to improve the article but to try to advance denigrate the professional meaning and advance the sloppy common usage to the top, which completely throws thw whole purpose of the article out the window. It'd be like showing up to Evolution and moving the professionally used definition to a footnote and blabbering on about nonacademic nonsense at the top to try to advance useless make it up as you go along meanings. You most definitely are pushing POV and trying to redefine the word, as you would make mythology whatever any bozo off the street thinks the word might mean without paying attention to the encyclopedic meaning. Your moves were not neutral, typically not accurate, and not at all in good faith. DreamGuy 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put the definition back in the introduction, even though I think it bulks it out too much. I've also removed the mention of the supernatural from the intro, since it is not universal in all myths. As for the rest, this is all material moved from other sections of the article, not new content. JHCC (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

DreamGuy, I understand that you do not agree with the changes that others have made here. However, simply reverting any changes that you personally do not agree with helps nothing. Please discuss them here first. Reversion is for vandalism, not content disputes. JHCC (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, that ain;t gonna fly. I know YOU and some other person who came here with a religious complaint do not agree with the academic definition of mythology that was assembled on this article painstakingly over time and through much consensus, but you need to start listening when problems with your frequent mistakes are pointed out to you. You can;t complain about reverts when you yourself are merrily reverting nonstop. I have EXTENSIVELY discussed things here, and for you to ignore those comments and to try to claim I never did as some sort of justification for your reverts is simply a baldfaced distortion, knowingly calculated to try to justify your unjusitifiable actions. Facts are, that you cannot make up your own definition of mythology to suit your preconceived religious disputes on other pages and then come here and try to enforce it on the main article. Please stop making deceptive comments, and go educate yourself on the topic before coming here to try to rewrite it. This will not fly. DreamGuy 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, I have no problem with the "academic definition" of "myth", but isn't it possible that consensus can change? This is why a 1940 encyclopedia reads differently than a 2000 encyclopedia. JHCC isn't trying to be deceptive; it seems to me he's trying to include you in the discussion. KHM03 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"who came here with a religious complaint", "to suit your preconceived religious disputes". Consider giving up, Keith. You are trying to reason with bigotry. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Careful, Mark, let's not get drawn into name calling. Keith raises a valuable point: while there may have been consensus at the time, there is not now, especially since there is no Myth article to discuss multiple senses of "myth". JHCC (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's obvious what's going on here. Blind prejudice cannot be reasoned with. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever DreamGuy's personal motivations, beliefs, and/or prejudices may or may not be, we have to assume good faith and to continue to be civil. Let's stick to practical discussion of how the article can be improved. In other words, let's discuss the contributions, not the contributors. JHCC (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not "prejudice" to point out that you jokers did not show up except when some guy came out of nowhere and tried to change the article to suit his religious belief that Christian narratives had to be treated in a way completely differently than other other myths mentioned on the article. When his changes were reverted, suddenly we have a group of people out of nowhere trying to change the definitions to fit their bias. From comments above a number of people have come right out and said that Christianity has to be treated differently, which is completely nonsense. Pointing out that people here are trying to push their bias onto this article and break the NPOV policy in the process does not make me prejudiced. If anything, it's the prejudice of the easily offended Christians in the peanut gallery that cannot be reasoned with. You are trying to turn this article into one that doesn't even mention the academic, professional definition of mythology except as a footnote further down the page. Those changes will be undone any and all times they are made. DreamGuy 06:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
While the dispute over Revelation was what brought this to my attention, my only concern is to make the discussion of "Myth" and "mythology" comprehensive and neutral. Until all senses of these terms are fully discussed, this article will not be comprehensive. Such full discussion will make it easier to clarify which sense is used when, and thus to make the article more neutral. I am not advocating special treatment for Christianity or any other religion, but I do think that a neutral discussion of the issues will help our readers understand them. It is not bias to neutrally describe the English language and how it is and has been used. JHCC (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy, could you please explain what is wrong with clearly stating the different senses of "Myth" at the beginning of the article? Like KHM03, I have no problem with the academic sense of "myth"; the only point to these edits has been to reshape the article for greater clarity: "Myth has senses A, B, C, & D. Here is what they mean. Now, the rest of this article is about sense D." If you scatter the definitions throughout the article, it is not clear what sense is being discussed when. If people understand the different senses right from the beginning, there is less potential confusion over what the article says about religious and cultural beliefs. JHCC (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I already explained that several times above. You can't just come up with your own shoddy versions of definitions of myth, mixing several of them together all at once, and go on and on about it and then not even bring up the academic definition until several sections later. All of these edits were already explained previously and ignored because they didn't fit your agenda here. Myth does not have senses A, B, C & D - Myth has two major definitions, the academic one, and the loose and contradictory public slang usage. You pull piueces and parts of one and hammer it onto the other and try to call that a definiton when it's not. DreamGuy 06:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like any definition that I have included, we could use the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary (2000):
Myth
1a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).
Mythology
1a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. b. A body of myths associated with an event, individual, or institution: "A new mythology, essential to the . . . American funeral rite, has grown up" (Jessica Mitford).
2. The field of scholarship dealing with the systematic collection and study of myths.
or those from the Compact OED (2005):
Myth
1 a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural.
2 a widely held but false belief.
3 a fictitious person or thing.
Mythology
1 a collection of myths.
2 a set of widely held but exaggerated or fictitious stories or beliefs.
3 the study of myths.
These are not "my own shoddy versions of definitions of myth", these are actual senses of the words as used in the English language. If any editor wikilinks to myth or mythology in any Wikipedia article, we need to make sure that all these senses are properly explained, and not just in a limited academic sense. JHCC (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy, your last revert ( on 05:11, 3 January 2006 UTC) removed relevant material from a respected academic source on the Greek derivation of "myth". Please stop reverting good faith attempts to improve and expand the article. JHCC (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Listen, if you want to discuss that one particular point, fine, go ahead, but the rest of the changes clearly were just the exact same changes that were attempted before and discussed above with clear explanation of why they were completely and utterly incorrect and against the very things you claimed you wanted to do here. DreamGuy 06:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely bad faith edits

