Talk:Mythology/Archive 3

Untitled
Archives 7 October 2005 21:02, January 9, 2006

Archived
The page was getting extremely long, and no progress was being made on old conversation, so I archived them. See the llink above to January 9, 2006. October 7, 2005 archived discussions are also available. DreamGuy 08:07, 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:
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 undisputed 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)

Version B - Codex Sinaiticus' preferred version
The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, "storytelling" ) 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.

I am being misrepresented again. This is NOT "my preferred version". My preferred version just got moved to an archive, I know you don't want it to be easily accessible, but that was a cheap shot. So once again, here on the main talk page is my REAL preferred version, that is fair and valid, and actually makes a start at lending some historical credibity to this rather pathetic article full of neologisms:

'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." Many ancient usages of Μυθος are specifically as fiction; see here for details in the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon entry on Μυθος.'''


 * Calm down, I put what i thought was your prefered version. I copied it from your edited version here. Also, the article is clearly not full of neologisms, please base these arguments on reality. The word myth DOES have a meaning as used in this article, in fact, it is the primary definition in all dictionaries I have looked at (I still have not seen the library version of the OED). The debate is about whether myth should be used with that meaning (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 phenomenon) or your prefered definition (A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth). Just out of interest why do you think it is a neologism? David D. (Talk) 16:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Pro arguments:
By hiding your head in the sand about the history of the usage of the word as it has always (until recently) been used in ENGLISH to mean "opposite of historical", it reveals that you "academics" see it as your role to "steer" the billion or so speakers of English away from this accepted, historical usage and brainwash them into using only your contrived definition that includes all the major relgions of the world. Guess what, nobody appointed you to redefine the English language and say all the dictionaries are wrong. "Myth" has ALWAYS meant "discarded belief" in English, and it's not going to suddenly stop meaning that just because you claim all English speakers are ignorant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You have shown no proof that this is a new usage for this word. You have referred the the OED which i have not yet had time to look at but the concise OED has your definition as the secondary defintion. Also you are starting to throw ad hom attacks with the use of words like brainwash. What do you mean say all dictionaries are wrong?  So far EVERY dictionary I have looked at has Dreamguys defintion as the primary definition? David D. (Talk) 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "concise OED". There's only one OED, it's not online, and it has the earliest known usage of every word in the English language with all possible variations and a detailed explanation of how the usage evolved.  It's a huge multi-volume book written in tiny type that you have to look at with a magnifying glass.  DreamGuy seems to be saying that what you call the "secondary definition" (which was actually the only definition in English for centuries) is false or erroneous, since he doesn't accept this dictionary definition, he seems to be saying that all those dictionaries are wrong.  A word with two meanings is ambiguous, it is not npov to use it for scriptures regarded as sacred by a significant number of followers.  This means not just the Bible, but it is also not neutral to say "the Quran is mythology", "the Bhagavad Gita is mythology", "the Lotus Sutra is mythology", or even "Das Kapital is mythology", because these books have significant numbers of followers who regard them as sacred. Let people make up their own minds about them, don't force your opinion on them by using a slippery ambiguous word, and pretend that its "neutrality" is so indisputable, that anyone who presumes to dispute this terminology is just so ignorant it doesn't deserve to be qualified as a "dispute".  Millions, maybe even billions of people DO dispute this terminology, and you're saying these people don't count, because a few people calling themselves "academics" are smarter than they all are.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps David is referring to the two volume Compact Edition (1971) of the OED, which is a photo reduction (thus requiring a magnifying glass) of the thirteen volume 1933 edition (four pages of the original on each page of the Compact edition) &mdash; By the way, there are also electronic versions (CD and online database). In my copy of the Compact Edition the definition of "myth" is:


 * A purely fictional narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historic phenomena.
 * A fictitious or imaginary person or object.


 * Paul August &#9742; 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think David is referring to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary ISBN 0198608640 (1728 pages), which is a desktop dictionary comparable to the unabridged Webster's. Paul is correct in his description of the two-volume Compact Edition; however, there is also another Compact OED of Current English ISBN 10019860713X (1390 pages &mdash; is similar in size to the Concise Edition).  This smaller Compact Edition is available online here.  JHCC  (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * This is the other one of DreamGuy's LIES, and it's the really BIG lie. He wants everyone to think "his" definition of myth is the "older" definition in English, and the popular definition as "false" is the neologism, and ignorant.  Let the facts come to light.  It may have originally been a neutral word meaning "word" in GREEK, but not in English.  The reference to Pindar proves that it had already come to mean "false" in Greek before 443 BC.  By the time the New Testament was written in Greek in the 1st C. AD, that's how it was universally understood.  Every single usage of "mythos" in the NT is in the sense of "fable", ie. "ideas that are discarded" by the early church.  All you have to do is get an OED to find out exactly how the word was used in English from it's very first recorded usage, to sort out the "true history of the word", and find out which meaning is truly the older, original definition of the English term, and which meaning is the newly-coined imposter that only began to be pushed by a minority of revisionists on the rest of English speakers within very recent history...  Getting an OED from a library, finding the "true history of the word" from the OED, and putting it in the article should be a simple matter, what are you so afraid of???  Or are you going to say the "OED" is false, because it contradicts your revisionist ideas about the "true history of the word" ???  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, the source you linked to to try to prove your claim on the original definition clearly showed you wrong. You have a rather self-serving idea of what "lying" means. DreamGuy 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it proves that the term "myth" was used in the sense of "false, fiction" by Pindar, who died in 443 BC. That's a really long time ago, so allegations that the usage as "false" is the "new" one are disproven, and this reference that you keep deleting proves it.   Every encyclopedia I have around here from just a few years ago, in the "mythology" article, it talks mostly about "Greek" and "Norse" mythology, not a whisper about any modern religions being "mythology".  Hmmm, I wonder why that is?  Have the "academics" "changed" something magically only in the last few years, to make it "fair game" all of a sudden to lump modern religions in with "mythology"???  Or is this just the latest failed attempt to do what Enver Hoxha did...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are claiming that however Pindar used it automatically is right and not slang, despite the clear evidence in the same source you linked to that showed Pindar was in the extreme minority when he used the word in that way? Your claims of some worldwide conspiracy are nonsense, unless the Greeks who created the word were in on it as well, in which case they were secretly opposed to the modern Christian religion before Christ was even born. DreamGuy 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so let me get this straight... According to you, the definition of "mythology" does, and always has, covered religion, and anyone who disagrees with that is sloppy and using slang... Pindar is only the earliest recorded use in Greek...  Then you have the New Testament, by which time it meant only one thing, false...  By the time the word entered the English language, it meant only one thing, false...  For centuries, it meant only one thing, false... Then when you get to very recent years, all of a sudden a minority of "academics" can claim that it always meant something else all along, and that their definition is "older", even though it hadn't been used in that sense since 500 BC. There is no continuity of your definition through the centuries, we're talking about how the English use of the word was taken from the New Testament. I know that myself and others have typed these plain facts over and over again, but you are willfully ignoring them and claiming that 99% of English speaker who use and understand "myth" to mean "false, not historical" (including: 500+ articles on wikipedia, every single other Encyclopedia, and every single dictionary) are all "sloppy". Man, you're just too much. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Article is now locked
The article has now been locked to prevent edit warring, so now we don't have to worry about people adding things before getting consensus as the article can't be edited again until we have consensus. Let's discuss this in sections... DreamGuy 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy
My first major concern is NPOV policy. This whole fuss started when an editor objected to narratives within his religious beliefs being referred to as "myths" while being perfectly fine with every other listing of the word myth on the article referring to every other religious belief past and present. That simply cannot fly. We are not here to set up one or more religion as substantially more deserving or more truthful than any others. I don't care if one is old or one is new, one has a billion believers while one may only have a thousand, or possibly even none alive anymore. They are all the same according to NPOV policy and they must be treated the same. Wikipedia does not take sides. DreamGuy 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just one of Dreamguy's LIES. Do not allow him to get away with LYING and REDEFINING and DISTORTING my argument. This is what is known as a "STRAWMAN".  I have never ONCE made such a silluy argument, but when you bestow upon yourself the "right" to define your opponent's srgument foe him, you can make him say whatever you want.  That is the oldest trick in the book, and it is a LIE.  SHOW ME where I ever ONCE said anything so foolish. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See this edit and this edit, both made by yourself. Adrian.baker 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand by those edits. I would not consider it any more npov if the article read "Sura 28 of the Quran is an example of myth" (although I'm sure a few Hindu extemists would be gloating if it did) , nor if it read "The 18th chapter of the Mahabharata is an example of myth", nor if it read "The last part of the Lotus Sutra is an example of a myth". I might not believe any of those books personally, but that is irrelevant to NPOV.  I'm not in favour of giving any major faith special status.  You don't have to go back too many years to see that Encyclopedias restricted discussion of "mythology" to beliefs that are no longer current.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear proof that you are operating out of bias and POV-pushing by selectively choosing what religions you want to call false. DreamGuy 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Academic tone
Yes, some people use myth to mean false. Yes some people think the word means exactly the same as "legend" "fable" "old wive's tale" or "fiction". Common slang usage doesn't really differentiate between them. This, however, is an encyclopedia. These words all have different, more precise meanings that have very quantifiable differences between them and a lot less overlap that a layperson understands. Wikipedia is for people looking for more advanced knowledge, not just some slang dictionary. Mythology is an academic discipline. That's what this article is for. DreamGuy 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So in other words, never mind what all the dictionaries say. Dreamguy's definition of "myth" is the only valid one, so he is right and the rest of wikipedia is wrong; and all the dictionaries are wrong too, because they all recognise the older meaning in English as a synonym for "falsehood" as valid, thus these dictionaries are all promoting ignorance and contradicting Dreamguy, so their definition "won't fly"...  Hmm... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't we utilize both definitions somehow? Let's try and find a compromise which is respectful of both the academic definition and the common, everyday understanding of the word(s).  KHM03 14:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be ideal, but every time anyone adds in the referenced, historical data showing that there is a secondary longstanding common definition since 500 BC, it gets reverted by the "owner" of this article, producing the one-sided version that is locked now. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And likewise the opposite happens. That is why we need to find a compromise.  As  KHM03 suggests it must be poosible to use "both" definitions in a way that does not degrade the quality of the article but without misleading people. In fact it has to happen otherwise the article will be protected for the forseeable future. Not to mention the huge waste of effort in arguments on the talk page.  David D. (Talk) 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm all for including both definitions, so I agree to this compromise, for my part. I have never deleted any other parts of the article, except the statement that "the Book of Revelation is an example of a myth".  The problem is that whenever I include the history of the usage of the word, it gets deleted and even was "swept under the carpet" to the archive page from the main page, like someone is afraid to have an article that talks about the history of the usage with verifiable sources.  Without any history, the entire article is filled with recent opinions of only one school of scholarship no earlier than the 20th Century, but that approach is supposed to be so "neutral", and so sacrosanct in its "neutrality", that noone may even challenge or dispute it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but whenver you tried to "include the history of the usage of the word," the sources you cited disagreed with what you were claiming about the history of the usage of the word. Nobody is objecting to historical information being included, but it must be accurate and verifiable. So far you expect us to take you at your word that your idea of the secret history and concpiracy to change the meaning of th word is correct, despite the evidence to the contrary in the very link you provided. DreamGuy 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy, do you disagree with the definition from the OED I gave above?:
 * A purely fictional narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historic phenomena.
 * A fictitious or imaginary person or object.
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sensitivity
Naturally, those people who do not know the academic sense may be offended if their beliefs are referred to sa myths. By all means we should mention the common usage and not ignore it. This mention should be (and is) at the begininng of the article so there can be no confusion to anyone reading it. We may be able to tweak the way we have it, but we don't need to spend paragraph upon paragraph beating it to death. I don't thikn we have to go out of of our way to label religious beliefs as myths, simply because people still hold an emotional attachment to it despite the clear definition given. On theother hand, avoiding calling the stories withing religious tradition myths so as not to offend would have to be applied to all religions equally (per NPOV above) if we were to do it, and that would basically mean we couldn;t use the word at all in the article in connection with anything listed there, as those are all religions. We can't very well have an article talking about mythology if we censor the word myth right out of the text. We cannot be so overly sensitive that we lose the educational value, nor selectively sensitive to take sides. DreamGuy 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What a fair and balanced article would talk about is the history of the usage of the word in the English language until it was "claimed" by a tiny cadre of agenda-driven self-styled "academics". The history of the usage of the word in English is all a matter of indisputable record.  Why are you so afraid to include it? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not "afraid" to include anything, you simply have provided no sources whatsoever that support your supposed "indisputable record". Provide a real, valid and verifiable source, and you get a mention. If you want your claims to be presented as the leading thoughts on the matter, you also need to provide additional sources that outweigh all of the many sources that prove you wrong. This is simply common sense. All you are doing is proclaiming yourself right and not giving anyone any support for your claims. DreamGuy 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the source that was given. It states that Pindar used "myth" in the sense of false, and he died in 443 BC. I know this blows your whole argument about "myth=false" being a recent uneducated fallacy, because the "academics" had it right all along. But down through the centuries, it only had one meaning. Nothing has changed in the defnition, you just don't want to accept it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the source clearly said the primary definition was a story regardless of whether it wsa or true or false, and the one Pindar section was a minor exception to the clearly used meaning. You kept trying to falsely declare Pindar's rather unorthodox use as the primary definition. The claim that "down through the centuries, it only had one meaning" is complete nonsense, as the source you yourself linked to clearly showed otherwise. In fact it's inconceivable that anyone could look at that source and come to your conclusion... DreamGuy 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition itself
The definition of mythology is something we had huge long debates about in the past, and we went through and hammered out the precise wording. I don't know that that can be improved upon. Someone took out the word "supernatural" and said that wasn't necessarily part of myths, but then apparently was using the alternate definition of "falsehood" to make that claim. Myths are the stories within religions, and being within the realm of religion there has to be some sort of supernatural presense to them, even if it's incidental (such as a son of a god or what have you). Keep in mind that some things commonly thought of as myths are actually legends or folklore, so if you think of a myth that doesn;t have a supernatural element, it may really be more a legend. The aspect that myths are (or were by the culture) believed to be true also has to stay in there (somebody tried to remove that also), as a "myth" that isn't believed to be true is either a parable or a kind of folklore or outright fiction. DreamGuy 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You claim to be able to inform us which books of the Bible are "myths" and which aren't. By redefining the canon, you are claiming an authority equivalent or greater than that of the Pope. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He is not redefining the canon. His use of the word myth, clearly defined in the article, as "stories that a particular culture believes to be true". You are the one who on several occasions has accused Dreamguy of using strawman arguments. I have not seen him use one yet. On the other hand this is definitely a strawman argument to add to your ad hom attack above where you accuse dreamguy of trying to brainwash people.  These kind of arguments and accusations make your poistion look very weak. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you been even reading this page and the earlier now-archive page??? You haven't seen him use a strawman argument?  When he says I am seeking special favours for Christianity, he is making what is called "a strawman argument", because I never said that and I don't think that.  First of all, he is assuming I am a Christian.  I am solely concerned with the standpoint of NEUTRALITY here.  There's lots of Hindus who would love to be able to write "The Quran is an example of myths" on here.  There's lots of Muslims who would love to write "The Bhagavad Gita is an example of myths".  But wikipedia must not take sides, it must be neutral and not refer to any belief that is widespread today as a "myth".  I and others have made this clear point over and again, and this argument is continually met with willful obtuseness.  Why is this so hard to fathom?   If wikipedia can call a widespread belief "myth", or tell readers which widespread beliefs are "myths", then all of its much vaunted "neutrality" is a mere charade. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First I'm sorry if i missed his strawman. So it's tit for tat and it would be great if we all find some common ground.
 * Second, I disagree with your last sentence with regard to wikipedia's neutrality being a charade if myth is used to describe beliefs. Clearly that conclusion is only valid if the term myth is defined as fiction. This sentence is just another way of framing the same dispute. The definition of myth is the major dispute here, so that sentence itself is clearly disputed too.
 * If we are too reach a compromise both sides need to recognise that both defintions are legitimate and clearly distinct. The key is how to write the article with that in mind. Maybe we could start with you rewriting sections in your prefered version on this page? I assume that what is protected now is Dreamguys prefered version although I could be wrong? David D. (Talk) 18:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your trying to mediate. What I suggest to catch up, is that you go through the whole article history, revision-by revision, starting last Dec. 26.  That is when the dispute began, when I first tried to delete the sentence summarily declaring the Book of Revelation to be an example of myths.  Follow all the way from then to the present (about two weeks now), and you will see numerous good re-writings throughout the article, that were added in by many of wikipedia's most skilled editors, and one by one, each of them was immediately stripped out again by User:DreamGuy.  That's what got us to this point.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex is correct, at least in part; it's difficult to impugn the integrity of such valued editors as Pollinator, JHCC, and Mkmcconn, yet I'm not sure their efforts have been appreciated, and their edits & attempts at compromise have often been reverted with seeming little regard. We need to find a compromise.  KHM03 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm osrry, but I have up to this point seen no attempt to compromise whatsoever from those editors. JHCC at least tries to explain what he wants to do even though it's always the same exact thing and intended to be shoved through against objections by a group of hangerson. Codex and Pollinator have done nothing but making unhelpful personal attacks and most certianly have not attempted to compromise in the slightest. Instead both make accusations of people trying to change the word as part of some insane supposed conspiracy. There's a real chance to make progress here, but it must be done as actual compromise, not a group of with an agenda who had not previously contributed to the article wanting to change it completely on the basis of their POV. DreamGuy 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory
Here's the big one... One very aggressive editor (the one who started this whole explosion in the first place) insists that there was some secret gathering of evil, deceptive academics who got together and sought to change the meaning of myth to include religion as a way of denigrating it. It's not only original research and unverifiable, but it's simply absurd. The original greek roots and the sources listed earlier clearly show that it's original use and the primary use was always as a story without regard to it being true or false, and the Greeks applied it to the stories within their own religion, which they followes and believed. Various people have used it here and there in a more sloppy sense to mean only those stories that are false, but no evidence has been given to indicate that this was ever a primary meaning. Should support for such a claim be found (and real support, not just picking a reference and being deceptive about what it said, as was done earlier) with reliable sources, then we can cite that as an aside. It's a simple matter of So and so wrote in such n such that whatever. Similarly, if a reputable source claims that there was a massive conspiracy of intellectuals who were antireligion coverted the meaning, we can mention it with a source, but also point out that this is not the majority view within the field. I don't think either of these things needs to take up much time, because they aren't all that important in the long run for this article anyway, which should exist to describe the academic discipline of mythology as it exists now and described by its trusted scholars, but by NPOV rules if such things can be found as religable sources (and objectively, not someone twisting words around to mean something else, as was already attepted earlier) then we can mention it. In fairness, if some huge long details on this alleged conspiracy can be found, that can be broken out into a separate article, but even there it muct meet all verifiability and NPOV policies. DreamGuy 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The rest of wikipedia (over 500 articles) uses "myth" in the correct, accepted, dictionary sense of "an idea that has been discarded". This is the only article that uses your slippery, weasel definition that is hard to understand, designed solely to allow you to sit comfortably and say "Religions are myths" and pretend its neutral and not pushing your opinion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, what you are ignoring is, lots of people using the slang definition, or, worse, sloppily using it to mean something else entirely, does not mean it is correct. Myths are stories of supernatural events that the culture believes to be true. If you say they aren;t myths than you're saying that people don't really believe them, which is disparagaing them. You are letting your lack of knowledge on the topic get in the way of contributing to what is supposed to be a place for expert knowledge on topics, not whatever some yokel off the street got confused into thinking. DreamGuy 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This has got silly. Of course it's offensive to call people's religious beliefs myths, and of course it isn't offensive to call an extinct religion a myth, because, if it's extinct, there's nobody to offend! Equally though, any other word usage is relevent, providing Wikipedia remains unbiased. This discussion has basically become an excuse for two intelligent, learned individuals to insult each other over the Internet. Ideas and arguments are constantly dismissed, recycled and dismissed over and over, only to be recycled again, and, in the meantime, nobody can edit the page. Can't everyone just drop the name calling and agree to co-operate like civilised human beings, including both viewpoints and citing them both as disputable? 80.42.101.218 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Highly POV... First off, your definition is incorrect. Second off, it is not offensive to call people's stories within religions as myths, because myth does not mean or imply that the story is wrong, at least as long as the term is described beforehand and -- most importantly -- used fairly. When you say you want to call some religions as myths but not others, you are changing the meaning of the word and being highly insulting to the religions you think it's OK to call false, which is a major violation of NPOV= policy. Third, who are you to declare that some religions are more deserving than others? What's an extinct religion? Many Neopagans worship Greek gods. DreamGuy 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I was feeling irritated when I wrote the chunk of text up there that you call "Highly POV" (though you could have left out "highly"), but I'm sick of this debate. I'm also sorry that I overlooked Neopagans, but you've misinterpretted me completely. You're saying that I (a) gave a definition of myth (I didn't, I was referring to Codex's definition), and (b) was "highly insulting to the religions... [I] think it's OK to call false", which is untrue, as I never stated that any specific religion should be called a myth, only that it was inoffensive to call extinct religions myths. Clearly, Neopagan religions are not extinct. If there is no such thing as an extinct religion (i.e. one no longer practised) then obviously my suggestion would be impractical, although I do find it hard to believe that there are no faiths that no longer exist. Anyway, in response to the continuing argument about the actual definition of the word "myth" itself, I will present my dictionary's (The Cassell Concise Dictionary's) view on the matter. Myth has the following definitions:


