Talk:Mythology

RfC
Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version) all be used in the article rather than using only the word "humanity"? Buster Seven   Talk  05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification to RfC: The phrase means that "humankind" remains at the lead, "humanity" remains in the "Terminology" section and the word "mankind" remains inside the quotes of the verbatim Joseph Campbell definition. When commenting please comment on both the RfC and the clarification. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support (as they stand in the current version). Also per Johnuniq, "mankind" must be in quotes. Rigidly and robotically repeating "humanity" on every occasion and avoiding the word "humankind" is absurd POV-smacking ideological bias against the word "humankind", a well-used and accepted literary word of the English language. Mechanical repetition of the term "humanity" to the exclusion of the word "humankind"  also results in stilted prose. Ideological POV-driven removals of words do not belong in an encyclopaedia and are counter-intellectual. We are not in the business of banning words. Period. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   06:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support the clarification. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. If we just consider the flow of language and our desire to keep the reader interested, we editors should choose a variety of words that may mean the same thing. Constant use of the same word is redundant. ```Buster Seven   Talk  06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Note: I support "(as they stand in the current version)" addendum to this RfC Buster Seven   Talk 
 * I also support the clarification. Buster Seven   Talk  00:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I want to address the "few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before" comment that was given in earlier discussions as a reason to remove "humankind". We have no way of knowing whether that suggestion is correct, but we do know that the word "humankind" is commonly used in written works, and this is not simple:, and Wikipedia should and does use words that are not part of a limited vocabularly. I hope no one wants to use "mankind" (other than in quotes) as that kind of expression is not part of modern writing, but naturally the article will use a variety of terms as part of good written expression. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also support clarification. There would need to be plausible reason for changing things, other than the degree of familiarity individual editors may have with a particular word. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support because other options than just the three offered exist as well. Sentences could be structured in such a way as to allow other options as well, such as "peoples," "ethnic groups," etc. I might myself find the word "humankind" to somewhat strike a somewhat jarring note, and think that other options, like the ones I suggested and others, might be somewhat preferable. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - We ABSOLUTELY should not change what is in quotes, and the the difference between humankind and humanity is stylistic in this case. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. "Humankind" should be avoided since it's rarely used, "Mankind" is traditional and is not "sexist." "Humanity" should be used carefully since it has multiple meanings. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And it is, of course, a well-known fact that languages must never be allowed to reflect changes in people's thinking and behavior. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Comment It would´ve been nice if the RFC question was actually on the dispute, which is should the lead be humankind or humanity. The currently worded RFC is obviously going to pass, despite bypassing the actual dispute. Edgth (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Editor Edgth. I wrote this RfC to resolve the dispute that I saw. If you see another dispute (what you call the actual dispute), you are free to create your own RfC to resolve that one. There was no attempt to bury anything or cleverly disguise anything. Wikipedia editors are collaborators not adversaries. No one is trying to trick you. ```Buster Seven   Talk  04:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it isn´t directly on the dispute and should probably end. I may do an RFC on the dispute, not sure. Edgth (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The RFC wording covers that specifically: Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version). Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The main point of the question is should a diverse range of words be used. Who´s going to bother checking the article for the placement of those words? Edgth (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the apparent attempt to limit the dicussion to the words in the lead, I would suggest mankind or humanity be used first, the other word second (if repetition is a concern) and possibly alter any remaining duplication by altering the sentence structure to allow other commonly used phrases to be used, "humankind" probably, given its somewhat rare usage, being perhaps one of the last alternatives should there be excessive repetition. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the qualification is clear enough. Anyone who wants to comment on this RFC is assumed to have read all of it carefully before deciding. In addition our current comments will also help clarify that the expression  means that the RfC participant agrees with the locations in which the words are placed in the current version of the article. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it cleverly disguises the actual dispute which is over humankind or humanity being in the lead. Edgth (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Mankind" is not an option because per Wikipedia MOS gender-neutral words are preferred. Please see also relevant discussion at Bahá'í Faith. Also Google searches have established that the usage of "humankind" is actually preferred over "humanity" when combined with "creation" or similar words. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mankind is gender-neutral as it refers to men and women. Just like woman is not sexist just because it has the letters m a n in the word. No, your Google search shows that a specific combination of words resulted in humankind being slightly more popular just for that combination. A Google search of mythology and humanity and mythology and humankind show that humanity got over 7 million hits while humankind got less than 10% of that. Edgth (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mankind" is not gender-neutral. It is definitely sexist and its not because it contains the letters m, a, and n. Its sexist because it connotes all the historical and social dominance of men over women. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  03:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That´s a depressing connotation. The word man is derived from the original word meaning person, ie human; somewhat ironic given the present dispute. Thus any connotation like that is not the fault of the word. Anyway, per my orginal comment, this RFC is useless and we should stop wasting people´s time. I may start an RFC that addresses the dispute directly, though whether I can be bothered remains to be seen. Edgth (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see the default duration for a RfC is 30 days. I agree that we should stop wasting peoples time, but I'm not sure "we" is the correct pronoun. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC's work best when the question is as specific as possible. The endeavor is to eliminate disagreements, one at a time. If the RfC is too broad-based, at the end there is still confusion. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I´ll make an RfC as specific and direct as possible to finally put this to rest. So can we close this one now? Edgth (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Not yet. Maybe in two weeks as per instructions at WP:RfC. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It says the original poster can withdraw it at any time. As this RfC won´t solve anything, can you exercise that right? Edgth (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since editors have already !voted this cannot be withdrawn. We don't have to jump through hoops by opening another RfC. I have added a clarification so I will simply add that I accept the clarification to my comment above. Buster can do the same. I'll inform Johnuniq and John Carter. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have informed both John Carter and Johnuniq of the clarification and invited them to comment on their acceptance of it or not. Meanwhile I indicated my support for the clarification and so has Buster7. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and now Editor Johnuniq. @ Editor Edgth. I notice you have not participated in the survey. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  06:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don´t plan to, as the clarification doesn´t make the RfC question direct or neutral to the dispute. Besides, see below for the proposed version that´s going to require another RfC. Edgth (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was randomly selected for the RFC commentary and mythology is a subject I studied a great deal in High School, Greek, Roman, and Christian mostly since they hold significant consequences in Western civilizations today.
 * My suggestion is that the textual usages of the word "mankind" is traditional and should be retained as the primary term since male-specific shading of the English language is part of the English language, after all. The word "humankind" is not often used here on Earth. After all, we don't use the word "Dolpiniuskind" to describe the family of dolphins, so I would suggest that "humankind" not be the primary term, it is rarely used. Finally the word "humanity" has several meanings (such as when describing humanitarian emotive, such as "oh the humanity!",) so care must be taken when applying the term.
 * Also it is suggested that "mankind" is "sexist." That's complete bullshit. The English language is what it is. Let's not neutralize or feminize the English language. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Gender-neutral language. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  09:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Didn't Neil Armstrong say "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" when he first landed on the moon, on July 21, 1969? warshy<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">¥¥ 16:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment What does that have to do with Mythology? I thought the Moon landing actually happened. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  09:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