Enough is enough is well past enough already. You can't change the definition of the words in this article just to suit your religious bias. Furthermore, you can't move the "what is mythology" section way down low in the article, when this article is supposed to be about mythology. Furthermore, you can't revert changes and claim "please discuss on the talk page" when it HAS BEEN discussed, extensively, repeatedly, throughly, and in language that even people who know nothing about mythology should be able to understand. At this point all you are doing is ignoring the explanations given to you to try to push your bias. That will not be tolerated. DreamGuy 05:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, we are forging here a new consensus. As mentioned above, consensus can and does change. Please join the conversation rather than making statements of absolutes ("you can't...). The truth is that the community has a right to edit any article; this article is not privately owned. It is currently being worked on by longtime, well respected editors. Please join the discussion and help improve the article. KHM03 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that comment. Yes, and before you say it, I am fully aware of the civility polify here, but there really isn't a way to accurately describe what you are trying to pull here in more civil language. You are not forging a new consensus, you and a couple of guys who did something elsewhere ganged up on an article to try to enforce your will upon it when lots of editors are away on vacation. The discussion above clearly shows multiple people recently totally disagreeing with your actions here. Furthermore, claims that I need to "join the discussion and help improve the article" both here and in edit comments while you revert the whole thing are completely nonsense, and clearly in bad faith, because I have consistently been discussing things here. You and JHCC and the Christos guy who started this mess by trying to claim that nothing in the Bible is a myth are not "discussing" anything, you are ranting about "prejudice" and your "religious beliefs" and ignoring clear explanations of why the changes you make are either unnecessary, contrary to the goal you stated earlier, or outright incorrect. You can't do that, and that's not just me trying to make a statement of absolutes, it's Wikipedia policy. So start trying to deal straight or give up, because this little game of yours of trying to pretend that I haven't discussed anything and trying to use that lie to justify your reverts is simply not going to fly. DreamGuy 01:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the more I look at it, the more I think WP could benefit from having separate articles for "Myth" and "Mythology". KHM03 12:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see any consensus here - KHM03, JHCC, Mkmcconn *before* making substantive edits to the article you really need to try and hammer this out here on the talk page, otherwise this will go nowhere - particularly as the thrust of this change has already been discussed and proved contentious. JHCC, is it possible to split some this set of edits out into smaller chunks which can be discussed independently (eg the Greek derivation)? Adrian.baker 12:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think so. JHCC (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Just in case anyone has forgotten, the Wikipedia official policy on resolving disputes states in part:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.
When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Of the ten edits that DreamGuy has made since December 30, only one was to make some minor changes to the text (which were largely respected by the other editors). All the rest were to revert back to his own version of the article, even though some of the reverted edits were supported by at least three other editors. All other reversions (i.e., not by DreamGuy) were to either remove obvious vandalism or to restore changes that other editors had made. JHCC (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- in case anyone has forgotten, putting misleading edit comments on reversions of your own, claiming that discussion needs to be made, when discussion were made and you just ignored them, is a crass attempt to trick people into thinking you are following rules when you are not.
OF COURSE the ten edits I made were reverts, but the edits you made were the SAME EDITS ALREADY DISCUSSED AS BEING INCORRECT BEFORE YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES JUMPED IN.
You can;t simply grab a couple of people from some side article and totally ignore the concenus of people editing this article and try to falsely claim that people are just reverting for the sake of reverting. YOUR ACTIONS HERE HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY DECEPTIVE AND COUNTER TO ANY ATTEMPT AT REAL CONSENSUS.
I've had it up to here with a small group of POV-pushers jumping in from elsewhere once they found out their definition they had forced on other people on side articles wsa completely wrong and try to force their incorrect informaiton on to the main article to cover it up. Yes, we know you and your buddies are personally offended when Christianity is referred to as a myth, even though the academic meaning is clear and does not imply that myth = false. That's not justification for you to screw up articles and try to protect your religion as somehow better than others.
It's your complete inability to act in good faith that has led to the reversions. Stop your whining and deceptive comments and try to adjust your edits to take into account the fact that your complaints were previously discussed here and resoundingly defeated. PErhaps now that the holidays are over, the editors who helped out here in the past and got the article the way it was before you started messing with it will return to explain to you in other voices that why what your attempting to do is wrong, so that you can't just take three editors with active revert warring and in a couple of days try to claim a consenus against three editors who undid your changes as well as the existing history of this article. DreamGuy 01:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy: Please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please show respect. JHCC's "buddies" (assuming I'm included) are not all offended when "myth" is used regarding certain Bible stories...though your claim that all of Christianity may be referred to as myth is not only entirely inaccurate but also reveals a strong POV of your own. I believe that all of the editors of this article, regardless of their personal faith(s), want to improve the accuracy and quality of the article (please review WP:AGF). Obviously, some quality editors feel the article needs "tweaked". Let's all work together to make it the best article we can; it is possible that we can accomplish something positive and still maintain civility. KHM03 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
But is claiming inappropriate definitions of the words a tweak? What definition are you using for myth with regard to creation? Same when theory is applied incorrectly when discussing evolution. David D. (Talk) 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
"Theory" is an interesting word to compare with "myth". The Wikipedia Theory article does a very good job of laying out the etymology of "theory" and of explaining the difference between the scientific usage and the popular.
However, there is a critical difference between "theory" and "myth". On the one hand, the popular use of "theory" (such as David D. rightly points out with reference to evolution) comes from a layman's misunderstanding of a scientific usage. On the other hand, the popular sense of "myth as fiction" is as old as the word itself (over two thousand years), not a corruption or misunderstanding of the academic sense of "myth as meaningful story", which is comparatively modern.
I have no problem with this article clearly articulating the academic senses of "myth" and "mythology". What bothers me is the insistance that the academic sense is the only "real definition", that any other definition is wrong and/or unworthy of discussion (other than dismissively), and that anyone who suggests otherwise is biased or ignorant.
This article has a lot of really good material about "myth" and "mythology" in the academic sense. Its flaw is that its underlying assumption (as described in the previous paragraph) precludes entirely appropriate discussion of other senses of these terms, as well as further exploration of the "religion and mythology" issue.
For example, the only uses of Μυθος in the New Testament are all "myth = false". For example 2 Timothy 4:4 strongly contrasts Μυθος with Αληθεια (truth):
[People] will turn their ears away from the truth (της αληθειας) , and will turn aside to myths (επι τους μυθους)
This is interesting in two ways: first, it shows an ancient usage that is very relevant to the historical development of the various senses of "myth" (as would, say, a discussion of how Plato contrasted Μυθος with other types of narrative), and second, it is relevant to the issue of why some Christians may object to having their beliefs called myths.
Of course, all of this could be properly — and neutrally — discussed in a separate Myth article, leaving this article for a proper discussion of the academic discipline "mythology", how that discipline uses the term "myth", and the various classifications within that discipline (creation myths, founding myths, etc). JHCC (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly the Human article does not use the words truth or myth to desribe creation. Possibly because both are 'charged' words? Below is how they describe religious mythology.