 * 1. a fictitious legend or tradition, accepted as historical, usu. embodying the beliefs of a people on the creation, the gods, the universe etc.
 * 2. the body of such legends or traditions.
 * 3. a parable, an allegorical story.
 * 4. a fictitious event, person, thing, etc.
 * 5. A thing widely believed in but not true.


 * Note definitions 4&5. They are not marked as colloquial, so one can assume they have become Standard English (a language is a constantly evolving thing, as any "academic" should know). Note also definition 1. What we have here is a word with several quite different meanings, so any encyclopaedia should either present all of them, or even have an article relating to each of the different definitions. One would suppose the latter whould probably be more proper, but obviously that would be difficult because of all the links and so on. [unsigned comment by 80.42.109.32 at 18:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

Can't we utilize both?
KHM03 said: Can't we utilize both'' definitions somehow? Let's try and find a compromise which is respectful of both the academic definition and the common, everyday understanding of the word(s).''


 * I don't think it will be possible because Λογος and Μυθος are mutually exclusive. To put it in modern  terms, it's a cultural clash between those who seek to build upon a foundation of absolute truth and those who seek to build upon relativism.


 * The reason I finally jumped in (to the talk page - you'll note I've not engaged in edit warring), after watching this page a long time, is because of the elitism and verbal bullying that was going on. As a kid I was the class shrimp, always being the victim of the bully, and I eventually found that the only way to end the bullying is to trounce the bully. So I guess I have a weakness for supporting the little guy.


 * On this page the so-called academic definition has been like an invasive species. It tends to dominate and run out every other possibility. Whether wilful or not, it's the "nature of the beast." So we then are faced with the dilemna of what to do about the invasive species. Shall we simply accept it and let it take over? That ultimately leads to impoverishment of the  ecosystem. Shall we gather all our forces and try to  exterminate it? That doesn't usually work, although there have been occasional successes at tremendous cost. The more usual method today is to let it remain,  but seek ways to control it so that it cannot dominate all others.


 * Elitism berates, belittles, marginalises and hounds opposing viewpoints from the pages. Some will come for awhile, then be driven off. Codex has pretty much behaved like a Wikipedian challenger should. He (or she, pardon me if I'm wrong) stays on the talk page and honestly defends his views. He researches other pages' usage, and checks his dictionary and his history. Sometimes he's gotten a little testy (who wouldn't?) but he won't quit. For all his efforts, he's been given the label of the lowest of the low, the one that guarantees that the "academic elite" will never ever give him the time of day again - a "fundie."


 * I don't know if he is a fundamentalist or not, and I'm not a fundamentalist myself, but even then, they have just as much right to participate as any other viewpoint.


 * The elitism comes off as arrogance, for those who aren't part of the "in" group, but I suspect it's just as much a propaganda technique. At any rate I "took on" the one who appeared to be the head bully. And like most bullies he didn't get it. At least he didn't get it enough to change behavior. Instead he resorted to a technique that's basically dishonest, that of deleting some comments and hiding others with a unduly speedy archive. I'm surprised that he hasn't been called on this, but I suspect few are watching.


 * (We had an invasive beetle here in South Carolina that turned out to be a serious pest, because no one would pay any attention to it. The few who did see it collected samples and sent them to the Clemson entomology department. They made a superficial attempt to identify it, then put it on the shelf. To their embarassment, when it finally was identified, it had spread across the state and wreaked a lot of  destruction. Now watching for other invasives has become a major theme at Clemson.)


 * Few have been watching this page, allowing the takeover of the page by one viewpoint. The nice thing about the "academic" viewpoint is that it allows one to be very elitist on the one hand, and very political on the other hand.


 * Like a good political hack, one can say one thing to one audience, giving them just what they want to hear; and at the next stump, say the opposite to another group that wants to hear something else. I've seen so many examples of this kind of word game on Wikipedia pages.


 * Once upon a time, I didn't think language was all that important. But Lewis Carroll had some good insights:


 * "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
 * "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
 * "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."


 * (Yes, I posted that before. Wikipedia signed me off, which it is wont to do. But it is appropriate then, and I repost it now. It was dishonest to remove it.)


 * Undoubtedly someone will scream "ad hominum." But a dispassionate reading of the talk here (and you'll have to go back into the archives now) will show that this decription of what has been happening is simply that - a description of what has been happening.