30 days?
The RfC page says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." )
 * The RfC process is voluntary and designed to bring in viewpoints from outside the dispute to attempt to negotiate a solution. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Myth-ritual theory examples needed
From the entry under Myth-ritual theory: "According to the myth-ritual theory, the existence of myth is tied to ritual.[52] In its most extreme form, this theory claims that myths arise to explain rituals.[53] This claim was first put forward by the biblical scholar William Robertson Smith.[54] According to Smith, people begin performing rituals for a reason that is not related to myth...."

Could someone with knowledge of this subject supply an example or two of rituals people began performing that are not related to myth here? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mythographer
Mythographer redirects to this page, but this page does not contain an explanation for what a mythographer is. It also contains links to Mythographer that then just redirect back here. 192.157.11.100 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A mythographer is a collector or compiler of myths. And you are correct "mythographer" redirects to this article, even though this article does not define the term, which is a problem. I've eliminated the self link, but either mythographer should have it's own article (my preference) or this article needs to explain and discuss the term. Paul August &#9742; 14:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

More coverage of ancient mythologies?
Should there be section-level coverage of Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Chinese mythology, etc. on this page? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140630101827/http://www.jgmf.org/ to http://www.jgmf.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This article is well written, why should it be restructured ? (171.49.208.206 (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Myth and Mythology: Why Two Articles?
Is there any reason why we have an article for myth and an article for mythology? Why aren't they handled on the same page? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Huge Focus and Undue Emphasis on Joseph Campbell, Poor Overview, Needs Rewrite
I understand that Joseph Campbell has a pop culture following, perhaps in part due to the influence Campbell's theories have had on, say, movies such as Star Wars. But Campbell's theories on, say, a so-called Monomyth have long been rejected by academics, and Campbell plays essentially no role in folkloristics, philology, or any of the various other fields that regularly focus on the topic of myth. I've just stripped a huge amount of quotes and references to Campbell from this piece per WP:UNDUE. What remains is a brief mention Campbell's monomyth theory and its rejection by academia.

Meanwhile, I note that the article completely ignores crucial figures in the field such as Georges Dumézil and gives some important figures, such as Bruce Lincoln, a single mention here and there. It looks to me like this article needs a total reworking from the ground up that actually reflects the study and history of the topic. I've tagged it for a rewrite. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Mythology to myth
I propose that we merge this page, mythology, to myth due to extensive overlap. Mythology is generally defined as either a body of myths or the study thereof, and one cannot discuss myth without discussing of its reception or its context. I see no reason why these two topics should not be handled in the same article, and it appears to me that splitting the two has in no way helped Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Both articles are short and would necessarily cover the same ground. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * this needs a proper move proposal, see WP:RM. Doug Weller  talk 13:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. How is this a controversial proposal? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is reasonable, but both articles seem too narrow. We have topics like The Mythical Man-Month and Mythology of The X-Files, neither of which fit into the sacred narrative mold. Given the broader concepts of myth and mythology in use, I could see why there is a call for a proper, announced proposal. -- 16:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of these instances are patterned after the folklore genre use, and they'd fall into a "modern popular culture" or even "etymology and use" section. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but maybe there are folks at Myth who might have something to say? But I was being stupid, this isn't a move, so WP:MERGEINIT applies and that says the discussion normally takes place on the destination page, with both pages tagged. Doug Weller  talk 18:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've opened a discussion at myth and modified the tags. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Summaries of individual mythologies
Should this page have short summaries of individual mythologies? Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it could have a one-to-two paragraph summary of the most notable mythologies (Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Chinese mythology ... I'm not sure how to choose which) in what would be an entirely new section. I don't see content in the lead sections of those articles that summarizes in the right format for this article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it should. There's no way to ascertain how any myth complexes are more "notable" than others. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to say No also. It would be impossible to adequately summarize every single world mythology in a single article and we would kill ourselves trying. It would be better for this article to talk about the concept of mythology, what defines it, characteristics of the genre, and the methods used by scholars who study it (both historically and currently). I think all that on its own should be enough to fill up a rather sizable article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I can see where this is going; unless an unexpected way to select some mythologies to discuss presents itself, this isn't going to happen. Right now, the Mythology template links to a bunch of these; I'm not sure I like how it looks but it's a good way to have links somewhere other than the article body. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Atlas: Merger proposal
I've proposed that Atlas of Mauretania be merged into Atlas (mythology). Feel free to chip in on the talk page here.MajoranaF (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)