Main articles: Origin belief and Creationism
Essentially every culture has its characteristic origin beliefs. Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, the Earth, the universe and the multiverse were created by a supreme being or deity. The event itself may be seen either as an act of creation (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from preexisting chaos (demiurge). Many who hold "creation" beliefs consider such belief to be a part of religious faith, and hence compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by scientific views while others maintain the scientific data is compatible with creationism. Proponents of evolutionary creationism may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation. Otherwise, science-oriented believers may consider the scriptural account of creation as simply a metaphor.

I should read the whole debate. I saw it on RfC so I have not delved into all the issues. David D. (Talk) 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

A dispute was posted on RfC at 20:47, 5 January 2006 and subsequently revised twice. (Not a good start.) --Vector4F 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Take the pledge

I pledge not to revert or make any substantive or controversial edits until we come to a consensus understanding on this talk page. KHM03 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A nice idea, but one that doesn't work unless everyone follows it. I pledge to revert back to the longstanding consensus version when someone makes any substantive, controversial, incorrect and/or POV-pushing edits, which is all I was doing in the first place. DreamGuy 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
And, actually, if you were honest about your pledge to not have controversial edits in the article without consensus, you'd revert Codex and JHCC when they add new content the way they have been doing. DreamGuy 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What is Mythology?

Codex, I think the problem with this sentence

In the English language, "myth" has inherited several senses from Greek usage.

is that it's redundant - in the lead in the Greek derivation is already spelt out:

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

Which is why it was reverted - I don't think anyone wants to 'cover up' any discussion here. Although it's a small change, it's best to be succint. I think it's ok to push for a polished article down to every 'minute word' on a fairly mature article like this: it's easier to propose changes here on the talk page first, to reduce the number reverts. Adrian.baker 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me be straightforward

Okay, I guess I had better be more straightforward and stop beating around the bush... The following is exactly the text that I don't want to be "covered up":

The ancient Greek Μυθος originally meant simply word or speech, and by extension, a story or narrative. This quickly took on the sense of fiction, and both Pindar (d. 443 BC) and Plato (d. ca. 347 BC) contrast Μυθος with Λογος as "historical truth." Most ancient usages of Μυθος are specifically as fiction; see here for details in the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon entry on Μυθος.

This is all cited and verifiable, and it amply demonstrates the TRUTH that the modern "mythologists" here are desperately trying to suppress and keep from the public eye: That "falsehood" is by far the older definition in English, and "narrative" is the 20th century contrivance of self-styled "academics". It was the "academics" who REDEFINED the word, and the real reason they don't want this factual etymological info in the article, is because it would defeat their entire purpose -- which is to REDEFINE the word myth "academically" just so they can "get away" with declaring the scriptures of EVERY world religion (not just Christianity) "myths", and laugh up their sleeves at their own cleverness and deceptiveness for doing so. Redefining words away from their classical or traditional meaning, to try to "teach" the people that the common meaning is somehow incorrect and must now be discarded, and similar such semantic games, has been a favorite tactic of Revisionists, and the regimes that support them, for the last 100 years. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To quote you "laugh up their sleeves at their own cleverness and deceptiveness for doing so". Are all academics atheists? If not i see no reason why this is logical. Even if they were atheists you really think they would be going out of their way to ridicule religion? This is a very good example of assuming bad faith and is not the way to go about defending the sentence you would like to be included in the article. Maybe this type of commentary si why this article is now posted in RfC? David D. (Talk) 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any possible way to defend the repeated, coordinated suppression of this etymological information I've witnessed over the past week, unless it's for the reason I said. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The claim that "most ancient usages" meant fiction is just plain false, as the source referred to clearly shows. I discuss this below. It sounds more like you want to rewrite history to fit your preconceived ideas instead of this supposed "coverup" you talk about above and in your edit comment. The source itself CLEARLY says narrative is the older version, more used version, and even the secondary version explicity says "without distinction of true or false" -- to get to your version you have to go to a submeaning of a secondary version of the word.... that's a far, far cry from it being the primary usage. You are the one attempting revisionism here, and it's clear you are doing so solely to avoid having your religious belief descirbed in terms that puts them on equal footings with all other religious beliefs. Everything you have attempted to do here is a mjaor, major violation of the NPOV policy, not to mention simply wrong. Please desist from trying to destroy this encyclopedia's relliability just so you can feel better about your religion. DreamGuy 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Having read both versions, I lean toward the current one for its more encyclopedic tone and suggest merging. There seems to be useful information on the competing version such as a distinction between fairy tales and myths. The discussion equating modern religions with myths on the competing version looks "hot" in the sense that the topic might be encyclopedic but the sensitive nature of the subject and the casual manner of exposition is a recipe for trouble. Durova 13:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Durova, given how frequently the article has been changing, could you please be a little more specific about what you mean by "current version" and "competing version"? In particular, what useful information and potentially "hot" discussion do you see as worthy of inclusion or avoidance? Thanks. JHCC (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Check my comment's time and date stamp against the two most recent versions of your article. Regarding your second question, I'm really not knowledgeable enough about this subject to determine whether a discussion of living religions is germane to an encyclopedia article. Is this a topic of scholarly interest? If so, then address it under its own heading with sourced examples and a tactful introduction. Readers of a conservative religious bent may find the suggestion offensive. When people take offense they usually stop reading carefully. So if the article does address that subject it must do so in a respectful and well presented manner. Durova 19:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A Thoughtful Pause