 * And yes, it is all about mastery. The bully in this case seems snowed and is not really responding to the challenges on the talk page; he (or she) has simply been repeating demands on the one hand, while attempting to subvert the process on the other hand - in other words, acting the stereotypicaly "fundie" part. Pollinator 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, your claims of "bullying" would go better if you didn't simply go on a huge rant of personal attacks. Yes, Humpty Dumpty had it right, some people want words to mean what they want, and only want they want, but in this case that's you, and Codex, and the people willfully ignoring the academic definition in favor of slang terms. As far as "not responding to challenges on the talk page" -- nonsense... I responded to all charges, pointed out your mistakes, and my not signing on for a few hours to go tak care of some things in the real world should not be mischaracterized as any sort of admission of wrongdoing. Your response here makes no effort whatsoever to being encyclopedic or useful for the current controversy, it was just bullying and deceptive comments of your own. DreamGuy 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pollinator, other than your first paragraph this contributes nothing useful to the debate. The editor you're attacking is at least attempting to organise & move forward the discussion around the dispute (along with others), and is addressing the material. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, it's a step above this. Adrian.baker 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are a few pages on Wikipedia like this one that have become notable for being in the control of a few who set out to destroy any opposition. That needs to end; Wikipedia is not a propaganda piece. I'm not likely to be highly involved here (simply don't have time), unless there is more elitism, marginalization, bullying, etc. of serious editors who are trying to have a discussion. If that behavior stops, I'll consider that I've accomplished my chief purpose. We shall see. Pollinator 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The easiest way for you to stop the bullying and personal attacks is to stop posting here, as that's all you were doing. DreamGuy 21:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are pretty harsh words coming from the person who started the extremely sarcastic "Conspiracy Theory" section, and launched a direct attack on a certain "aggressive editor". I don't nescessarily agree with Codex's views, but his/her treatment on this page by others hasn't been great. Everyone on this page is making personal attacks (the first sentence of my post here is an example) and only when that stops will any progress be made. [unsigned comment by 80.42.109.32 at 18:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) - please sign your comments.)

A suggestion
For the benefit of those who have neither the time nor the inclination to read the substantial archive, I would like to reiterate a suggestion I made some time back, here modified somewhat in light of subsequent discussion.

First, a little background. Mythology (rightly) focusses mainly on the academic sense of "myth as story held as true and conveying belief" and does have some decent disclaimers that there are other definitions of "myth" that imply "false". However, these disclaimers and definitions are scattered throughout the article (partly in "Definiton", partly in "Religion and mythology", and partly in "Related concepts"), so the presentation of what the article is actually saying is not terribly coherent. (I suspect that this is a relic of the merging of the Myth article into Mythology, but that's not a major issue.)

Currently, Myth redirects to Mythology. As others have pointed out, many of the wikilinks in other articles are from usages of "myth" as "not historical fact" or even specifically "false". This is a potential source of confusion, since the source and the destination can appear to be talking about different things.

Additionally, there is the well-documented difficulty of using "myth" in connection with religious beliefs, if it is not sufficiently clear that no truth-value is thereby implied.

A full discussion of the different senses of "myth" as part of the Mythology article has two main problems: 1) it distracts from the article's overall focus on myths as stories that a culture or religion uses to define itself and convey important meaning (as well as the classification of different types of such stories, and so on) and 2) it would take up far too much space, once Greek derivation, English usage, historical development, etc have been fully explored (we don't want to make the main focus a mere footnote to the discussion of the different senses of "myth").

I therefore suggest the following:
 * Make Myth its own article. This article could have the following sections:
 * Definition &mdash; to focus on the different senses of the word "myth" in current English usage.
 * Etymology and history &mdash; to discuss the different senses (both "stories in general" and "fictional stories") in ancient Greek (using the Liddell & Scott citation), as well as the development of usage in English (with sources and citations, of course).
 * Mythology &mdash; to sum up the different senses of "mythology" as "a collection of myths" and as "the scholarly study of myths", with a note directing the reader to the Mythology article for the more academic discussion of the latter sense.
 * Controversy (or some such) &mdash; to neutrally describe the issues arising from the application of different senses of "myth", especially in reference to religious beliefs.
 * Related concepts &mdash; to comprehensively compare and contrast "Myth" with "Legend", "History", "Fable", "Fairy story", etc.


 * There are a couple of things that could be done in the Mythology article:
 * With Myth as its own article, the Definition section can be rewritten. I would suggest the following subsections:
 * Overview &mdash; a brief summation of the various senses of "myth" and "mythology", with a note referring the reader to the Myth article for a more comprehensive discussion.
 * Important note &mdash; a clear disclaimer that the Mythology article assumes the academic sense of "myth" and "mythology"; that is, that this use does not affirm, deny, or imply truth or falsehood.
 * Myth, Mythology, and Mythos in scholarly discourse &mdash; a comprehensive definition of "myth" in the academic sense ("myth as believed and meaningful story"), unencumbered with disclaimers. Some discussion of myths that include the supernatural (religious myths) as opposed to those that do not (cultural myths) might be appropriate here.  (There is a great citation that we can use here; the American Heritage Dictionary gives as one of its definitions of "mythos": "The pattern of basic values and attitudes of a people, characteristically transmitted through myths and the arts." )
 * Much (if not all) of the Related concepts section can be moved to Myth, as described above. However, the uses of fairy stories, legends, etc to convey cultural or religious belief would be both appropriate and interesting.
 * A Types of myths section would be nice, to show how the academic discipline of mythology categorizes different types of narratives: creation myths, founding myths, etc.
 * A Myths as artistic inspiration section would provide a place for discussion of how writers, composers, sculptors, painters, and other artists have taken inspiration from myths. A crucial element here is that these need not necessarily believe that the myths in question are true; I doubt that Henry Purcell was a practitioner of Roman religion when he wrote Dido and Aeneas.
 * Expand, edit, and modify other sections as need arises and consensus permits.

When I suggested this previously, it was asserted that this would be against earlier consensus and a separate Myth article would be a POV fork and a dicdef. In response, I would maintain (respectively):
 * that, since the RfC seems to have brought more people into the discussion, a new consensus might support or oppose my suggestion, but at least would be a wider and more current consensus.
 * that the the WP guideline for spinoff articles allows for separate articles on different aspects of a subject, even when those aspects are controversial:
 * 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 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 Content forking.)
 * and that the Myth article proposed above does much more than simply define "myth", especially if we also use this as the proper place for discussion of historical usage and the nonacademic "religion = myth" controversy.

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. KHM03 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you like it, it was the exact same thing (with trivial modifications) he tried to force on the article earlier. They won't work for the exact same reasons detailed earlier and mentioned above in the "This article is locked" section. In the spirit off compromise I have made an alternate suggestion below. DreamGuy 00:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any helpful input on whether the split is an improvement or not (although it's great we're moving forward with concrete suggestions/proposals). Two questions though:
 * The article was split in the past, but was merged. Is there a record of the discussion around this? It seems a good time to review the reasoning behind the merge - I hunted through the old talk history but found little.
 * Is it possible we'll just shift the debate to the Definition section of the new Myth article? How would the definition of Myth differ to the first two paragraphs of the current Definition section in Mythology? Or is it not so much that the definition would differ, but that there would be more room to explore the background behind the common usage definition? Adrian.baker 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your mention of POV fork JHCC, it's not the 'controversial' nature of the topic that would raise this objection, but rather the potential for the Myth article to contain material that one position supports, while the Mythology article represents an opposing position. The text you quote from Content forking more concerns articles along the lines of Validity_of_astrology or Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox. Adrian.baker 00:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first question, Adrian, I've not been able to find much discussion of that either.


 * Regarding the second, the idea is to have more room to explore the background behind ALL uses, whether common, academic, or whatever. DreamGuy maintains that the academic definition (myth = story that people believe and that carries religious or cultural meaning) is the real definition and that common usage (what he somewhat disparagingly calls "sloppy" and "slang") is somehow not.  Now I am NOT maintaining the opposite position (that common usage is the real definition and the academic is not), but that both are legitimate uses in both English and Greek.  DreamGuy wants to focus the Mythology article on the academic sense of "myth" and "mythology".  Fine.  I have no issue with that.  However, the popular use of "myth = fiction" is so well established in both English and Greek (not to mention the various uses of "mythos", "mythic", and "mythical") that a more comprehensive Myth article would be helpful for exploring these in addition to just the academic sense.


 * Finally, as for "the potential for the Myth article to contain material that one position supports, while the Mythology article represents an opposing position", this is a valid concern. I do not propose that the Myth article focus solely on non-academic senses; that is, we are not splitting the Mythology article into "academic on Mythology / non-academic on Myth.  If the Myth article asserted that ANY definition of "myth" was the real definition to the detriment of other senses, I would fight just as hard to have those other senses included.  JHCC  (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But when you say you want the competing definition that myth=false to be covered, there's nothing really to say there other than "in common usage, the term "myth" is used to mean "false" " and maybe "some people, using this definition, are offended when academics use the other definition to describe stories in religions they happen to belong to" and, BOOM, that's it. It's done with. That's what a disambig page would solve. From your suggestions and earlier edits you apparently want to campaign for the common, slang definition and go around and around in circles coming up with yet other definitions that combine the two picking and choosing from one or the other randomly as it suits you for the point you are trying to make. That's not going to fly, as that just adds more confusion instead of clearing anything up. DreamGuy 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What you say here is good for what could go on the Mythology page along with a "Academic sense only in this article" notice (all carefully and neutrally worded, of course), and yes, BOOM, that's it &mdash; for the Mythology article. However, there is more that could go in the Myth article &mdash; for example, the NT usage of μυθος (myth/fable) opposed to αληθεια (truth), which speaks both to the history of usage and to why some Christians in particular might object to using "myth" to describe their beliefs.  JHCC  (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any discussion of what the New Testament says should be listed on the Religion and mythology article and not on some Myth article fork being used to argue against the info on the main Mythology article. Religion and mythology could be one of the links off the proposed short disambiguation page at Myth, but I am completely against the use of Myth as a full-fledged article --- anything specific to religion goes to that article, anything general needs to go to this article. DreamGuy 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion
The main problem with the above "suggestion" is that everything you say you want on the Myth article -- at least as far as overall, if not certain specifics, needs to be on the mythology article. Mythology is the study of myths, or collections of myths for those who use it that way, so all that information needs to be here. Myth used to be a separate article but all it was was a WP:FORK file duplicating the same content as here, except written more poorly by people who knew less on the topic. The clear concensus was to merge the two.

If you make it a separate article there are only two ways to do it: 1) Make it detailed, but that detail obviously needs to be here, so by it's nature is only a fork, or 2) Concentrate solely on the definition, in which case it's only a dicdef and not a real article.

For the sake of compromise I will not object to a dicdef article on Myth being made, so there is an obvious "HEY, most people use myth in a sloppy way that means false" warning that comes up, with a link to this article if they want to learn about the educated, non-slang use of the term. This would mean that anyone out there using the slang term and adding a link to it goes to the slang article. But any attempt to use that article as a competing article to this one, adding different facts covering the same topics (or from a Christian religious viewpoint, as was done with the people who complained and got the Christian mythology category changed to Christian narratives, or however was doen there) I will strongly oppose as obvious WP:FORK file to try to get around from this article.

I would further suggest that plain old Myth be a disambiguation page, so that people going there can see "Myth in the academic sense means... for more info see Mythology" "Myth in common but imprecise usage means false" "Myth is the name of a video game" "Myth is a book by" etc. That way it serves a real purpose other than just being a dicdef file.

