Talk:Mythology/Archive 2

message: I have changed the definition of mythology in the lead section. My sources are as follows:
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica article Mythology:
:In the distant past, however, before any sciences existed, the beginnings of the world and of society were explained by mythology. /…/ How comprehensive a developed mythology could become was given written expression in Greece by Hesiod. 
According to the MSN Encarta article Mythology:
:Mythology, the body of myths of a particular culture, and the study and interpretation of such myths. /…/ The term mythology might include all traditional tales, from the creation stories of ancient Egypt to the sagas of Icelandic literature to the American folktale of Paul Bunyan. 
According to H. R. Ellis Davidson in Gods and Myths of Northern Europe:
:A mythology is the comment of one particular age or civilization on the mysteries of human existence and human mind …
According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
:Mythology 1. a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. b. A body of myths associated with an event, individual, or institution: "A new mythology, essential to the . . . American funeral rite, has grown up" (Jessica Mitford). 2. The field of scholarship dealing with the systematic collection and study of myths. 
According to the Merriam-Webster:
:Mythology: 1 : an allegorical narrative 2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : mythos 2 <cold war mythology> 3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth 
--Salleman 08:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, good. I approve wholeheartedly of this change. elvenscout742 23:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: One notable type is the creation myth, which describes how that culture believes the universe was created.
I have removed this statement from the article and reassembled the conjoining segment accordingly.  This is atheist bigotry, and might offend those who hold their religious beliefs to be of a higher sacredness than mere "myth."  Salva 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting... this is neither atheistic nor bigotry, and I can;t for the life of me understand how you could think so, unless perhaps you assumed that the word myth means false, in which case you should read the article to get a better understanding of the word as it's being used. DreamGuy 06:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about "creation myth" 

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

message: The beginning of the mythology section only lists Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology and Norse mythology. Now it includes some more great examples. (unsigned, but by User:69.245.196.132)
:I think those edits are going to be troublesome. It's best not to list modern religions there yet until the later section explaining in more detail, so as not to offend those who are used to the less precise meaning of myths as false. From the tone of your comments it sounds like you perhaps don't know the meaning either and are perhaps listing them to try to lash out at those who believe them. DreamGuy 09:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unbiased. 

message: Please stop removing disputed tags.  The fact that you dispute that there is a dispute is preposterous; I am allowed to dipute something, and if you dispute that there is a dispute, it only proves further that there really IS a dispute here in re: your POV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not POV, as per all the info above. Try to listen to reason, Codex. elvenscout742 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed section 

message: For Codex, and anyone reading who might hold a more fundamental view on the dispute: ( http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200009/ai_n8913973 ) There are better articles on the subject, but this was what I was able to find online and free; it is not a final word on our discussion, merely an attempt to show that there is Christian discourse in which myth is used in the way this Wiki article intends to use it, and that remains faithful to Christianity. Peace, User:Deleted_user_jj1 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lest I Sound Partial

message: Since the proposal to spin Myth into its own article seems to be on hold (at least for the time being), and since there was fairly broad support for putting the various senses of "Myth" at the beginning of the article, I'm going to move these various definitions to a new initial section entitled "What is a myth?"  Lest anyone be worried that I am trying to redefine "myth" or push a particular POV, I will restrict myself to creating the section, writing a neutral introductory sentence or two, and then simply moving text and making any small changes necessary for the sake of coherence and correct grammar.  JHCC  (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you took the real definition out of the lead, put the common usage defintion in the next section ABOVE the professional definition, and moved the description all the way down the article and you think this is a good thing? Give me a break. My patience has worn out here, as it's obvious you are not trying to improve the article but to try to advance denigrate the professional meaning and advance the sloppy common usage to the top, which completely throws thw whole purpose of the article out the window. It'd be like showing up to Evolution and moving the professionally used definition to a footnote and blabbering on about nonacademic nonsense at the top to try to advance useless make it up as you go along meanings. You most definitely are pushing POV and trying to redefine the word, as you would make mythology whatever any bozo off the street thinks the word might mean without paying attention to the encyclopedic meaning. Your moves were not neutral, typically not accurate, and not at all in good faith. DreamGuy 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the definition back in the introduction, even though I think it bulks it out too much.  I've also removed the mention of the supernatural from the intro, since it is not universal in all myths.  As for the rest, this is all material moved from other sections of the article, not new content.  JHCC  (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section