A myth is, by definition, a story. It is a story that was once believed to be true, but is no longer. A myth is also a story about something small that has grown larger in the telling, and has distanced itself from the original. It is also a thing that is regarded as not real, like the Loch Ness Monster. The trouble today is perspective. What one person defines as reality, another is defining at that same moment as a myth. So, from one point of view, a single specific story may not be a myth. From the perspective of the person standing immediately beside the first, it is most definitely a myth. Distance here is not measured in miles, but in point of view.

That said, all of these listed above imply a measure of falseness.

The scholarly useage which does not imply falseness, but holds itself as nonjudgemental, is entirely accurate: but not as common as the above three. Thus, it's use in these circumstances has clearly led to this misunderstanding. One person has used it; another feels this is derogatory. The intent and the perception are at odds. This is what Wikipedia is here to fix: miscommunications. By providing a common language and set of definitions, we eliminate these sorts of problems. So - we need to sort this out.

So: here's a good, courteous thought. If it deals with an active religion, even if the number of people worshiping that religion is small, call it a religous story instead of a myth OR make it clear somehow that you intend the use of the term myth as a statement that it's a religious story, not as a tall tale or urban ledgend. If it deals with something from a clearly dead religion, then you can call it a myth. It's just a matter of being polite as well as accurate; B A L A N C E balance. Never, ever sacrifice accuracy for courtesy, but where the one will not impinge on the other, try not to be rude without reason.

Also keep in mind that truth and facts do not necessarily mean the same thing. Truth regards our feelings. Facts regard the motions of the physical world. It is true that I love my husband; it is a fact that I am married to him. It is true that cats are funny; it is a fact that my cats have brown fur. A myth can be true without having any of the facts right. And facts rarely tell us anything about truth. So, be nice to myths, and to your fellow wikitributors. There's got to be a way to word this accurately. If that means using the intended *definition* of myth instead of the word, maybe that's the solution.

(unsigned, but by User:Bookwench --- who, incidentally, just signed up for an account a few hours before making this post... interesting)

