Category talk:Christian mythology/Archive 2

message: Wow, this page seems to have gone back to an argument page. Let me propose what I believe will be an acceptable compromise solution to most of the people here, based on what I've seen.
#There is a category :Category:Bible stories, appropriately subdivided for Jewish and Christian scriptures. All biblical material goes in there.
#The category :Christian mythology (and for any other religions that require it) is retained, with whatever renaming is considered appropriate from the above discussion. Anything not biblical in origin, especially anything whose historicity is doubted, goes in here.
FestivalOfSouls I know you won't like this because you are going to insist that the Bible is mythology based on the academic definition, but frankly we've been through that. Let's see what others have to say. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the dictionary definition of insist is "to hold up a claim emphatically". That describes what you are doing. And we all know that the dictionary definition of a word is the important thing, and whether that word implies truth or falseness is completely irrelevant. Isn't that what you've been saying for the whole of this conversation? Or don't you like that idea so much now? DJ Clayworth 13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, ok, I will give you that the dictonary agrees with the usage, but put forth that a better term DOES exist, which is the whole basis of this issue. In this case a better word is easily found, unlike with the term "mythology". FestivalOfSouls 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Unbelievable! You've spent weeks arguing that we should use the word 'mythology' because it is academically correct, and it doesn't matter who gets offended; and then when I use a word that is completely correct but offends you, you insist that I change it! Maybe you should try putting yourself in someone else's shoes for a change. DJ Clayworth 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  FALSE! I have agreed from the very begining that if a better term can be found, it should be used, but that people's misunderstanding of the definition coupled with the lack of a better term does not mean we cannot use a term. If no better term than "insist" existed, I would not have said anything. You are totally missing the point. If I said that you could not use the word "unbeleavable" because some people will believe anything, and thus that term is offensive, you might have a case. (not sure, didn't really try to come up with a "better" term). What I have been arguing the last couple of weeks is not that if a term is academically correct, it should be used, but that if a term is correct acourding to a dictionary definition, and a better term does not exist, AND no valid case can be made against its use, then it should be allowed to use. It the case of the category system, which is a sort of reverse directory on wikipedia, that "allowed to use" is slightly changed to "should be used for the sake of completeness". It is like saying we are not allowed to Categorize evolutionin as a theory, because some people don't understand that theory doesn't just mean "guess or hunch". FestivalOfSouls 15:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, we're still working on whether a better term can be found. There are certainly some suggestions being discussed. In the meantime, think about your own response to my use of insist the next time you say we shouldn't care if people are offended by our words. DJ Clayworth 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution

message: 'Nuff said.
* 5 - JHCC (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete the category and do not replace it

message: Name to be decided later.
* 1 - JHCC (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not assuming that he is opinionated, since he proves it in virtually every single post of his, or claiming that I am not. I am opinionated about keeping the wiki NPOV, and I am very active to that end. Aside from your false personal comment about me, what do you have to say about the topic? FestivalOfSouls 13:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename the category

message: As an interim measure, "The neutrality of categorizing religious beliefs as mythology is disputed" will be added to all articles so categorized until a new name can be agreed on.
* 2 - JHCC (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename the category, use dispute tag while discussion is in progress

message: The "Christian mythology" category will be retained, with a disclaimer added to all articles so categorized to the effect that truth value is not implied.
* 4 - JHCC (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the category, add a disclaimer

message: This will retain the "Christian mythology" category unchanged while discussion continues.
* 3 - JHCC (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My intention with including this was to allow a "not yet ready to support a particular position" option.  JHCC (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do nothing while we continue to discuss

message: Remember, votes were in order of preference, so low number = more support for this position.  Eight people voted, so the lowest possible score = 8 (everyone's first choice); highest possible score = 48 (everyone's last choice).
====Delete the category and do not replace it====
39 total votes.
====Rename the category====
18 total votes
====Rename the category, use dispute tag while discussion is in progress====
30 total votes
====Keep the category, add a disclaimer====
31 total votes
====Do nothing while we continue to discuss====
23 total votes
====Keep the category====
27 total votes
Thus, ranking in order of greatest to least support:
# Rename the category(18 votes)
# Do nothing while we continue to discuss (23 votes)
# Keep the category (27 votes)
# Rename the category, use dispute tag while discussion is in progress (30 votes)
# Keep the category, add a disclaimer (31 votes)
# Delete the category and do not replace it (39 votes)
And the winner is...NO CONSENSUS!!!
Unfortunately, I think the only things that we can clearly deduce from these results are that (A) no-one wants to delete the category entirely and (B) disclaimers and dispute tags do not have great support, either as a permanent solution or an interim measure.
I hope that this has been somewhat helpful.  Thanks to all who voted.  JHCC (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote results as of 14:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