message: Enough is enough is well past enough already. You can't change the definition of the words in this article just to suit your religious bias. Furthermore, you can't move the "what is mythology" section way down low in the article, when this article is supposed to be about mythology. Furthermore, you can't revert changes and claim "please discuss on the talk page" when it HAS BEEN discussed, extensively, repeatedly, throughly, and in language that even people who know nothing about mythology should be able to understand. At this point all you are doing is ignoring the explanations given to you to try to push your bias. That will not be tolerated. DreamGuy 05:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DreamGuy, we are forging here a new consensus.  As mentioned above, consensus can and does change.  Please join the conversation rather than making statements of absolutes ("you can't...).  The truth is that the community has a right to edit any article; this article is not privately owned.  It is currently being worked on by longtime, well respected editors.  Please join the discussion and help improve the article.    KHM03 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that comment. Yes, and before you say it, I am fully aware of the civility polify here, but there really isn't a way to accurately describe what you are trying to pull here in more civil language. You are not forging a new consensus, you and a couple of guys who did something elsewhere ganged up on an article to try to enforce your will upon it when lots of editors are away on vacation. The discussion above clearly shows multiple people recently totally disagreeing with your actions here. Furthermore, claims that I need to "join the discussion and help improve the article" both here and in edit comments while you revert the whole thing are completely nonsense, and clearly in bad faith, because I have consistently been discussing things here. You and JHCC and the Christos guy who started this mess by trying to claim that nothing in the Bible is a myth are not "discussing" anything, you are ranting about "prejudice" and your "religious beliefs" and ignoring clear explanations of why the changes you make are either unnecessary, contrary to the goal you stated earlier, or outright incorrect. You can't do that, and that's not just me trying to make a statement of absolutes, it's Wikipedia policy. So start trying to deal straight or give up, because this little game of yours of trying to pretend that I haven't discussed anything and trying to use that lie to justify your reverts is simply not going to fly. DreamGuy 01:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the more I look at it, the more I think WP could benefit from having separate articles for "Myth" and "Mythology".  KHM03 12:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see any consensus here - KHM03, JHCC, Mkmcconn *before* making substantive edits to the article you really need to try and hammer this out here on the talk page, otherwise this will go nowhere - particularly as the thrust of this change has already been discussed and proved contentious. JHCC, is it possible to split some this set of edits out into smaller chunks which can be discussed independently (eg the Greek derivation)? Adrian.baker 12:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to think so.  JHCC  (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely bad faith edits 

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

message: I pledge not to revert or make any substantive or controversial edits until we come to a consensus understanding on this talk page.  KHM03 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice idea, but one that doesn't work unless everyone follows it. I pledge to revert back to the longstanding consensus version when someone makes any substantive, controversial, incorrect and/or POV-pushing edits, which is all I was doing in the first place. DreamGuy 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And, actually, if you were honest about your pledge to not have controversial edits in the article without consensus, you'd revert Codex and JHCC when they add new content the way they have been doing.  DreamGuy 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take the pledge 

message: Codex, I think the problem with this sentence
:In the English language, "myth" has inherited several senses from Greek usage.
is that it's redundant - in the lead in the Greek derivation is already spelt out:
:The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυϑολογειν mythologein to relate myths, from μυϑος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λογος logos, meaning speech or argument)
Which is why it was reverted - I don't think anyone wants to 'cover up' any discussion here. Although it's a small change, it's best to be succint. I think it's ok to push for a polished article down to every 'minute word' on a fairly mature article like this: it's easier to propose changes here on the talk page first, to reduce the number reverts. Adrian.baker 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Mythology? 