Sorry, but you messed up from the very beginning. You claimed myth means once thought to be true but known to be false. That's not the definiton of myth, so you can;t be very thoughtful if all of what you say is based upon a complete misconception. Not only that, but what you are suggesting is an extreme violation of the NPOV policy, by picking out certain myths and refusing to call them myths to protect the sensibilities of those people who don't bother to read the academic version. An encyclopedia exists to cure ignorance, not to fall a slave to it. DreamGuy 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
And your idea of "curing ignorance" is to force the "all religions are myths, because that's how we define them" doctrine down everyone's throats, all in the name of NPOV... Cute... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That's how academics use the term, yes... If you have a problem with what academics and scholars think, perhaps an encyclopedia is not the place for you. DreamGuy 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This is why I would use extreme care in discussing living religions and myths in the same article. Most people will approach the material with the common definition of the term. Those who are devout in their own religion will take umbrage at the comparison. I'm not sure it's possible to overcome this challenge within the context of this article. If it can be done, then it's a much more subtle matter than telling readers their definition of a myth is wrong and then telling them that modern religions are myths. The danger is that readers will disbelieve the first statement and perceive the second as doubly insulting. Durova 06:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
They may approach any which way, just like any reader starting to read any article here, but considering the article already cleared the term up at the very beginning, after that there is no problem, except for those readers (like Codex) who either don;t read or choose to ignore what they read because they are happier in their ignorance. People who stubbornly remain ignorant because they refuse to read the article will be that way no matter what, so there isn;t anything we can do about that, except alter the content to fit their lack of knowledge instead of the real facts, which of course is not an option. DreamGuy 07:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy, let's use an example here. "Bullshit" is a rather pejorative term for a substance most people consider rather negatively. But let's say a group of academics decides that the word should have a positive meaning, and so define it as: "Bullshit is a sweet and viscous fluid produced by bees and other insects from the nectar of flowers."
How does this change of meaning affect usage. Oh, here, DreamGuy, have some bullshit for your biscuit.
Suppose an article is written and the article starts out with the definition above. Then it goes on to develop the theme quite extensively, portraying bullshit in positive terms all the way through. How many of the readers will read the definition, understand it, and apply it to the article. Those who can't seem to understand it in any way other than the traditional, popular usage ... "stubbornly remain ignorant because they refuse to read the article will be that way no matter what, so there isn;t anything we can do about that, except alter the content to fit their lack of knowledge instead of the real facts, which of course is not an option."
Of course not! The average reader here is just a superstitious bozo and we've got to wean him from his superstitions! Bullshit is now a great thing! "An encyclopedia exists to cure ignorance, not to fall a slave to it."
Oh, here, DreamGuy, have some bullshit for your waffles.
Do you understand what I'm getting at, DreamGuy? I realize that this is being a bit crass, but I was afraid that if I put it more subtly, you wouldn't understand.
Oh, here, DreamGuy, try this delicious clover bullshit, and some pecans, to make a delicious sundae. Don't look at me that way; this is premium stuff, as defined by the top bullshit experts on in the world. Anyone who doesn't instantly embrace their meaning is a fool. Try it.
In other words, is Wikipedia going to be a user-friendly source of information, or is it going to be of use only to a few ivory-tower academicians, who may or may not choose to define or redefine any word any way they wish. Pollinator 08:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Completely false analogy, as the academics didn't change the word mythology to mean something completely different. You have a fundamentally screwed up idea of the entire debate. If you want a more accurate analogy, complaining about the academic use of the word mythology is like claiming that "picnic" is a racist term, because some nut claims it came from events where whole families would bring food to "pick a nigger" to hang from a tree until he was dead. Anybody who went to the article on that topic and tried to change the meaning and then tried to use "well, I found it offensive" as their excuse would get laughed off the page. Same should happen here, except unfortunately there are a lot more people ignorant about the meaning of the word and too lazy to actually read any sources on it, even when it's right in front of them. The term "myth" is not offensive when used in the academic sense, and this article already spells it out for people. Anyone who still manages to get upset after that are going to be upset no matter what, because whatever changes are made they won't read that either. This is an encyclopedia, the expectation that people actually read what's written is inherent in the concept. Those not reading have nothing to complain about, those who do read it already had the concern noted and explained. DreamGuy 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
So then, is Wikipedia adopting your policy of berating anyone who uses a word in the common sense of it? Pollinator 09:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is berating anyone for using the common usage. I am berating people who insist upon using that as the only definition, and still try to believe it is the only definition even after the article explains the definition. Tons of words have multiple meanings and one major academic one, and this encyclopedia always goes to the academic one. People mistakenly think "immaculate conception" means "virgin birth", or use "evolution" to mean getting better, and so forth and so on, but that's not an excuse to dumb down those articles. Whatever it is you think you're complaining about, it's pointless, because this article already explains the terms quite clearly. Anyone who bothers to read will know that myth in the mythology sense (you know, what the article is about?) will see that it means a story of certain specifications (which are explained) but has no implication for being right or wrong. It's already there. For someone to come along and then say, but, gosh, I don't want religious stories to be mentioned because people will think we are saying it's false just is not interacting with reality here. We already said, quite clearly, more than once, what the definition is, and even admit others use it in a different way but that's not how it's being used here, so where on earth do you get that there's a problem? You come up with a sneaky way to use the word "bullshit" over and over and claim that the article berates people, but that's not at all what's going on here. What is your issue? Do you have one you'd like to bring up, or are you only here to make personal attacks? Because the only issue you brought up was solved on the article years ago, and you have given no indication at all for anyone to believe otherwise. DreamGuy 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Your choice of pejorative terms carries a POV. Durova 16:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Codex, surely this text in the article already makes the relationship between religion and the myth more than clear:
Religion and mythology
Mythology figures prominently in most religions, and most mythology is tied to at least one religion. Some use the words myth and mythology to portray the stories of one or more religions as false, or dubious at best. While nearly all dictionaries include this definition, "myth" does not always imply that a story is either false or true. The term is most often used in this sense to describe religions founded by ancient societies whose belief systems are nearly extinct. By extension, many people do not regard the tales surrounding the origin and development of modern dominant religions as literal accounts of events, but instead regard them as figurative representations of their belief systems. Many modern day rabbis and priests within the more liberal Jewish and Christian movements, as well as most Neopagans, have no problem viewing their religious texts as containing myth. They see their sacred texts as indeed containing religious truths, divinely inspired but delivered in the language of mankind. Others separate their beliefs out from the similar stories of other cultures and refer to them as history. These people object to the use of the word myth to describe what they believe.
For the purposes of this article, therefore, the word mythology is used to refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. Also, the stories discussed express the viewpoints and beliefs of the country, time period, culture, and/or religion which gave birth to them. One can speak of a Jewish mythology, a Christian mythology, or an Islamic mythology, in which one describes the mythic elements within these faiths without speaking to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history.
With this paragraph present I can't understand the issue. Surely obviously great care has already been taken to make it more than clear that no dismissal is meant to religious beliefs? Adrian.baker 12:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

False claims about sources

Looks like Codex is reverting me again and ignoring my reasoning, before I even have a chance to explain it here...

"This quickly took on the sense of fiction, and both Pindar (d. 443 BC) and Plato (d. ca. 347 BC) contrast Μυθος with Λογος as "historical truth." Most ancient usages of Μυθος are specifically as fiction; see here"

The problem is apparent by a quick look at the site... it absolutely does NOT say that "fiction" is the primary meaning at all, it is given as one minor variation, with a few minor citations. Claims that it is primary or "Most ancient uages" etc. are completely unsupported by the source quoted.

This appears to be yet another example of the POV-pushers wanting the main definition to be something that it isn't, and apparently willing to make deceptive comments about their sources in order to try to convince others that they are right.