Regarding the rest of the suggestions, they, like your suggestion on the split, do not look like an attempt at compromise or even a response to previous discussion, but simply a repeat of the exact same thing you tried to force on the article earlier and were told by mutliple people that it was objectionable. I would suggest that any possible complaint you would have on the issue would already be fixed by a new Myth article being a disambiguation page (with the slang term clearly listed second on the list after the academic definition) and perhaps a bit more clear info at the start on the difference from the academic term with the slang term. Any full scale reordering, new content, "controversies" section (there are no controversies in the field on whether religious stories are myths, it's the freaking definition, of course they are), moving of content from here to a fork article, etc. will be opposed quite strenuously as making things worse. DreamGuy 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The backstory here was a long read. Dreamguy's above recommendations make sense.  Make "Myth" a disamb, but give it  a skeleton to differentiate the dictdef from the encyclopedic def.  Let "mythology" keep the scholarly, NPOV definition of myth that Dreamguy has advocated.
 * Dreamguy has a strong argument on how myth should be defined in the main article.
 * Academic usage is very obvious - myth!=false.
 * This def is pretty NPOV, as it gives no special or unfair treatment.
 * The counterarguments do not justify their own position.
 * The claim that citing a religious story as myth is POV is simply backwards logic. Since Dreamguy's def makes no qualification of truth, I find it hard to understand how any religion - being based on claims of truth - can call the def POV. NPOV will offend POV parties, by default.
 * It would be POV for Dreamguy's def to make an exception for religions - no matter the standard of exception and review.
 * Finally, fields of scholarship are not based on dictionary definitions, so I'm not sure why usage was such a hot topic. Common usage is, obviously, common - not precise or well formulated. In this case, common usage is clearly POV, as it is used to discredit and that is not the purpose of this article or the field of mythology. Wikipedia does not cater to the common denominator. --Vector4F 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[I moved this comment, as Codex interrupted Vector's discussion, removing the sig and screwing up the formatting in the process.... don't do that, Codex]DreamGuy 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, How exactly is it "backwards logic"???? For centuries, "mythology" has been defined as "the study of dead beliefs".  Just pick up an encyclopedia and look up "mythology".  All you will see described there is dead beliefs, like Norse and Greek mythology.  Outside of wikipedia, you can't find an encyclopedia that chooses to use the BIBLE as "an example of myths".  Now, why do you suppose that is?  Unfortunately, one of the biggest drawbacks about having an encyclopedia that anyone with a computer can edit, is that it draws anti-religious bigots and spin doctors who, throughout the history of mankind, have vainly been trying to stamp out religion by any means they can dream up.  So wikipedia stands alone among encyclopedias with anti-religious propaganda pieces being defended by a tiny clique of anti-religious bigots who swear that its "neutral" when they inform us which of our beliefs are mythology for us.  What a crock this project is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Codex, I don't care to be inferred an "anti-religious bigot" and that's unjustified. Mythology is not a study based on falsification or verification of narratives.  How then can this definition of the study be "anti-religious"?  It makes no claim for or against religion! However, your position on the terminology is anti-religious.  Your definition asserts that the label of "myth" *must* mean false, hence mythology has, by studying religions, implied them as false.  Your definition requires that a scholar decide what is true and what is false in order to study anything, which is clearly not what scholars in mythology do.  A "backwards" position creates a strawman. --Vector4F 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, you keep ranting and raving about the "real" definition yet have provided no support for your claims whatsoever. The only link you provided contradicted your claims, and to say that someone can look anywhere to find it is just false, because those of us who know and read about mythology and created this article through consensus and reading tons of books never saw anything like that. Perhaps the problem here is that you read some book on religion and took it's word as gospel. In the real world, "myth" means exactly what this article says in the way it says it. If you claim otherwise, you need proof, not a big long rant for of conspiracy theories and personal attacks. DreamGuy 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy, thank you for your willingness to consider compromise. In answer to your points above, respectively:
 * I have no objection to having an overview of the Myth material on the Mythology article. As you say, Myth is for specifics.
 * You say "Mythology is the study of myths, or collections of myths for those who use it that way, so all that information needs to be here." I could not agree more.
 * As for the previous state of the Myth article and the decision to merge that article with this, I have no comment. I am making a separate, new proposal, not suggesting that the old Myth article be restored.
 * I agree that a simple dicdef Myth article would be inappropriate. However, the amount of detailed material that is necessary for a complete discussion of all aspects of "myth" would take up too much space on the Mythology article and would detract from its academic focus.
 * I am happy to see that you are willing to consider a separate Myth article. I respect your concern that it not become simply a competing article; I would maintain that, although there will naturally be some overlap, the focus will be different.  Mythology will be (as you say above) "the [academic] study of myths, or collections of myths"; Myth will be definitions and usages of all senses of "myth", as well as (by extension) a basic overview of the various senses of "mythology".
 * (As a side point, regarding the creation of the "Christian narrative" category: if you read the history of that discussion, the ultimate decision was not to replace the "Christian mythology" category (which still exists) but to create a new category that (A) avoided the ambiguity of "myth=story"/"myth=false" inherent in an unqualified use of "mythology", (B) would not have to use a disclaimer notice (there was wide support for a disclaimer that would have specified that the academic sense was assumed, but since it would have had to go on every single article so categorized, consensus was that this would be far too awkward), and (C) created an extremely useful hierarchy of subcategories (scriptural narratives, folktales, literature, historical writing, hagiography, etc) that is descriptive, practical, and completely avoids issues of "true or false".)
 * Finally, I hope that you will keep an open mind regarding the addition of additional material to Myth. This could be much more encyclopedic than simply a disambiguation article.  For example, you seem to have misunderstood what I was suggesting for a "Controversy" section.  I am not suggesting that there is a controversy in the academic field over whether religious stories are myths; they are &mdash; according to the academic definition.  I am saying that there is controversy among English speakers (a somewhat larger group than academics, and therefore worthy of discussion) over whether "myth" should be applied to religious stories, given that "myth" has multiple senses (some of which are negative, some of which are neutral, and which sometimes overlap) and is therefore potentially ambiguous.  This seems to me to be worthy of discussion, assuming that we can be even-handed and work together.  I would also suggest that the bulk of the current Related concepts section would be best put in the Myth article, since this could better address how these various concepts are both similar and different in both academic and non-academic usage.
 * In closing, I would like to suggest that we be as neutral as possible when comparing different senses of various terms. To call the academic definition of "myth" educated and non-slang and the non-academic sloppy and slang is just as biased as disparaging the academic sense by calling academics anti-religious bigots.  We must be clear what sense we are using at any given point, but there is no need to tear down other, well-established uses or those who use them.  Just say "in academic discourse, myth has X technical sense" and "in popular use, myth means Y."  They are all real definitions; our role is to describe and document, not denigrate and denounce.  JHCC  (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put. KHM03 18:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately your arguments for making Myth a separate article with extra content still does not pass WP:FORK guidelines. You claim you don't intend it to be a competing article, but the area you want to be covered most certainly does overlap with what needs to be at Mythology. And, frankly, from your attempted edits earlier to this article and your suggested content of Myth it is very clear that you do intend it to argue a side against the information provided in this article. You claim the info can;t be here as it would take away from the academic tone here, but EVERY article on Wikipedia about academic topics needs an academic tone, so there's a real problem with what you are suggesting. All creating Myth as you suggest would do is move the fight over there, or having it fought on two fronts. If you want expanded info on the alleged difference between myth and religion, there already is an article about that topic -- although I note that article already had some competing info from the main article and there was a fight over there when I updated the definition to be accurate. We can have a slight tweak here (on the order of moving what's already here to better locations and perhaps a new sentence or two, but whole new long sections is simply unnecessary and, from what I have seen, just an attempt to get a POV in against policy. DreamGuy 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In answer to your points:
 * Specifically what WP:FORK guidelines would be violated by my proposal? I am proposing that the Mythology article use an academic sense of "Myth" and "Mythology" and that Myth discuss all senses of those words neutrally and equally and in comparison to the "Related concepts".  How is appropriate focus in one place and comprehensiveness in another POV pushing?
 * Just because two articles overlap does not mean that either is biased or that they compete with each other. For example, there is much overlap between Order of Saint Benedict, Rule of Saint Benedict, and Benedict of Nursia, but there is a difference in focus that makes separate articles necessary and useful.
 * You say "it is very clear that you do intend it to argue a side against the information provided in this article." This may be clear to you, but it's a surprise to me.  Please assume good faith for a moment and discuss my proposal on its own merits, not based on what you think my intentions are.
 * I admit that I am confused by your saying "You claim the info can;t be here as it would take away from the academic tone here, but EVERY article on Wikipedia about academic topics needs an academic tone, so there's a real problem with what you are suggesting." I am suggesting that a full discussion of all senses of "myth" and "mythology" would take up too much space and would turn the focus of the article away from the academic discussion of mythology as such.  You yourself had the same objection when I moved some definitions from lower in the page up to the top (if I recall correctly, you said something about making the main subject into a footnote).  I've come to agree with you on this, which is why I am suggesting moving the discussion of various definitions, senses, usage, etc to Myth, so it will take up less space on the Mythology article.
 * Frankly, I'm not sure that moving the fight to Myth is such a bad idea. If we, as I suggested, have a brief overview of various senses (with "see Myth for a fuller discussion" or such) and a sufficient disclaimer/notice/what-have-you that the Mythology article focusses on the academic sense and usage, then this issue can be threshed out in Talk:Myth, leaving Talk:Mythology for other important aspects of the academic study of myths.
 * JHCC (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article again?
*sigh* This discussion doesn't seem to be progressing very much. Would it help, as has been suggested, to spin myth off again as a separate article where the word usage issues can be explored more fully?

Readers coming to the mythology article presumably want to read a material treatment of mythology rather than the result of some scorched-earth battle on definitions and etymology :) - Haukur 13:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, did you read my alternate proposal above? There's no need to split, just put a disambig file at Myth. That takes care of all issues... DreamGuy 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest mediation
It looks like this discussion is becoming increasingly partisan. My comments have not helped. I suggest you take it to mediation as the next step. Regards, Durova 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to mediation in general, but it seems to me that we may be slowly moving together on this. Let's see how things develop over the next couple of days.  If constructively, great.  If we're still deadlocked, I'd support mediation.  And yes, your comments have helped.  Please continue to comment.  JHCC  (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatley the mediation system here is less than useful. It looks like all that happens is one self-appointed editor comes along and tries to make the decisions for the entire article. That's completely against the concept of building consensus. (My only interaction with mediation here ended up in my favor, by the way, but the process was appalling.) DreamGuy 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest no mediation. There seems to be a fair amount of positive momentum of this page at present. It would just be disruptive. Isn't it bad enough having clueless people as myself stumble in from the RfC? David D. (Talk) 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another voice cautioning against mediation; as DG states, one self-appointed "mediator" arrives, glances over things, makes a pronouncement and skedaddles. Not productive. I've been dragged into 2, one was "my way" but only by pure chance, not through any actual mediation or understanding on the part of the "mediator" and one which was chaos until the "mediator" was banned for sockpuppetry (unrelated.) KillerChihuahua?!? 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Article suggestion
Mythology is a horrendously complex subject, which (like most subjects) has many different meaning when you look at it more closely. It seems that the editors have discovered just this, and the purpose of this article is not to choose any one "meaning" over another, but to summarise all meanings and points of view, but in a neutral point of view manner (ie, without bias or judgement).

Large books have been written on mythology, so I would imagine that one article is not enough to details different meanings of mythology. I note there is already an article on Comparative mythology. I would suggest:


 * This article describes all the different meaning of mythology, perhaps highlighting one of the biggest differences in meaning, (a) Mythology as myth (fiction) (b) Mythology as ancient history (truth). This seems to be the current approach.
 * That if necessary, the article is split, and different points of viewed are detailed in separate articles. eg. Mythology (as fictional story), Mythology (as ancient history and traditions)
 * We must he careful not to suggest that certain religous texts are "myths" (fiction or truth?), but should provide citations to individuals who claim that religous texts may be compared to mythologies (ie. ancient history), or who claim that such texts are mythical (ie false).
 * The origin of the word is immaterial (though interesting and of note); what is important is the use of the term "mythology" now.

Here's a quote I found some time ago (I claim fair use for research) which may help or hinder depending on your point of view: 20:40, 11 January 2006 Iantresman (above comments unsigned, but by User:Iantresman) Sorry, amended


 * The above has some good points (though it appears he/she missed their meaning as it was written) and a number of clearly not so good points... First for the latter:


 * (a) Mythology as myth (fiction) (b) Mythology as ancient history (truth).
 * Unfortunately, as already discussed, neither of these definitions is correct. Myths are stories that are believed to be true by their culture but mythologists take no stance on whether they are true or false, so it's not an either or on true or false it's a not taking sides. When we say mythology by the nature of the word we are referring to the academic definition of myth (that's what's being studied) and not the common imprecise usage. Not only are you using the slang definition on myth here, you've let that mistake cloud your definition of mythology. The slang term myth as fiction is not the one used when talking about mythology. Not even close.


 * We must he careful not to suggest that certain religous texts are "myths" (fiction or truth?), but should provide citations to individuals who claim that religous texts may be compared to mythologies (ie. ancient history), or who claim that such texts are mythical (ie false).
 * This entire section is just wrong, wrong, wrong. It's entirely based upon the concept that the slang definition of myth is correct and that the who knows where it came from definition of mythology based upon that is also correct, and then uses that mistake to try to justify treating favored religious beliefs as somehow different from others. ALL myths are part of some religion or another... to differentiate between myths of one culture as false and to outright declare others as history and true is an EXTREME violation of the NPOV policy... unquestionably. By using the term myth without bias and applying it to all examples equally, nobody can complain... except those people who WANT to be offended because their beliefs aren't supported as superior. If you don't want to offend anyone by calling anything they might believe as a myth, then, to be fair, we can't call ANYTHING myth by that definition. And then, poof, there is no more article.


 * The good part (though, again, it looks like its relevance was missed) is that a source from a respected authority (Veronica Ions has written several books) in the field discussing the meaning of myth was provided... We can briefly summarize this to show that the myth=false definition was a late addition, and one that spread to dictionaries from there, but is not supported by the scholars in the field. Again, this is much like how "evolution" = "getting better and better" is a common usage of the term but not at all what scientists mean when scientists talk about evolution... see how the people on Evolution reacted to the same sort of controversy there. DreamGuy 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Iantresman, you say at the top of the quote "Introduction to 'Myth and Mankind by Jacquetta Hawkes'" and "From The World's Mythology in Colour, by Veronica Ions" at the bottom. Please clarify:  who is the author of this quote?  Is this an introduction by Jacquetta Hawkes to her own work included in the Veronica Ions book, or is it an introduction by either Ions or some unnamed author to a work by Hawkes, as the citation currently implies?  JHCC  (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the quote is written by Jacquetta Hawkes, extracted from her introduction entitled "Myth and Mankind", that appears in the book The World's Mythology in Colour, by Veronica Ions.


 * Regarding DreamGuy's comment that "Myths are stories that are believed to be true by their culture but mythologists take no stance on whether they are true or false,", I also agree with... though I suspect that some mythologists will judge whether such myths are based on "truth". I think it is actually a lot more complicated than this, as may be surmised from the book  Hamlet's Mill: An essay on myth and the frame of time by Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend. They suggest that myths appear mythical be cause we don't understand the language, is a dragon and mythical creature, or a celestial dragon-like shape?. But this is probably not relevant here, but should be included in the article.  --Iantresman 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ALL myths are part of some religion or another... Did you mean to say religion or culture? You're are right that we can't "differentiate between myths of one culture as false and to outright declare others as history"; But we can give examples of some researchers who have claimed either stance, and that would be accurate and citable. ie. we can say that "Such and such has described the Greek myths as completely fictional... but such and such suggests that they are based on actual histories because..." --Iantresman 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're responding to me talking about the academic definition and then suddenly switching to the layman's definition in your response and not following along. Before you can understand what i am talking about, you should go to the article and read the academic definition and put aside your preconceived ideas on what the word means.