message: Okay, I guess I had better be more straightforward and stop beating around the bush...  The following is exactly the text that I don't want to be "covered up":
:The ancient Greek Μυθος originally meant simply word or speech, and by extension, a story or narrative. This quickly took on the sense of fiction, and both Pindar (d. 443 BC) and Plato (d. ca. 347 BC) contrast Μυθος with Λογος as "historical truth." Most ancient usages of Μυθος are specifically as fiction; see here for details in the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon entry on Μυθος.
This is all cited and verifiable, and it amply demonstrates the TRUTH that the modern "mythologists" here are desperately trying to suppress and keep from the public eye: That "falsehood" is by far the older definition in English, and "narrative" is the 20th century contrivance of self-styled "academics".  It was the "academics" who REDEFINED the word, and the real reason they don't want this factual etymological info in the article, is because it would defeat their entire purpose -- which is to REDEFINE the word myth "academically" just so they can "get away" with declaring the scriptures of EVERY world religion (not just Christianity) "myths", and laugh up their sleeves at their own cleverness and deceptiveness for doing so.  Redefining words away from their classical or traditional meaning, to try to "teach" the people that the common meaning is somehow incorrect and must now be discarded, and similar such semantic games, has been a favorite tactic of Revisionists, and the regimes that support them, for the last 100 years.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote you "laugh up their sleeves at their own cleverness and deceptiveness for doing so". Are all academics atheists?  If not i see no reason why this is logical.  Even if they were atheists you really think they would be going out of their way to ridicule religion? This is a very good example of assuming bad faith and is not the way to go about defending the sentence you would like to be included in the article.  Maybe this type of commentary si why this article is now posted in RfC? David D. (Talk) 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any possible way to defend the repeated, coordinated suppression of this etymological information I've witnessed over the past week, unless it's for the reason I said.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim that "most ancient usages" meant fiction is just plain false, as the source referred to clearly shows. I discuss this below. It sounds more like you want to rewrite history to fit your preconceived ideas instead of this supposed "coverup" you talk about above and in your edit comment. The source itself CLEARLY says narrative is the older version, more used version, and even the secondary version explicity says "without distinction of true or false" -- to get to your version you have to go to a submeaning of a secondary version of the word.... that's a far, far cry from it being the primary usage. You are the one attempting revisionism here, and it's clear you are doing so solely to avoid having your religious belief descirbed in terms that puts them on equal footings with all other religious beliefs. Everything you have attempted to do here is a mjaor, major violation of the NPOV policy, not to mention simply wrong. Please desist from trying to destroy this encyclopedia's relliability just so you can feel better about your religion. DreamGuy 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let me be straightforward