These kinds of ridiculous edits simply will not be tolerated. If you want to claim something is the primary definition, find a source that actually says that, don;t just llink to something that proves you incorrect and hope nobody notices. DreamGuy 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You're still playing semantic games here. What the source demonstrates is how the term "myth" came to mean "falsehood" for Centuries and centuries of English language usage. It only came to mean "Narrative" in English because that's what certain self-styled "academics" got together and decided to redefine it as only relatively recently, and only with the purpose in mind of being able to state to the world that "It's a fact that the Scriptures are a myth". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a game, and the topic IS semantics, so it's important to get it right. The source you quote for these claims, however, prove you completely wrong. The "fictional" version is only a small subset of one of two major definitions. The first definition if simply talk, words, etc., the second definition is stories, and it dclearly says in your reference that the stories were without regard to truth or fiction.... you know, just like this article has been saying from the very beginning. The only place fiction is in there is in some minor submeanings a few sources used. That's not the primary usage, . you keep complaining about redefining things, but YOU are the one doing it. The modern academic meaning IS THE SAME as the original Greek, as PROVEN in the reference you linked to.And you recently violated the 3RR policy again (weren't you banned for that earlier) by putting the disputed text back in, with the edit comment that "if you object to "most ancient", change it to many" -- which defeats the purpose, as the alleged "many" references were actually contrary to the primary meaning of the word, so that you may have "many" (whatever that means) on your side, but the other side has "substantially a lot more than that". I hope you get blocked for the latest 3RR violation, and I hope against hope that you will learn that you can't seize control of an article to put in false information in an effort to justify your own religious bias. DreamGuy 01:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What a hypocrite you are. You have reverted even the slightest change to this article by any user to the only version you approve of as many as eight times in one hour, and you want me blocked for making slight (not identical) changes to your "Dream-Guy sanctioned" text. I have NEVER been blocked from wikipedia, not once, because I have never violated 3RR - unlike you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You need to stop attacking dreamguy with ad hom. It is already many against one. I just went to the link and I have to say I do not interpret it the way you say. It seems to me that the link is saying that myth primarily means: (cut and paste below from link and highlighted for emphasis.)
II. tale, story, narrative, Od.3.94, 4.324, S.Ant.11, etc.: in Hom. like the later logos, without distinction of true or false, m. paidos of or about him, Od.11.492: so in Trag., akousei muthon en brachei logôi (chronôi cod. M.) A.Pers.713; muthôn tôn Libustikôn Id.Fr.139.1 : in Prose, ton eikota m. the like ly story, like lihood, Pl.Ti.29d: prov., m. apôleto, either of a story which never comes to an end, or of one told to those who do not listen, Cratin.59, Crates Com.21, Pl.Tht. 164d, cf. R.621b, Lg.645b, Phlb.14a; m. esôthê 'that's the end of the story', Phot.
It then goes on to define other meanings of the word that are secondary:
2. fiction (opp. logos, historic truth), Pi.O.1.29 (pl.), N.7.23 (pl.), Pl.Phd.61b, Prt.320c, 324d, etc.
3. generally, fiction, m. idioi Phld.Po.5.5 ; legend, myth, Hdt.2.45, Pl.R.330d, Lg. 636c, etc.; ho peri theôn m. Epicur.Ep.3p.65U. ; tous m. tous epichôrious gegraphen SIG382.7 (Delos, iii B.C.).
4. professed work of fiction, children's story, fable, Pl.R.377a; of Aesop's fables, Arist. Mete.356b11.
5. plot of a comedy or tragedy, Id.Po.1449b5, 1450a4, 1451a16.
So please explain to me what you mean by writing that the word myth "quickly took on the sense of fiction, and both Pindar (d. 443 BC) and Plato (d. ca. 347 BC) contrast Μυθος with Λογος as "historical truth." Most ancient usages of Μυθος are specifically as fiction". There is no doubt that it quickly took on the meaning of fiction as a secondary definition but are you implying that it became the primary definition of the word? The text above that I copy and pasted from the link does not seem to imply that it became the primary definition of the word. This is not semantics and the primary definition in current dictionaries is still "narrative, without distinction of true or false" .
If the primary definition of myth is a "narrative, without distinction of true or false", and this is the form used in academia, then I see no reason why it should be not used that way in this article. Furthermore, if the word is defined in the introduction there can be no confusion with those who might mistake the definition for its secondary meaning. David D. (Talk) 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be confused between the meaning in Greek, and the meaning in English. All this source demonstrates is that it had already come to mean "falsehood" as early as 500 BC. By the time the New Testament was written, that's how it was understood. If you look in the OED, you'll see that the "primary meaning" in ENGLISH down through the centuries has always followed the New Testament usage, until quite recently, when these small cadre of revisionists calling themselves "academics" presumed to reconstruct the English language on behalf of a billion speakers, according to their own whims. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this the correct OED definition?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, myth can be defined in the following ways:
1. a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenonâ
b. As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre….
2. a. A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious)….
c. A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth.”
If so isn't their primary definition also as dreamguy has explained? If that is the case it is not following the NT usage?? What is the source you are using for that statement? David D. (Talk) 03:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Use the big OED, the one that has the entire history of the word in English through all the centuries from its earliest known use... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In a library or is there an online version? David D. (Talk) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In a library, AFAIK... (Yes, you might actually have to get up from your computer...!) ;o) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
To quote Codex:
"..because it would defeat their entire purpose -- which is to REDEFINE the word myth "academically" just so they can "get away" with declaring the scriptures of EVERY world religion (not just Christianity) "myths", and laugh up their sleeves at their own cleverness and deceptiveness for doing so. Redefining words away from their classical or traditional meaning, to try to "teach" the people that the common meaning is somehow incorrect and must now be discarded, and similar such semantic games, has been a favorite tactic of Revisionists, and the regimes that support them, for the last 100 years."
"..because that's what certain self-styled "academics" got together and decided to redefine it as only relatively recently, and only with the purpose in mind of being able to state to the world that "It's a fact that the Scriptures are a myth"."
"..until quite recently, when these small cadre of revisionists calling themselves "academics" presumed to reconstruct the English language on behalf of a billion speakers, according to their own whims."
Your POV is very clear here. A "repeated, coordinated suppression" this is not, nor is it part of a plot to ridicule religion in some subtle fashion, and you can't use these sorts of accusations to discount the modern definition. Even if you are convinced of deception, ulterior motives, tactics and regimes, the Mythology page isn't the place to push these sorts of theories. If you have seriously have citations for these claims perhaps you could present them on a branch of the Revisionism article, or the religous persecution article (I notice it's flagged as needing attention). If not, there's plenty of places outside Wikipedia for them. Adrian.baker 11:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Two accounts

Here are two accounts from translations of two different ancient texts:

  1. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
  2. When the sons of Borr were walking along the sea-strand, they found two trees, and took up the trees and shaped men of them: the first gave them spirit and life; the second, wit and feeling; the third, form, speech, hearing, and sight.