 * What I mean is, and it's pretty simple if you follow it from the top, all MYTHS (i.e. the things mythologists study) belong to some RELIGION (a collection of myths, beliefs and ritual) or another. Any myth being discussed within the context of mythology belongs to a religion. It is fashionable to think the, say, the Norse myths are just fiction, but those stories are a part of the Norse religion. They believed those stories as true. You might not think they are true, but that's taking a side against their beliefs. And, yes, some people today follow that religion (or a modern offshoot using the same myths). Greek myths were part of their religion. The Aztec myths were religious stories. All myths are part of some religion or another by definition... if some story isn't part of a religious belief (past or present) then that story is not a myth... it's a legend or folklore or fable or fairy tale of outright creative fiction. Star Wars is not a myth, and not covered by mythology, as nobody believes it was true and it was not part of any religious beliefs. It may try to copy some features from myth, and some authors like to claim it still has similar meanings, but it simply is not myth.


 * Therefore the argument that we can't call any story within a religion a myth as it would be offensive just doesn't work, because all myths are part of some religion, and we then wouldn't be able to discuss any myths on the mythology page. The problem come in when you want to try declare some stories as myth using the "false" definition and other stories as not myths because they are part of some religion you think deserves to be treated as somehow more worthy of being called historical than some other religions.


 * Any attempt to separate "myth" from "truth" is by its nature extremely biased, and by trying to go that route on this article, you would be taking the POV of whichever religion (typically Christian, from the responses posted so far) that those stories are actually all true, and taking the POV of all religions you didn't so bless with the "not allowed to call them myths" as being false. The academic defition bypasses all of that and studies the type of stories and what they mean to the culture involved without any value judgment on whether they are true/historical or not. That's what the article has been doing for a long, long time now, and that's what it needs to continue to do. To do otherwise would be to violate the NPOV policy in a major, major way, and also to convert the mythology article to discussing something mythologists do not do and are oopposed to. DreamGuy 03:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My Two Cents
Oh boy this has erupted into quite a bitter discussion. Hasn't it?

Well I say that I support Dreamguys definition of myth, while Codex does raise some good points about whether common usage by the masses dominates the usage of a term. But I believe Codex argument is ultimately flawed in these ways.

1. Codex Sinaiticus so far has advocated the complete removal of all currently practiced religions from Wikipedia from being discussed in the objective terms of myth. This goes against Wikipedia's NOVP and not to mention would destroy the academic/research value of the articles in question. Which I consider censorship of an unpopular/unknown scientific viewpoint.(Remember when Gallo said the earth was round and how the church reacted?)

2. Codex Sinaiticus makes several statements that a secret group of academics that seek to 'repress' the masses by changing the terms of words and remove the significance of the fact that millions believe in a certain religion that would classified under a term that would be lumped together with other religions as a science. I have to disagree with Codex;(the conspiracy theory itself it difficult to believe without sources but I just get to mass acceptance argument)rarely are either the masses or the academics right, they are often proven wrong, then they seek to discredit that claim or accept it and move on. And furthermore just because a majority of the people believe in something, does not make it right. (Most people in Europe at one time thought that the earth was flat and had horrible monsters and a edge that would lead you to fall off the face of the planet. In California in the 1960's the people voted on referendum to continue segregation in the public schools despite the courts ruling that segregation is unconstitutional. And once said by I believe John Adams “The tyranny of the people can be just as harsh as the tyranny of the crown.”{hopefully I got it right} etc) (Keep in mind that these points I make show how misinformation can easily spread among the masses and view points can easily be shifted from what was known as truth in the past is now viewed by the masses today as mass hysteria and hatred.)

3. Codex Sinaiticus has constantly mentioned that other Wikipedia articles have stated myth as false and that s/he knows of at one count 500 sources (dictionaries, encyclopedias, and articles maybe) that refer to myth as meaning false. However as Dreamguys has stated the Wikipedians who wrote those articles could simply be unaware of this definition of the term. Or as I see it, simply referring to it for the sake of the topic the article is about and rely on the Myth link to further detail the term myth to prevent repeating information that the myth(ology) article was there to explain in the first place. As for other sources i've check both answers.com and my own personal copy of Merriam-Webster's Desk Dictionary and both of them term Codex Sinaiticus and Dreamguys definitions.

Dictionary “1 legendary narrative that presents part of the beliefs of a people or explains a practice or natural phenomenon 2 : an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing – myth-i-cal”

Answers.com (Main section and also Wordnet) 1

On the other hand my Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of Mythology seems to favor Dreamguys definition over Codex Sinaiticus

“a body of myths and esp. of those dealing with the gods and heroes of a people”

Note the "esp. of those" which can be referenced to almost all popular religions.

Answers.com's mythology entry also leans towards Dreamguys definition as well. 2

Merriam-Webster's Desk Dictionary, by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, publication date unknown, Copyright 1995.

Answers.com section of myth and mythology, by answers.com and sources cited, Copyright 1911-1995-2005

Codex Sinaiticus can you please list and cite some of your sources?
 * Codex did cite his source as the OED (see above). And wait for it, I actually went to a library!  I can confirm his prefered definition (also above) is listed first in that dictionary.  I made some notes so I'll transcribe them if it helps.  I need to let this all settle a bit since much has been posted to chew on. I actually found the OED to be lacking with regard to history of the words.  Almost all their usage examples were quite recent.  I'll out line this later when i have more time. David D. (Talk) 01:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My conclusion is that this is an article about mythology; the study of myths in science. Not whether myth means false or not in the English language, or how it is taken in reference to religion by the masses. The cited sources support Dreamguys argument and his argument in my opinion best complies with the NOVP policy. Because it's not the place of Wikipedians to determine which religions deserve to be classified as a myth and which deserve some special protection to avoid offense. In cases like this somebody going to be offended, that's why the NOVP is there to deal with it. Some of the suggestions have been pretty good about how to prevent confusion about the popular term of myth. But if you read the Definition section it already covers the whole thing pretty well in my eyes. So this is my two cents.

--Number7 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please be nice, this my first time participating in a discussion. *ducks for cover*

Returning as requested
The article has improved. I'll state again - if it hasn't been clear enough already - that the academic discussion of mythology is outside my expertise. My formal training is in history and writing, so of course I know Joseph Campbell and have read a fair sampling of myths and folklore. I'm no expert on current debates or technical jargon within the academic field.

The Religion and mythology section needs sourcing. This is where the article runs into the greatest difficulty. The average literate reader may be familiar with Greek or Roman and perhaps Norse or Egyptian mythologies. It may be 80(?) years behind the times to treat these separately from living religions, but I'm afraid that's the level of knowledge you need to assume. When did academics begin to study living religions as myths? Where did the academic definition of the term originate? Who were the original or leading proponents of this methodology? Are there notable academics within the field who oppose the practice? How do specific promenent clergy respond to it? These are the questions that come to my mind as I read the article. I imagine I'm not unique in this respect. Best wishes. Durova 01:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good questions Durova. Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" cites numerious works dating eighty to more then a hundred years ago(Keep in mind the book was written in 1949.) in research on symbolism and mythology. So those old, cited works would be a good place to start(A good deal of them are in the public domain so this makes it easier.). C. G. Jung's research and works on archetypes is also an important point to look up.


 * As for critics and supporters; i'm not too sure of any in the academic fields, besides the major writers themselves.
 * For critism a good place to start would be Robert Ellwood, The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell and the critism section on Joseph Campbell. There's also external references to C. G. Jung.
 * For supporters: high profile ones would be George Lucas and Steven Speliburg on how they used "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" to make Indinia Jones and how Steven used the book to make Star Wars. But the underling problem is that none of them are in the academic field so it will require some real research.
 * I be getting a copy of the PBS series "The Power of Myth" soon. The series with details the effect myths has on our lives. It also includes a interview with George Lucas on the connect with "The Power of Myth to Star Wars, so maybe that can be cited as well.
 * But i'm just throwing out some possible leads. If anyone knows of any real citations, please list them. I do some research on myth in the academic world and see what I can turn up.
 * --Number7 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That line of thought runs in a different (although productive) direction. I was thinking you could trace how the scope of academic myth studies broadened from ancient to modern religions.  Both subjects would make good additions to the article. Durova

Proposal
It seems pretty clear to me that informal consensus supports restricting Mythology to the academic senses of "myth" and "mythology".

It also seems that there is broad support, if not actually consensus, for having a separate Myth article once again.

There is still disagreement over the scope of the Myth article. DreamGuy has supported something along the lines of a disambiguation page to show different senses of the words (academic, popular usage, etc) as well as video games, books, etc. I support this as a minimum, but propose that the Myth article could have broader scope with derivations and history of usage, comparison with related concepts (legend, fairy tale, etc), and so on.

I therefore propose that we:
 * 1) create a Myth article on a temporary page (such as this one) as a disambiguation-type page,
 * 2) continue discussion at Talk:Myth as to the content and scope of the Myth page,
 * 3) continue discussion here on how the Mythology article should articulate the academic sense of "myth",
 * 4) create a simple, clear statement to go near the beginning of the article specifying that this article is uses "myth" and "mythology" in the academic sense, etc (the wording of this statement can be worked out here, so that we can get consensus support before it goes on the article), and
 * 5) get on with our lives.

I would also suggest that we, as a group, agree (A) not to make substantial changes to the text of both these articles without seeking consensus on the respective talk pages first and (B) to discuss any such changes individually, on their own merits. For example, the issue of whether or not to include Mythology as a section of the Myth article should be handled with &  templates. For the benefit of those who join work on the articles later on, we might want to add a template on the talk page, such as :

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All the above seems very reasonable to me. Paul August &#9742; 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mrm, as long as everyone is here and the RFC is here, I'd prefer to keep the discussion here instead of moving it to Talk:Myth.


 * I also think the academic definition on this article is already very clearly defined in the lead. I think moving the explanation that the common usage of myth means false but that that's not what's being used in mythology can be moved up from below to the lead instead of just the first section and that should take care of it. Perhaps a mention that the definition of false is actually quite offensive and ethnocentric (or whatever the appropriate term there would be) because it assumes other culture's religious narratives are false while their own are true.


 * Another concern that I just got solid enough in my mind to articulate is that I think any extensive discussion on myth on the Myth article instead of just a disambiguation page would be misplaced, because there are tons of links to myth that very definitely should go here to the academic usage instead of something less academic -- I think making Myth its own article instead of a no mans land disambiguation page would be funneling all the people to the less important article instead of the more important one. Furthermore, is there anything that someone can come up with to propose to be on Myth as an article that wouldn't fit better under the academic usage of Mythology or under the special compare/contrast of Religion and mythology (another article that has a dispute already in the works that has been on hold while this one has been going on)? I can't think of anything that would require a full fledged article at Myth that wouldn't be better covered under one of the other two articles. Trying to start up a separate article to go into detail on issues better covered elsewhere is unavoidably a WP:FORK issue. It looks like we keep going in circles, and I am not at all in favor of the idea of you just continuing on yet again reproposing the same thing your porposes here twice but were rejected on off in another talk space. It's not like we're going to suddenly agree to them after moving the discussion to Talk:Myth when they were not agreed to here. You can certainly create a Temporary page to write a Myth article on, but since the controversy is here and Myth redirects here, I think it should be discussed here. DreamGuy 03:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * >Furthermore, is there anything that someone can come up with to propose to be on Myth as an article that wouldn't fit better under the academic usage of Mythology or under the special compare/contrast of Religion and mythology (quote DreamGuy)
 * Well, I'll bite: what about material on the origins/background of the common (myth=false) usage of Myth, assuming we end up with some? It's been argued it would be distracting/irrelevant on the main Mythology article. Could it be placed in Religion and mythology, since it's very apparant this is where it becomes of interest/relevance? Adrian.baker 05:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Adrian, the origins/background material would be better served elsewhere than Mythology, for the reason stated. For example, the Hawkes quote above would be excellent to include in the Myth article, but it would take up far too much space in Mythology.  Additionally, a comprehensive discussion of the comparision between "myth" and the various related concepts (in both academic and popular usage) would be best placed on the Myth article.


 * Religion and mythology would be a bad place for these, since many uses of "myth=false" have nothing to do with religion (as quick Google searches of "myth" and "myth of" will show), and many of the "Related concepts" are not used in the academic study of mythology and religion.


 * On the other hand, a comprehensive discussion of the various senses of "myth" and "mythology" can be linked to from wherever the issue of truth-negative/truth-neutral arises. Yes, there are some issues that relate particularly to religion, and I am certainly not suggesting getting rid of the Religion and mythology article, but myth does not "become of interest/relevance" only with respect to religion.