message: 27 total votes
Thus, ranking in order of greatest to least support:
# Rename the category(18 votes)
# Do nothing while we continue to discuss (23 votes)
# Keep the category (27 votes)
# Rename the category, use dispute tag while discussion is in progress (30 votes)
# Keep the category, add a disclaimer (31 votes)
# Delete the category and do not replace it (39 votes)
And the winner is...NO CONSENSUS!!!
Unfortunately, I think the only things that we can clearly deduce from these results are that (A) no-one wants to delete the category entirely and (B) disclaimers and dispute tags do not have great support, either as a permanent solution or an interim measure.
I hope that this has been somewhat helpful.  Thanks to all who voted.  JHCC (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the category

message: OK, this page is getting confusing, so can we have this debate down here?
As far as I can understand it, Festival of Souls is arguing that, even if we get a consensus that 'Christian narrative' should replace 'Christian myth' we can't do it, unless all religious myth categories are to be changed.
I say this is wrong. Categories should be non-controversial. 'Christian Myth' (although I'm personally happy with it) has obviously become controversial. If narrative commands more support - we should go for that. This is ‘’not’’ special pleading for Christianity - the same goes for other faiths, indeed any other topic - if a category becomes controversial, find a less controversial way to categorise.  If the category 'Jewish myths' becomes contentious (and I don't know whether it is or not) then I'd support it changing too, but that would be a debate for those involved in Jewish articles. WP:NOT a bureaucracy - nor is it totally consistent. Let's be pragmatic, if we make this change we can get on with building an encyclopaedia and stop being a pedantic debating society. --Doc (?) 17:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is highly controversial to say that it is ok to call one religion a myth and not another. Take a look at ALL the arguments Codex and Co use("I am too stupid to read a dictionary and myth means false" and the like) and the arguments they make against calling christian stories mythical ("It is wrong to call anything people believe in a myth" and "only non-biblical stories can be called myths")  and try and tell me with a straight face they are not trying for special treatment, or that they are not trying to push POV. FestivalOfSouls 20:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree entirely with Doc, and with the following comment from Mark. JHCC (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, self-described pagans have argued that the word "myth" has none of the negative connotations for them, that it has for many of us - the Biblical definition notwithstanding, "false" is not what "mythos" is, to them. However, at least one adherent of a variety of Hinduism has argued that for their sect at least, the word does not neutrally describe their understanding of the Vedas scriptures. Obviously, some Jews see the same difficulty. Different religions are different beliefs and attitudes. Our difficulties shouldn't be projected onto them, and neither should our fix. ... — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Must all religions be categorised the same?

message: Another attempt at consensus.
:1 The :Category:Christian mythology is, at least for now, retained.
:2 Create new :Category:Christian narrative.
:3 Subcategorize this category under the following scheme:
::1. :Category:New Testament narrative
:::a. :Category:Gospel episodes (Events described in the Gospels)
:::b. :Category:Episodes in Acts (Events described in the Acts of the Apostles)
:::c. :Category:Parables of Jesus 
::2. :Category:Christian biography (Lives of Christians)
:::a. :Category:Christian hagiography (Lives of saints, as a subcategory of Christians)
::3. :Category:Christian folklore (Traditional Christian stories and folktales; this may have some overlap with Christian hagiography)
::4. :Category:Christian literature (Fictional literature written by Christians to tell Christian stories or convey Christian themes: Chronicles of Narnia, Ben Hur, Left Behind, etc.)
::5. (Others as needed)
Hopefully, at some point in the future, the Wikipedia community will come to consensus on the neutrality (or lack thereof) of categorizing stories that embody belief as "mythology".  In the mean time, this proposal stands on its own as a useful categorization scheme, which may eventually provide a realistic neutral alternative to "mythology", both here and for other religions.  
Thoughts?  JHCC (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JHCC's new proposal

message: As FofS has pointed out, writers under other religious topics might be interested in these proposals, and some of them might have different ideas.  If we have steered an unbiased course, here, the proposals could potentially serve a wider purpose.  Writers on Judaism and the LDS will undoubtedly have an interest in how these categories are used.  Pagans, students of comparative religion and skeptical writers have already seen the significance of categories for arranging articles according to their standards of objectivity.  I think that this discussion should be copied to a new project page, and invitations and an RfC should accompany our implementation of the plan.
Does this sound like a good idea, assuming an appropriate name might be found?  If so, what should that project be called?  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page 

message: When talk pages fork, the discussion goes on behind a curtain to some degree.  
* The main talk page should be archived at :Category_talk:Christian mythology/Archive_1 and blanked, 
* The leading proposal from this page should be copied to the main talk page.
* Links to both sub-pages should be added to the main talk page with summaries of their content.
: — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forked talk