My view is that either both of those accounts are myths or neither is. Is there anyone who has a different opinion? I'm asking honestly - I'm trying to understand the roots of the semantic disagreement here. - Haukur 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are myths... unfortunately we have some religious types who want Wikipedia to come out and support their own beliefs as more true than other beliefs, which of course violates NPOV DreamGuy 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
While I'm no expert on the academic definition of "myth," the popular definition would make that a hot statement. The first account refers to a living religion. Adherents of that religion may perceive it as POV pushing against their beliefs. Durova 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good argument against using the word myth otherwise science would not be able to use the word theory. Everyone knows that words have several meanings and context is important. Obviously the context of this article is using an academic definition and it is clearly stated in case there is any confusion. To mistake the use of the word myth as false in this context would appear to be wilful. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It's an argument for using it judiciously. Bear in mind that while many educated readers know the difference between scientific and popular use of artery and theory, the particular distinction this article attempts to make is much less well known. Durova 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Assume (1) is true. If so, then (2) must be false. Why use the same term to describe both? There are two other possibilities: (2) is true, and (1) is false, in which case there is still no reason to use the same term for both; or, both (1) and (2) are false. What's not a possibility is that both (1) and (2) are true. At any rate, the truth or falsehood of creation accounts is not something that can be stated with any absolute certainty, unless you were there with a videocam at the time. There are more neutral, and less ambiguous, terms to apply than "myth", which practically EVERY DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE GIVES "FALSE" AS ONE OF THE ACCEPTED MEANINGS FOR (see ambiguous) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I see. Would you prefer to avoid the word myth entirely in describing those stories on Wikipedia? - Haukur 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If someone prefers that, it may fly elsewhere, but it certainly cannot on the main mythology article. DreamGuy 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
So the word you want to use is story? Won't there be the same problem with that word? It has multiple definitions too. David D. (Talk) 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Not the least of which is the mythology article is going to look stupid if we aren;t allowed to discuss myths and mythology on it for fear of insulting people who refuse to read the real definitions. DreamGuy 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you're totally distorting the issue. The REAL issue here is that you won't suffer any discussion of the history of the usage of the term to appear in the article, which is most certainly a fair enough topic, and I don't know of any neutral way to describe your reaction when someone tried to make a branch article at the location "myth" (mainly to appease you, just so the topic of usage wouldn't have to appear in this article) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no. The real issue, as you have so blatantly demonstrated over and over, is that you want to claim that the original and primary meaning of the word was something other than what it really was so that you can remove all mention of any Christian stories as myths because that puts them at the same level of other religioous beliefs, and you want Christianity to be treated specially in order to lend more weight to it than any other beliefs. DreamGuy 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to allow you to redefine my argument for me, because that is a complete strawman. When have I ever once stated that I want "special treatment" for Christianity? Stop lying. I said I object to your calling "ALL RELIGIONS" "mythology" as if it were a totally, neutral, innocent fact that noone may challenge. I'm also filing a complaint with the higher-ups about your use of racialist language above. If your only purpose here is to push pov and spread ill feeling toward others on the basis of faith or religion or whatever, you really should have been blocked for a lot longer than you just were. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that I'm not trying to redefine your argument for you, your argument is that you want to redefine mythology to go with your inaccurate layman's understanding of the word in order to advance your religion (you claim all religions, but the only uses you objected to were your religion -- EVERYTHING listed on the main article is a religion) and are willing to lie and make personal attacks to do so. I am not doping any POV pushing here, in fact I am putting all the religions on equal footing, while you want to somehow only support ones you believe in, or, grudgingly, ones that are national relgions or whatever. All myths -- currently believe in, largely disbelieved, wildly popular, unpopular, old, new -- need to be referred to as myths in the acadmeic sense in order to follow NPOV policy. Singling out the ones you wnat as more real than others is highly biased. The academic definition, in fact, is specifically created to be unbiased, with no value judgments on the truthness or fasleness of any stories. Go ahead and "report" me. The racist term above was not used to attack anyone but was used to give an example of people incorrectly thinking a word meant one thing when it doesn't, for you to portray it as a racist attack is simply disgusting. The blkock I had was improper, as many admins have since noted, and came from someone breaking rules to get at me. With any luck that admin will be disciplined for it. With your calculated POV-pushing, personal attacks, highly uncivil actions, and outright lying to try to get your way, with any luck you'll be blocked yourself. DreamGuy 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
OMG I've just been called uncivil by... by... DreamGuy... I guess he'll always hold others to a higher standard than himself!!! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I mean- the issue here is that we don't like our own "myths" called myths. ???? Is right in that part of the accepted definition of myth is "a false belief."

If we cleaned up this sentence a bit, taking out the archetype/mind idea (both of which subtely DO make statements about the veracity of myths- I think we'd have a very neutral overall stance for the article: For the purposes of this article, therefore, the word mythology is used to refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. Sethie 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest mediation

I've followed up on RfC a couple of times and instead of improvement it looks as if people are drawing lines in the sand and calling names. It looks like you'd be better off in mediation. Durova 17:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"What links here" to "mythology" in Wikipedia

Just go to mythology and check out "what links here" to see how the term mythology is usually used, as the opposite of "historical". You can claim that this is because of ignorance on the part of ignorant editors who don't use the "academic definition" of the word. But it doesn't seem like the academic definition is very popular or understood outside of academia. (I have trouble understanding what the academics are defining it as myself, since it's all a spurious argument designed specifically to allow them to dryly dismiss certain faiths as "mythologies" - of course, "they"'ll inform you which ones are now regarded as "mythology" and which aren't, so you won't have to worry your little head thinking too hard about it, because it's all NPOV, see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Myth&limit=500&from=0 What links here: myth (only a few samples):

"Few of the details of the Buddha's life can be independently verified, and it is difficult to determine what is history and what is myth."

Prominent section header entitled "Reality or myth?"

"The sharp distinction between history and myth is relatively recent."

(Oh, how interesting! That article, written by one of these double-speaking academics, says there is a sharp distinction between history and myth after all! I would strongly disagree that it is a recent one, however.)

"The widespread notion that Columbus encountered opposition based on the idea that the Earth was flat is a literary myth..."

(Hmm, do you think the article is trying to say it was a narrative, that may be true or false?)

- goes to lengths to explain that any narrative can be a myth, even when they are real... then has two prominent section headers to separate the legends that are "Mostly myth" from those that are "Mostly real"...