 * Regarding DreamGuy's concerns about "tons of links to myth that very definitely should go here to the academic usage instead of something less academic" and "funneling all the people to the less important article instead of the more important one":
 * Links can be changed. If a link definitely, absolutely, without question or doubt must go to the academic sense, then any editor can change myth to myth .  On the other hand, if a link definitely, absolutely, without question or doubt states or implies "myth=false", then linking to a more extensive discussion of all senses of myth will help our readers understand that there is a valid, established, and correct usage that does not imply falsehood.
 * With all due respect, importance is in the eye of the beholder. What makes an article important is how well it provides the information needed, how well it answers whatever question the reader is asking.  To use an example I cited earlier, which is more important: Rule of Saint Benedict or Benedict of Nursia?  It all depends on whether you're interested in the foundational document of the Order of Saint Benedict or the life and work of its founder.  Here, people interested in the academic study of mythology can and should be directed to the Mythology article.  People interested in the meanings and history of the terms "myth" and "mythology", especially in contrast to other related terms, can look at Myth without having to read through a full treatment of the academic field.
 * Regarding what to discuss where, if and when Myth becomes its own article (in whatever form) and no longer a redirect, there will obviously be discussion that arises on Talk:Myth. In regard to the current discussion, I'm happy to keep it here (especially as regards what &mdash; if any &mdash; material to move from Mythology to Myth); I just thought that it would be more convenient to have format and content discussion at the actual page.  No big deal.  JHCC  (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm on absolute disagreement on most of these points, and I'm frankly tired of someone over and over and over offering up what they wanted to do from the very beginning as if it were a compromise. I'm also finding a number of comments made above to be wholly inaccurate.


 * "For example, the Hawkes quote above would be excellent to include in the Myth article, but it would take up far too much space in Mythology." -- First off, we can't use the entire quote anyway, as much of it is irrelevant (and I'm under the impression it was actually an Ions quote) and it'd be stretching the fair use guidelines to use it all. Furthermore, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that NEEDS to be on Mythology. It's bizarre for you to now be arguiing that it's too long for this article when before you wanted to nearly double the size of this article.


 * "Religion and mythology would be a bad place for these, since many uses of "myth=false" have nothing to do with religion" Well, the general definition would go on the proposed Myth disambiguation page, but the details either would go to Mythology or Religion and mythology as appropriate, and not be included anywhere if it's not appropriate. The key controvery over the definition of myth is irrevocably tied to religion, as the whole reason this myth = false thing came up in the first place was from people of one religion deciding that other people's myths were false and theirs were not. It's completely derived from ethnocentric bias and hatred for other religions. The common definition of myth = false that doesn;t have anything to do with religion would be sewn up just by the definition on the disambig page... How much detail can you get into on "Yup, people use it to mean false... Yup, false gods, yup, false beliefs in general, just false in general. Yup."? There's nothing else to say that doesn't belong on Mythology or Religion and mythology.


 * "if a link definitely, absolutely, without question or doubt states or implies "myth=false", then linking to a more extensive discussion of all senses of myth will help our readers understand that there is a valid, established, and correct usage that does not imply falsehood." Why is an EXTENSIVE discussion even needed? A disambiguation page at Myth would more than adequately get the point across. Dictionaries when they give definitions don;t have to give an extensive definition, and, frankly, the common usage of myth is so straightforward it's simplistic. "It means false". Done.


 * The bottom line here is you've given no reason or justification for why there needs to be "extensive discussion" on the differences, and when you edited this article earlier to try to give added discussion you got it all completely wrong. Your stubborn insistence on not just expanding the material but placing it above the info on mythology on this article when you tried but now also trying to give a whole other article on the topic shows to me that you appear to solely be interested in making sure that your definition gets more coverage and is treated as if it was more valuable and accurate than the academic usage, while hoping that nobody ever gets to see the info on mythology itself. A disambiguation page more than adequately covers your concerns that the info get out there. If you are so set on making a new article, and claim that it doesn't fit here or on Religion and mythology, you are going to need to give real examples of actual information. Note that your earlier ones fail completely on this point by being a muddled mix on misinformation and POV. Now, if you adequately demonstrate that there is good, encyclopedic information with real sources and relevance that deserves its own article and is not merely a WP:FORK of this one, then we can look at starting up a new article, but I absolutely will not agree to it being at Myth, based upon what I see as a clear attempt to steer people away from the academic information in favor of the slang definition based upon your own POV. Perhaps Differing usages of the word myth or some other article, but I can't imagine a good name for it because I see no evidence that it's needed at all considering the existence of Mythology and Religion and mythology. But Myth is not at all something you can just take over for your cause. DreamGuy 00:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OED online
I don't intend to get involved in this discussion, but it may be useful to know that the full current edition of the OED is in fact available online at http://dictionary.oed.com/. Unfortunately, it requires a subscription, but many libraries have a license which allows their users to consult it. --Macrakis 00:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link and I got into the site. I told you earlier that i had read a definition in the OED that agreed with Cortex. That was the 1989 second edition. The defintion for myth was as follows:


 * Interestingly one of the usages describe for 1.b. was Brit. Jrnl. Sociol. XIV. 27 We use myth in a sense a little different from the popular one. To us it does not mean an untrue or impossible tale, but a tale which is told to justify some aspect of social order or of human experience.


 * But what is really going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here is the the 2003 edition has completely rewritten the entry and it now seems to be inline with the other dictionary quotes that most of us have been seeing in our home edition's. I'm no linguist and i have no idea why this 89 edition was so different to this and other dic defs. For the record here is the relevent part of the 2003 defintion.


 * It would seem that the OED is a moving target. Is it common for them to change definitions this way? Or was the 1989 entry somehow wrong?  The reason i ask is that in the second edition of the OED there was no formal definition in the terms of "To us it does not mean an untrue or impossible tale" except under the 1.b. definition.  Yet it seems that most other dictionaries did have the defintions in those terms, in fact, in most cases it was the primary defintion. Obviously this word has a very charged history with respect to the OED. David D. (Talk) 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't get what was going on with the OED in that one particular listing there... that could explain the confusion some people have. The one using false as the primary definition was completely contrary to every other reference brought up in the discussion of this article (see long string of quoted definitions in the recent archive). On the other hand, it's not uncommon for sources to conflict on just about any topic. When a generalist work like a dicitonary contradicts the professional and scholarly sources devoted strictly to that topic, we go with what the experts say and not what some dictionary writer claims (who was apparently fired by the time the next edition came out, LOL). DreamGuy 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The OED lists definitions in chronological order. If you notice, the definition from the 1989 edition had its first instance dated 1840-1865.  Then, another definition based on an earlier source (1803) was added, thus giving that definition precedence as the older, probably original, definition.  In addition, the OED is strictly descriptivist, not prescriptivist -- that means that it does not change its definition in order to support any POV.  Jim62sch 14:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you, or anyone else who can access the OED, mind reproducing the earliest dated quote listed there, so that we may analyse it for evidence?? Thanks.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to 1984
In the novel 1984, whenever "they" changed the definition of a word, nobody was allowed to discuss the old meaning. Because that would defeat the entire purpose, which is to make people forget the old meaning.

So it should be pretty obvious to everyone here by now, why it is so crucially important that the article is not "allowed" to address the very good questions that have been earnestly posed here, like how exactly did the meaning come to be changed sometime between 1989 and 2003. Because that would defeat the entire purpose, which is to make 99% of English speakers stop using the old meaning, and get more people to start using the brand new meaning, whereby it is simultaneously possible to label everyone's firm beliefs as "mythology", AND to declare that this is oh so neutral that it may not be disputed by any number of people. So, therefore, the old definition used in all the pre-2003 encyclopedias and dictionaries may now only be discussed in terms of "sloppy" and "slang", don't you see... This sloppy, slang usage of the sloppy, slang 1989 OED has now been corrected! All zat remains is to wait for 99% of der ignorant English speakers around ze world to catch up, und to stop using zis sloppy slang. Welcome to 1984. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Codex, look at Verifiability and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and try and see that without citations this line of argument is just making you irrelevant to the discussion. In addition ('...ze world to catch up, und to stop using zis sloppy slang'?) you're simply being offensive - surely you don't need to stoop to this. Adrian.baker 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, you keep talking about trying to make people forget the old meaning, but the evidence you yourself pointed to earlier made it very clear that the old meaning, all the way back to Ancient Greece, has always been what the academic meaning is now. See the |link you kept putting into the article that very clearly says "tale, story, narrative [...] without distinction of true or false" as the primary meaning. You keep talking about some whacky strange anti-religious conspiracy by evil intellectuals working behind a cloak of darkness that needs to be battled by witchfinder generals or something... You need some sort of EVIDENCE to back yourself up, not just increasingly melodramatic claims. I would hope that if I hopped over to Jesus and tried to claim that the original was actually some guy named José and there was a great conspiracy to cover up the fact that he was Hispanic and wanted to change the article to reflect that, you'd demand some evidence for that. Same thing applies here. This is something like the 50th time you;ve complained of coverups and suppression and etc., yet you STILL haven;t back any of those claims up. I would sumbit that you either do so or stop wasting everyone's time. That's a simple, basic common sense thing DreamGuy 06:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually this is exactly what the article should be discussing. Offer a specific example from ancient Greece that treated the term this way.  Demonstrate whether that usage remained in continuous use until today.  Show the lineage of what I'll call the popular definition.  To what degree have the two definitions interacted in academic discussions?  Was the latter dominant at any point or was this just a cleaned up version to avoid offending public sensibilities?  If the popular definition did dominate academic discussion, then when did the other supplant it and why?  Who have been the major proponents of each definition?  This subject could be very useful and NPOV if you'd inform the reader point by point. Durova 08:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, no - you'd better not say that, or else you might become "irrelevant to this conversation". If we're going to make people forget the meaning that has continuity from 500 BC to the present, we can't go suggesting that we discuss that meaning.  That is verboten.  Anyone who suggests such a thing ist therefore "irrelevant to the conversation."  Like me.  I'm irrelevant to the conversation now, even though I'm still allowed to post here, and people are still responding to me.  But I have been declared "irrelevant to the conversation" now, because of my incorrect opinion that articles like this are supposed to discuss things like history of the usage of the word.  So I will continue to add my irrelevant voice to this page every day, because I can. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that sarcasm? Durova 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not feed the trolls DreamGuy 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Everytime User:DreamGuy makes one of these marginalizing personal attacks against me, I am strongly tempted to respond in kind. But I really can't stand for wikipedia to be dragged downhill in that way.  Despite his attempts to marginalize the other side of the debate as invalid, the other side of the debate is not simply going to go away.  Wikipedia is supposed to steer a neutral course, not take sides.  Fact: It is hotly debated whether or not it is appropriate to classify modern day religions as "mythology".  These talk pages wouldn't expand to three archive pages in three days if this were not a real debate.  It is useless for one party in the debate to pretend that the debate doesn't exist because the other side is "invalid".  There are still a lot of unanswered questions that are being swept under the carpet here, and I'm here to continue asking those questions for as long as necessary until they are addressed.  I will not be marginalized by the other side of this debate, and I will not give up, as disgusting as those tactics are. Here are some of the unanswered questions:


 * 1) Why is it that Encyclopedias of the 20th century generally avoided labelling modern day firm religious beliefs, like the Bible, Quran, etc. as "mythology"?  Why is it suddenly considered "neutral" to do so now when it was not then?
 * 2) Why must an article on mythology avoid any etymological discussion on how the word came into its present meaning that is inclusive of modern major world religions, when in the recent past most dictionaries and encyclopedias gave it a completely different meaning restricted to defunct religions, and the vast majority of English speakers, ignorant as we may be, still understand defunct religions to be what "mythology" addresses?
 * 3) These aren't new questions, they have already been asked many times, but until someone answers them, instead of marginalizing them, they must continue to be asked. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia the place to ask them? Adrian.baker 07:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I thought you were complaining about supposedly being in 1984 and now you are claiming a couple of sources from the 20th century should overrule 21st century sources (not to mention all the rest of the sources of the 20th century and earlier)? You can't even keep your arguments straight here.
 * 2) The article doesn't "avoid any atymological discussion" -- it already covers it.
 * 3) Going by your past behavior, even when your questions are answered over and over, as they consistently have been, you'll still insist upon asking them again and again. Apparently an answer that inconveniently shows your arguments to be nonsense doesn't count as an answer in your mind.
 * A better question here would be: when are you going to read the NPOV and WP:NOR policies and start trying to follow them?DreamGuy 13:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made the Myth disambiguation page
I've updated Myth/temp to have the disambiguation page I mentioned earlier. This takes care of all legitimate concerns (i.e. not attempts to push POV) expressed here. Other than minor tweaks there and here, I suggest that we agree to put that up at Myth, get this page unlocked so the info on myth's colloquial definition can be added to the lead (and the Myth redirect disambig mentions can be removed now that Myth wouldn;t redirect here anymore) and then work on improving Religion and mythology so it has accurate definitions and whatever details on the controversy are relevant. This should be the end of any controversy, except for those who want to try to push a POV onto the pages, and of course those people will just be out of luck no matter how long these discussions drag on. DreamGuy 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * When you say "this takes care of all legitimate concerns", speak for yourself. It has a fatal flaw: it is biased in presenting the second definition as "colloquial" and falsely implying that this definition has no dictionary support.  If it were really to be made fair, it would have to be "tweaked" by mentioning the simple fact that the second definition is every bit as legitimate, according to dictionaries, as the "academic" one.  Fix that and it might be workable.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex, "colloquial" definitions are also included in dictionaries and are just as legitimate as other definitions, they just are used more informally and conversationally. There's no need to mention it's "every bit as legitimate", as nothing there says otherwise and reading it that way is yet another example of becoming insulted simply from not following the full meanings of words, like the edits you made which started this whole mess. DreamGuy 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * More doubletalk. There's no reason NOT  to mention that the other definition is "every bit as legitimate", the fact that you wish it to read in a biased manner is highly revealing.  If you wish to assert that one of the definitions is colloquial, that's going to require a WP:CITE, and you can't find one, because even the most meticulous dictionaries in the world don't have it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight... if we go to a dictionary, see a word with defintions 1 and 2 listed, are you arguing that under definition #2 there should be a line that says, "oh, and by the way, this definition is every bit as legitimate as the definition above" on every word that is defined in it? Don't ya think the mere fact that it's listed there alone is enough to show that it's legitimate? If the secondary meaning wasn't legitimate it wouldn't be mentioned anywhere at all, and it's already mentioned in the Mythology article and now will be added to the Myth disambiguation page. What sort of warped reality do you live in where this is "a biased manner" of doing things? DreamGuy

Looks good to me, DreamGuy. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully after a little while here we can go ahead with it and ask that this article be unlocked. DreamGuy 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Codex, I don't understand how colloquial implies illegitimate in your mind? It just explains the usage. David D. (Talk) 07:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me as well. I don't want to sound harsh, but it seems that Codex has some difficulty with linguistics, lexicography, etymology and the "sense" of words.  Everyone who has noted that colloquial does not mean illegitimate is correct: for example, gas as in "it's a gas, gas, gas" is a colloquialism, but gas to mean "a fluid (as air) that has neither independent shape nor volume but tends to expand indefinitely" is not.  Nonetheless, both usages are legitimate.  Jim62sch 14:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "It ain't" and "Shur thang" are colloquialisms. Declaring one of the definitions of myth as "colloquial" without a shred of a cite from any dictionary identifying it as colloquial, is most definitely a bias intended to suggest falsely that it is less legitimate, or not literary.  Or are you now redefining the word "colloquial" as well???  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but you are. Jim62sch 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain, how so? My understanding of "colloquial" is "opposite of literary". I checked some dictionaries, and it bore out my understanding.  Do you have a different understanding?  If the dictionaries and I are correct about "colloquial", then it is bias to suggest that the definition of mythology as "fiction" is less than literary.  It is literary, it is cited, it is legitimate, and there is nothing whatsoever other than your say-so to suggest this definition is colloquial in any way, shape or form -- like for instance, a dictionary of colloquialisms, or dictionaries that generally identify any colloquialisms with words like "colloquial" next to the definition.  Case closed, you're simply being unreasonable now. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on, you're the last person here to try to tell others that they are being unreasonable. You cooked up some sort of worldwide conspiracy to deny your favored meaning of the word in order to ridicule religion and now you slant the word colloquial to suit your bias. It means "conversational" etc., which is 100% true for the myth=false definition. Stop accusing other people of redefining words when it's clear that that's been your attempt from the first time you touched this page. DreamGuy 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Colloquial" comes from the Latin cum (combinatory form com, (mutated to col in anticipation of the first letter of loquor)) = with, and loquor = to speak, i.e., to speak with, i,e., "conversational". DreamGuy is therefore 100% correct.  I really wish you'd stay away from subjects about which you know virtually nothing (at least it is safe to assume that to be the case based on your various posts), i.e., linguistics, etymology and semantics.  Jim62sch 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the whole, the Myth/temp page looks good. While I think one or two choices of wording might stand improvement (e.g., perhaps "In popular usage" instead of "In colloquial expression"), I would be happy to move ahead as DreamGuy suggests.  JHCC  (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it really doesn't matter if you get five, ten, or twenty of your buddies to swear that "colloquial" means something else, if the dictionaries say it means "non-literary", it means "non-literary". If what you mean is "conversational", change it to read "conversational" in place of colloquial, and I will drop my objections.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, come to think of it, I concur with JHCC that "popular usage" is the most accurate.  "Conversational" isn't really accurate either, because the definition is clearly a literary one, dating in this sense from 1830.  So go with "popular usage".  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no issue with changing to "popular useage". KillerChihuahua?!? 14:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed Myth/temp to "popular use". If people prefer "usage" over "use", I'm OK with that too.  JHCC  (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstandings of the etymology of mythology and a related logical fallacy
There seems to be some confusion regarding the derivation of the etymology of –ology. "-ology" is a suffix meaning to discuss/study a particular subject, it does not imply "oral" in any way []. Thus, based on the erroneous conclusions drawn by several misreadings of the etymology of mythology, one would be led into assuming that biology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, cardiology and even etymology are oral traditions only. Obviously, that would be incorrect.

Addiutionally, there is a logical fallacy in the assumption that myths are only oral. All of the alleged Greek and Latin "myths" are written down (else we'd know nothing of them), so does that make them not myths? A myth is any story that purports to be true, whether written or oral (verbal does not mean oral, by the way), but that cannot be shown to be true, has no supporting evidence from history, and is believed by a specific group of people. Thus, virtually every story from every religion is a myth for those reasons. The reason people bristle at the use of the word myth is because they do not understand it.

I hope this nips that little misconception in the bud. Jim62sch 14:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim... I agree wholeheartedly on both comments. The -ology misconcpetion was a fight from two archived talk pages ago, but I finally just let it slide because a couple of editors who showed up out of nowhere to edit war (hrm, sounds familiar) and then disappeared demanded it that way. In fact I think I used the archaeology example in my arguments too. The "oral" part needs to be fixed when the article is unlocked, I agree. "The reason people bristle at the use of the word myth is because they do not understand it." pretty much sums things up... which is why adopting the proposed Myth disambiguation page and a minor change to this article to clarify the point in the lead should take care of that. DreamGuy 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, these points have nothing to do with the issue at all. I don't know who might think "myth" or "mythology" implies oral, but that is not why there is objection.  It has entirely to do with the dictionary definitions.  By the way, if the disambig page is going to label one of the definitions "colloquial", what dictionary is being cited for this label?  As far as I know, the dictionaries that cite both definitions do not identify either one as colloquial, or imply in any way that one def is more valid than the other, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, those points have everything to do with the issue. DreamGuy 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't have anything to do with the issue. Whether anyone thinks "myth" implied oral, or whether no one thinks that, it doesn't change the dictionary definition one iota.  SOrry again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, yes, but you realize the dictionary definition is exactly what Jim62sch was talking about that you and others don't understand...? Or well, you should realize that by now anyway, but apparently you have some sort of weird denial problem where even seeing direct quotes from multiple sources proving you wrong over and over doesn't phase you. DreamGuy 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not followed this discussion closely, I'm afraid, but I wonder if the following observation would help resolve the differences. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.  Its primary purpose is to discuss things and concepts, not words.  Of course, it has to discuss things and concepts through words, and of course sometimes word usage itself is an encyclopedic subject. Concepts in general don't correspond directly to words.  For example, a "bass" can be a musical instrument, a singer in a particular register, and any one of a variety of fishes. What's more, it is often the case that the technical meaning of a word in a particular field is different from its common usage, or its usage in other fields.  In that case, the solution is not to try to impose one particular meaning of the word as standard, but to clarify which meaning is meant in a given context.  There are many such words -- 'myth' is hardly a special case.  'Culture', for example, besides meaning quite different things in a biological context (a tissue culture), in a colloquial context (a cultured person), and in an anthropological context, has had many different meanings in anthropology over time, and in the writings of different anthropologists.  Other words like this which have caused problems in the WP include 'nation', 'people', and 'language'. The solution is not to try to find a definitive meaning for 'culture', but to clarify which meaning is being used.  Of course, that meaning should ideally be a fairly widely-accepted one in the relevant field.  Once an article, or a section of an article, has specified that "in this article, the word 'xxx' is taken to mean yyy", I would hope that the remainder of the article would not have to deal with the problem. --Macrakis 20:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)--Macrakis 20:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This has also been my interpretation from the beginning. As i read these discussions I have gradually become more convinced that this is the correct stance. As long as the word is defined at the beginning of the article there should be no confusion. I would have a problem if 'myth' was being used in an obscure way, but I don't think this is the case here. I brought this up earlier with regard to the word 'theory' in the context of science. Just because there is a colloquial usage that differs from the academic usage does not mean the colloquial usage should get priority in all contexts.  Context is key.  Mythology is an academic study and therefore 'myth' in the academic usage is correct and, in fact, NPOV. Trying to find some other word such as story seems to pushing a POV agenda and is actually no better since these words ALSO have mutliple definitions.  In the process the article becomes a useless since the terminology is incorrect. David D. (Talk) 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with David and Macrakis here, obviously. Any confusion on use of the term is cleared up in the lead (or will be with the "not true" meaning contrast broght up from below once it's unlocked) and the disambig page at Myth (proposed and currently listed at Myth/temp. DreamGuy 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit more backround for the -ology that should be included in the article when it is unlocked:


 * From Liddel and Scott (the authoritative greek dicytionary): Legein (λεγειν), 6. like Lat. dicere, to mean, ti touto legei; what does this mean? Ar., Plat.; pôs legeis; how mean you? Plat.:--to explain more fully, eisô komizou su, Kasandran legô get thee in--thou, I mean Cassandra, Aesch.; potamos Achelôion legô Soph. Jim62sch 13:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Mythica
Would anyone mind if I remove Encyclopedia Mythica from the external links? In my experience it's an inaccurate site which we should not be recommending. Wikipedia itself is usually more comprehensive and more accurate, though we still have a long way to go. - Haukur 13:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua went ahead and did it. Excellent. - Haukur 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually like that site a lot for "pop mythology" / basic overview stuff. I'll defer to the community, but my guess is it gets reinserted at some point, since, for good or ill, it's one of the top mythology sites on the web (#1 on Google, for what that's worth).  KHM03 17:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe it's better for other areas but in Norse mythology, at least, it is quite poor. Here are three entries:


 * Brono The son of Balder, whose name means 'daylight'.
 * Hladgunnr One of the Valkyries. Hladgunnr used to set traps for her victims.
 * Laga In Norse mythology, Laga is the goddess of wells and springs. She is a friend of Odin.

I can't find "Brono" or "Laga" in any other source on Norse mythology. Maybe those are nihilartikels. There is a Valkyrie called Hlaðgunnr but this thing about traps is not found in any primary sources. All of this "information" made its way into Wikipedia at some point. Just a few days ago I removed "Brono" from the German Wikipedia.

Anyone else have thoughts on this site? DreamGuy? - Haukur 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not perfect. But it certainly is notable.  KHM03 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see it's got an Alexa ranking of 22,485 and its own Wikipedia article. - Haukur 21:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would advocate keeping the link...it might not be academically excellent, but it certainly is very notable from a "lay" perspective (again, #1 on Google). KHM03 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an extrmely poor source of information on mythology. Picking an article at random usually brings up all sorts of problems. It's like Wikipedia except much worse: written by schoolchildren from bad sources but with no way to update it with correct info. I would recommend not linking to it. #1 in Google is not an argument for it being encyclopedic. If we want people to go to whatever is listed highest in Google, why even have articles at all, just forward each article to the Google search results. Based upon traffic maybe it deserves its own article as a website for pop culture, but linking to known bad info is not a good idea. We're supposed to be better than that. DreamGuy 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked it over -- it bites. We are better than that.  Much.  Jim62sch 14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This Google search indicates that the site may be used more than 200 times as a source on the English Wikipedia. Verifying and correcting the information using more reliable sources is something to aspire to. - Haukur 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Texas Rangers
Today's "Featured Article" on the Texas Rangers has a section "Rangers' mythos" which reads in part:

"From its earliest days, the Rangers were surrounded with the mystique of the Old West. And though popular culture's image of the Rangers is typically one of rough living, tough talk and a quick draw, Ranger Captain John "Rip" Ford described the men who served him thus:....."

So it is accepted that the Texas Rangers exist and have long existed, and apparently are rather effective. They have attached, however, a "mythos" or "mystique" that lends a flair to their stature that might here and there be exaggerated. The Texas Rangers don't seem to care who believes "One Riot, One Ranger" and who does not, so why all the fuss about mythology? Carrionluggage 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what it is you are trying to argue here. DreamGuy 03:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He's noting the use of "mythos" used in conjunction with a historical group. Jim62sch 14:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was also noting that on this highly active Rangers page (today, Jan 16, 2006) nobody seems to object to the use of "Mythos" in regards to the Rangers' exploits, bravery, and accomplishments, though there be mostly true reports and a few embellishments. Yet there is all this fuss over a category for the Flood story.

Anyway, I just happened on Legend - is that better? Looks pretty neutral to positive. Carrionluggage 19:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And now for the true History of the Usage
Daycd has most generously supplied me with the entire text of both the last two editions of the OED for "myth", for which I am most grateful, as it has proved most elucidating. I have learned several things:


 * The phrase "Also (c 1840-1865) mythe" reading quoted above in the 1989 edition refers to the fact that "mythe" was a common alternate spelling in those years, and has no bearing on the earliest known usage in English, which is given as 1830.


 * The phrase "Cf. also French mythe (1803)" reading quoted above in the 2003 edition refers to the fact that the earliest known usage in French dates to that year, and has no bearing on the earliest known usage in English, which is still the same 1830 quote as in the 1989 edition.


 * The same 1830 quote offered as support in definition "a purely fictitious narrative..." as the primary meaning in 1989, is also offered in support of the newer, changed meaning in 2003. No earlier quote or any new information has come to light to account for the change.