I haven't gotten very far down the list yet, but almost every single link to "myth" I've checked so far, clearly uses it to imply that something is false, and "not to be believed". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that there is a distinction between history and myth. There's also something called legend which lies, in some ways, between the first two.
Take a look at Odin. You'll see that he is one of the mythological kings of Sweden. Click on his successor, then on his successor, then on his successor... Eventually you'll get to the semi-legendary kings of Sweden. When you're done with those you'll come to the historical kings of Sweden and if your patience doesn't run out you'll end up on the article on the present monarch, Carl XVI Gustaf.
Wikipedia can draw a distinction between mythical, legendary and historical material, though the lines are sometimes blurry. What it can not do is to imply more historical validity for, say, the creation account in the Genesis than the creation account in the Eddas. Either both should be labelled as myths or neither should be, those are the only possibilities that fit with a neutral point of view. - Haukur 17:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I saw it alleged on this page that there are communities of people today who actually take Odin's or Apollo's existence as a deity seriously. Is this demonstrably true? How many temples do they have, and where are they? I had thought belief in Odin and Apollo was practically universally discarded, which is what people used to imply when they said these were myths. It's a far different thing when you say a living religion is a myth (as contrasted with historical), and not at all neutral; it's pov pushing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Apollo, but I believe that the Ásatrú religion worships Odin. I've actually met (and ministered to) a member of that faith while serving as a hospital chaplain. KHM03 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Some Neopagans worship Greek gods and goddesses. Layman's use of the term to mean "discarded" beliefs is irrelevant, however, and with Neopaganism on the scene you'd be hard pressed to find all that many that have been totally discarded anyway. DreamGuy 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate uses of terms on other articles is not cause to change the definition on the main article. Again, as explained mutliple times, the common idea of what "evolution", "immaculate conception", "myth" and other words mean are different from how they are used within their appropriate fields. As long as these articles explain the correct usage of the terms so there can be no confusion, it's already taken care of. If anything, you should go with the meaning as used on the main page as the people who know what they are talking about wrote the main page, not people in other areas using words willynilly. If you wanted to improive this encyclopedia you'd go to those articles you cited and update them so they do not use the term inaccurately. DreamGuy 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, using other wikipedia pages, or other web sites, as a gottcha example does not fly. How do we know the authors were academics as claimed? How do we know that is correct usage? All it proves is that it is the common usuage among wikipedians. Should we be surprised by this given how many here are not academics? In an encylopedia one should strive for correct usage first and then make every attempt to avoid confusion for those that prefer common usage. Just because wikipedia is written by us commoners does not mean that the common misconceptions should be allowed to stand.
Thinking about this a while. If all religions on this page are not called myths but something else, why are they on this page? I assume we are not going to change the name of the page. Is this all leading down the slippery slope of removing all religious references from this page? Excepting dead religions of course. David D. (Talk) 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There were over 500 page-links to "myth"... I only checked the first 7 pages, and of those 7, I reproduced the first 5 above...  % out of 7, at that rate it would take months for one person to go through the entire wikipedia to fix every article where "myth" is used as the opposite of "historical"... BTW we now seem to have a difference of opinion, because Haukurth just conceded above that "Everyone agrees that there is a distinction between history and myth." Hmmm, Maybe Haukurth still doesn't understand DreamGuy's ever-changing definition??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, "myth" is a frequently misused word, just like "evolution" etc. etc. That's the problem with a free encyclopedia where people can write whatever they want without it being fact checked for accuracy. Doesn;t surprise me it's used incorrectly in a lot of places, as I see people screwing it up all the time. They also screw up "legend" "fable" and similar terms quite regularly... Typical people try to use them all interchangably sa if they all were the same thing. That doesn't mean we should change the articles here about each of those topics to mean all the same thing. DreamGuy 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is one better than the other

Personally I am leaming towards version A. Please humour those of us who you are drawn to this discussion with your RfC. David D. (Talk) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Scored out undisputed text.

Verion A - Dreamguys preferred version:

"Myth" redirects here. For the computer game, see Myth (computer game), for the movie, see The Myth.

The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυϑολογειν mythologein to relate myths, from μυϑος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λογος logos, meaning speech or argument) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, "mythology" is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths.

Pro arguments:

This is not the main part under dispute, but, basically, this version is better because it gives a fuller explanation of the root parts of the word. The rest of the paragraph is the same, innit? DreamGuy 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I scored out the undiputed text. Yes I agree the fuller explanation appears to be much better. I do not understand why that needs to be changed. That is what i was trying to understand. David D. (Talk) 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Con arguments:

Version B - Codex Sinaiticus' preferred version

"Myth" redirects here. For the computer game, see Myth (computer game), for the movie, see The Myth.

The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, "storytelling" [7]) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, "mythology" is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths.

Pro arguments:

Con arguments:

No, it's not about that paragraph at all... I know it looks confusing to anyone trying to follow the reverts, but I could really care less whether that paragraph says "storytelling" or "mythologein"... That just happens to be a vestige from the version JHCC first wrote, that keeps getting included in with the reverts... The real reason I'm reverting has to do with the following section. I want there to be a discussion of the historical usage of the word in Greek AND English, backed up with verifiable quotes and references including the OED. DreamGuy is apparently afraid of this, because he wants us to think the "academic definition" is not a recently contrived neologism, but was ALWAYS "the" definition, carved in stone for eternity, and doesn't want anyone to know the true history of the word, or even allow it to be discussed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense... the source you keep referring to proves the true history of the word which contradicts your claims. The current academic definition is the original definition and has always been the primary definition except for recently in nonacademic slang usage. We don;t rewrite encyclopedias to give preference to false information based upon people wanting to use the slang definition in preference to all others so that he can try to advance his own religious beliefs as somehow more valid than any other beliefs/stories out there. As long as you keep arguing for some sort of conspiracy theory where academics changed the meaning of the word to secretly make fun of the people who used it the other way, you'll be off in your own little world completely divorced from reality. DreamGuy 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)