 * The 1830 quote that is the earliest known usage in English comes from a journal called the Westminster Review. The intention is clearly to state that it is a synonym for "fabulous".  To wit:


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


 * It would be entirely appropriate to mention these facts in the article on either "mythology" or "myth" article, and it serves no legitimate purpose to suppress the etymological side of the word myth in English. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got nothing against a little etymology and usage information but Wikipedia is usually light on that sort of thing. Maybe you could expand the Wiktionary entry for 'myth' and then link to it with an interwiki box in the myth page over here? - Haukur 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A little is all it takes. "The earliest known use of myth as an English word dates to 1830, and was originally used a synonym for 'fabulous'" ought to be sufficient. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been studying the entries Daydc sent me some more. I wish we could put it all up here to set the record straight, but we don't want to violate copyvio's.  Anyway, the preponderance of the quotes make it clear that the meaning of myth is fictional.  Ironically, the sense in which "myth" could be applied to something that is real seems to have arisen as the colloquialism; as early as 1853 a real person who existed was referred to as a "myth", apparently because he stayed in his basement all the time and was rarely seen in public.  It isn't until 1963 when we get the quote already given, "We use myth in a sense a little different from the popular one...", in the British Journal of Sociology. (NB: This is actually marked as "colloquial" in the 1989 edition!!!)  That is the first recorded use of the English word in the sense this article ascribes to it.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * CarrionLuggage: "copyuvio" is short for Copyright violation - see WP:CP for more. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, KC (KillerCh., not Knight of Columbus). Let's all try to STA (Swat That Acronym) - this Wikery or whatever is supposed to be an open-ended venture not requiring participants to know associated arcana. (AA) Carrionluggage 19:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (CL)

The sense-development of words like "myth" is fascinating, but I am not sure I see its relevance here. Let me take an example from an academic field which (I hope) will not be as controversial. In common, everyday (i.e. colloquial) use, "weight" refers to the property of an object which is measured both by a spring-scale and by a weighing balance. In physics, on the other hand, the first of these properties is called a force, and the second a mass. A "mass" in common, everyday (i.e. colloquial), use is a coherent body of matter, similar to its use in medicine. Yet I think no one objects to using the technical (as opposed to colloquial) meaning of "mass" in physics articles. --Macrakis 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How could you not see the relevance? It's more than just fascinating, it is necessary to counteract the totally false impression that is being given to make it appear that the newer meaning attested from 1963, is somehow more legitimate, and that the older meaning from 1830 is colloquial (as opposed to literary).  Try looking up the word colloquial, it means the opposite of 'literary'.  It doesn't fit the original meaning of myth as "fiction", because these cites prove that it is fully literary.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no question of "legitimacy" here. All of the meanings are perfectly legitimate, and all are in active use in various contexts, just like "mass" or "force" or "culture".  As for "colloquial", all it means is "Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language." (OED online)  It can be contrasted with "literary", but it can also be contrasted with "technical".  Again, to avoid the particular case of "myth", let's consider "culture".  Colloquially, and also formally in some contexts, "culture" means something like "refined taste".  But in anthropology, it means something like "the whole complex of learned behaviour, the traditions and techniques and the material possessions, the language and other symbolism, of some body of people".  Both are legitimate meanings, even though the anthropological sense is more recent.  --Macrakis 22:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "The earliest known use of myth as an English word dates to 1830, and was originally used a synonym for 'fabulous history'"  I'd like to examine further what is the real reason why it's so all-fired important to some that this simple, cited sentence not be allowed to appear in the article.  The argument that it's "irrelevant" sounds to me like bluster.  It's clearly relevant.  There's got to be a real reason why you don't want anyone to know this.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you also suggest that the article mass include the simple, cited sentence, "The earliest known use of 'mass' as an English word dates to 1382, and originally meant 'A dense aggregation of objects having the appearance of a single, continuous body.' (OED)? Frankly, I don't find the current wording of the definition section very good, but I don't see the relevance of the 1830 definition. --Macrakis 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If the definition of "mass" were the subject of some pov controversy, then by all means, I would suggest it, and I would question the motives behind one party attempting to suppress it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OED definitions of myth with usage

 * Rmmm... I don't think that was wise... should have linked to some other site that had it or put it on some other page, as those are massive copyright violations. Fair use really wouldn't apply for quotes that lengthy. DreamGuy 08:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually agree but was responding to two requests on my talk page that seemed to think it would be alright. Originally I had sent codex the file as a personal e-mail. Feel free to delete it if you feel their reasoning is not sound. David D. (Talk) 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be on the safe side, could you please provide full citations for both these quotes? Publisher, date, that kind of thing.  JHCC  (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was first published by the Oxford University Press in 1884. The First Edition was completed in 1928. The Second (unrevised) Edition of 1989 incorporated neologisms. In 1990 a comprehensive editorial program was initiated to revise and update the text. Each entry is being reviewed and new documentary evidence and scholarship is used to reflect a more accurate record of the English language. The current online OED dictionary is the DRAFT REVISION June 2003 of the Third Edition.


 * Is that the information you have in mind? i wonder if we should just delete it? David D. (Talk) 16:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving right along
Codex is still tilting at windmills, but everyone else who has posted here recently seems to be unanimous in favor of going ahead with a new Myth article as a disambig page instead of just a redirect, as currently seen at Myth/temp and then putting a short section in the lead of Mythology that myth has an alternate meaning of "false" which is not used in the field of mythology. If we are as a group agreed to that, we can request that this page be unlocked, make the Myth article live, and then put some note about the differences in definition and how it applies to religious self-identity in Religion and mythology. And, note of course that if edit warring starts happening again or people put in things that the concensus here didn't agree to we'd just have it locked again.

Anyone opposed to unlocking and moving on? DreamGuy 08:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I say go for it. David D. (Talk) 08:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of the draft at Myth/temp and I'm in favor of unlocking this article. I still hope we can achieve some sort of understanding with Codex. - Haukur 12:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this, the short statement should cover any concerns that ignorant people will take "myth" as a synonym for "false". KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tilting at windmills? Ignorant people?  Did you even read the citations from the OED that prove the English word "myth" was used as a literary synonym for false, long before it was ever used (colloquially, I might add) to mean "possibly true"?  If you have any kind of cite that trumps the OED, let's see it.  Otherwise, you need to tell the truth about the true history of the word, and stop misrepresenting it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Codex it seems to me that OED is saying that they got it wrong for myth. The revision is based on new research and new documentation, at least that's what the preface for the Third Edition says. I assume that the reason the OED now has the primary meaning as "possibly true" as opposed to "false" is because there is good precident for this order based on new research. If we question the primary source then are we not entering into the avenues of original research? I would say, yes. Are we qualified to do this? No.


 * Secondly, even if the "possibly true" meaning was the secondary usage according to the OED, I still don't understand how the use of the word here is a slight to religion. If this is the standard usage in mythology then this is what wikipedia should use. If the word is clearly defined then there should be no problem.  David D. (Talk) 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, these are some good points, and I thank you for refraining from ad hominem in making them. Now to respond to the points with some other points, you just noted that the 2003 edition is in "draft" stage, possibly it is not even available in print.  This particular entry, while the draft has some new quotes, none of them  seems to offer any good justification for the mysterious "primary" definition change, and no "new" quote earlier than the 1830 journal quoted in the earlier edition has been found.  Despite the "primary" definition, the actual quotes themselves all seem to demonstrate that the usage migrated from a literary meaning of "false", to a colloquial meaning of "possibly true", and finally, to a scholarly meaning of "possibly true", and in my opinion it is legitimate to cite this raw information.  But you are correct, we are not qualified to review the quality of the 2003 draft edition, even if the "primary" definition seems questionable from the evidence, in my own humble opinion.  Now, in response to what you said "I still don't understand how the use of the word here is a slight to religion", okay, but the authors of this wikipedia article itself DID seem to understand how it could be a slight to religion.  I have learned from reviewing the article history, that from Sept. 18, 2002, until 11 April 2004, the article read: People within most religions take offense at the characterization of their faith as a myth, for this is tantamount to claiming that the religion itself is a lie.  It's too bad this phrasing (by TUF-KAT) got changed, because that is very true and very NPOV way to put it.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So it seems that the real issue here is how to present this opinion in the article in a way that is acceptable to all (or should i say hopefyully all). Is this correct? David D. (Talk) 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the main issue as I see it... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you Codex on the NPOV of that quote. That quote mearly looks at the offense English speakers might have, primarily ignorant Christian. A better one might be "People within the English speaking world may take offense at the characterization of their faith as a myth, for this is tantamount to claiming that the religion itself is a lie." as DreamGuy has mentioned the Buddhism and Shinto's view of myth as truth(or something like that) and it tries to approach this for a world wide view.
 * Oh thou it is nice to get to the root of your disagreement. --Number7 10:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this, so that we can all continue to contribute constructively to both Myth andMythology. I do NOT support any notion that this agreement (to move the current Myth/temp to Myth, unlock Mythology, put a note about differences of definition, etc) is equivalent to binding and unchangeable consensus that either article cannot be added to or edited in future.  JHCC  (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ditto to what JHCC just said. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that went without saying - is anything on WP "binding and unchangeable"? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple answer: NO. Let me put it this way &mdash; if we reach consensus to adopt the current Myth/temp draft as the basis for Myth, I wouldn't want to see anyone reverting future changes to Myth on the grounds that they are "against consensus".  I'm willing to support the current motion as a way to break the deadlock and move forward, as long as no-one takes this as consensus on every detail of the form and content of the various articles.  This is especially important since this is the first time in a long time that we've had anything resembling a vote, and I want to make clear what I am supporting and what I oppose.  To put it another way, I do support the creation of the Myth article using Myth/temp as the starting point for further editing.  I do not support using Myth/temp as the final version of Myth &mdash; there are some improvements to be made, but discussion of these is not, in my mind, a prerequisite for moving forward with the creation of the Myth article.  Any changes, additions, deletions, etc can be discussed, accepted, rejected, or whatever on their own merits later on.  JHCC  (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it went without saying, but as you've taken the trouble to say it, any objections? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so, JHCC apparently only saying yes to get it unlocked so he can go ahead back to trying to insert his own version in instead of what was agreed upon here. That's not going to fly. We either agree on what we're going to do or we keep the page locked as is. We already say JHCC and Codex's edits previously and know that they are not accepted by consensus, the last thing we need is for them to start up their nonsense again. DreamGuy 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, JHCC is saying that he is happy to restrict Mythology to a clearly defined academic sense of "myth" and "mythology" (a restriction for which there seems to be wide support), while leaving open the possiblility that Myth could be expanded beyond simply a disambiguation page, perhaps to discuss etymology and history of usage (properly sourced, of course). While I had earlier supported including this information in the Mythology article, I was convinced by DreamGuy's argument that it would take up too much space and distract from the article's main focus.


 * I support restricting Mythology to the academic sense of "myth" and "mythology". So does DreamGuy.  What's the problem?


 * I support a brief note at the beginning of Mythology to clarify that the academic sense does not include the popular sense of "myth = false". So does DreamGuy.  What's the problem?


 * DreamGuy has proposed that we turn the current Myth/temp page into a new Myth article, include a short section at the beginning of Mythology about the popular sense, and request that Mythology be unlocked. David D., Haukur, KillerChihuahua, Codex, and I have all voted in support of this.  No-one has voted against.  What's the problem?


 * I support a more expanded Myth article &mdash; an idea for which both Haukur and Adrian.baker have expressed support, while Paul August expressed very clear support for my proposal which included that we "continue discussion at Talk:Myth as to the content and scope of the Myth page" .  DreamGuy evidently disagrees.  However, given that I have clearly agreed with DreamGuy on the scope and content of the Mythology article (even if issues of precise wording have yet to be completely addressed) and that I have no intention of including a comprehensive discussion of all senses of "myth" and "mythology" on the Mythology article, I see no reason for Mythology to be held hostage until we reach consensus on the scope and content of Myth.  JHCC  (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's unlock this article, put up the new "Myth" disambiguation page, and then let the Wikipedia thing happen. That's why we're all part of this project, right?  I think any edits JHCC makes will be good faith edits, even if DreamGuy or anyone else doesn't care for the edits.  Let's work together, even if we don't think the outcome is 100% in our favor.  It's the Wiki-way.  KHM03 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance
Just a quick note to say that I am not using, nor do I use, "ignorant" as a pejorative term. I myself am ignorant on a great many things, it is how I found Wikipedia to begin with - looking up subjects on which I was ignorant. If anyone has a negative association of the word in their mind, perhaps it would help to replace "ignorant" with "uninformed" - which is our target audience yes? Our purpose is to inform, via a well-researched and referenced encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ignorance is not stupid. Do we need to get the definitions for this too? Everyone is ignorant and those that refuse to accept their own ignorance are probably more ignorant than most.  The good thing about ignorance is it has nothing to do with intelligence.  One can read an encyclopedia, for example, and become less ingnorant. These word games are getting VERY tedious. David D. (Talk) 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree, although perhaps "not familiar with" is better (and less pejorative) than either "ignorant of" or "uninformed of". JHCC  (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an ignorant thing to say. KHM03 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)  (PS -- Just kidding.)

But how do you ascertain ignorance? There are many reasons to take a certain viewpoint on something, but how can you tell whether a statement is due to ignorance, bad reasoning, point-of-viewing, etc?

And as my dictionary also defines 'ignorant'as "discourteous, rude, ill-bred", I think that a better choice of wording be used. --Iantresman 13:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)