message: Having read both versions, I lean toward the current one for its more encyclopedic tone and suggest merging.  There seems to be useful information on the competing version such as a distinction between fairy tales and myths.  The discussion equating modern religions with myths on the competing version looks "hot" in the sense that the topic might be encyclopedic but the sensitive nature of the subject and the casual manner of exposition is a recipe for trouble.  Durova 13:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova, given how frequently the article has been changing, could you please be a little more specific about what you mean by "current version" and "competing version"?  In particular, what useful information and potentially "hot" discussion do you see as worthy of inclusion or avoidance?  Thanks.  JHCC  (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check my comment's time and date stamp against the two most recent versions of your article.  Regarding your second question, I'm really not knowledgeable enough about this subject to determine whether a discussion of living religions is germane to an encyclopedia article.  Is this a topic of scholarly interest?  If so, then address it under its own heading with sourced examples and a tactful introduction.  Readers of a conservative religious bent may find the suggestion offensive.  When people take offense they usually stop reading carefully.  So if the article does address that subject it must do so in a respectful and well presented manner. Durova 19:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Here are two accounts from translations of two different ancient texts:
#And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
#When the sons of Borr were walking along the sea-strand, they found two trees, and took up the trees and shaped men of them: the first gave them spirit and life; the second, wit and feeling; the third, form, speech, hearing, and sight.
My view is that either both of those accounts are myths or neither is. Is there anyone who has a different opinion? I'm asking honestly - I'm trying to understand the roots of the semantic disagreement here. - Haukur 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those are myths... unfortunately we have some religious types who want Wikipedia to come out and support their own beliefs as more true than other beliefs, which of course violates NPOV DreamGuy 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm no expert on the academic definition of "myth," the popular definition would make that a hot statement.  The first account refers to a living religion.  Adherents of that religion may perceive it as POV pushing against their beliefs. Durova 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good argument against using the word myth otherwise science would not be able to use the word theory. Everyone knows that words have several meanings and context is important.  Obviously the context of this article is using an academic definition and it is clearly stated in case there is any confusion. To mistake the use of the word myth as false in this context would appear to be wilful. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an argument for using it judiciously.  Bear in mind that while many educated readers know the difference between scientific and popular use of artery and theory, the particular distinction this article attempts to make is much less well known. Durova 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Assume (1) is true.  If so, then (2) must be false.  Why use the same term to describe both?  There are two other possibilities: (2) is true, and (1) is false, in which case there is still no reason to use the same term for both; or, both (1) and (2) are false.  What's not a possibility is that both (1) and (2) are true.  At any rate, the truth or falsehood of creation accounts is not something that can be stated with any absolute certainty, unless you were there with a videocam at the time.  There are more neutral, and less ambiguous, terms to apply than "myth", which practically EVERY DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE GIVES "FALSE" AS ONE OF THE ACCEPTED MEANINGS FOR (see ambiguous) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Would you prefer to avoid the word myth entirely in describing those stories on Wikipedia? - Haukur 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone prefers that, it may fly elsewhere, but it certainly cannot on the main mythology article. DreamGuy 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So the word you want to use is story?  Won't there be the same problem with that word? It has multiple definitions too. David D. (Talk) 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the least of which is the mythology article is going to look stupid if we aren;t allowed to discuss myths and mythology on it for fear of insulting people who refuse to read the real definitions. DreamGuy 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, you're totally distorting the issue.  The REAL issue here is that you won't suffer any discussion of the history of the usage of the term to appear in the article, which is most certainly a fair enough topic, and I don't know of any neutral way to describe your reaction when someone tried to make a branch article at the location "myth" (mainly to appease you, just so the topic of usage wouldn't have to appear in this article) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. The real issue, as you have so blatantly demonstrated over and over, is that you want to claim that the original and primary meaning of the word was something other than what it really was so that you can remove all mention of any Christian stories as myths because that puts them at the same level of other religioous beliefs, and you want Christianity to be treated specially in order to lend more weight to it than any other beliefs.  DreamGuy 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm not going to allow you to redefine my argument for me, because that is a complete strawman.  When have I ever once stated that I want "special treatment" for Christianity?  Stop lying.  I said I object to your calling "ALL RELIGIONS" "mythology" as if it were a totally, neutral, innocent fact that noone may challenge.  I'm also filing a complaint with the higher-ups about your use of racialist language above.  If your only purpose here is to push pov and spread ill feeling toward others on the basis of faith or religion or whatever, you really should have been blocked for a lot longer than you just were.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that I'm not trying to redefine your argument for you, your argument is that you want to redefine mythology to go with your inaccurate layman's understanding of the word in order to advance your religion (you claim all religions, but the only uses you objected to were your religion -- EVERYTHING listed on the main article is a religion) and are willing to lie and make personal attacks to do so. I am not doping any POV pushing here, in fact I am putting all the religions on equal footing, while you want to somehow only support ones you believe in, or, grudgingly, ones that are national relgions or whatever. All myths -- currently believe in, largely disbelieved, wildly popular, unpopular, old, new -- need to be referred to as myths in the acadmeic sense in order to follow NPOV policy. Singling out the ones you wnat as more real than others is highly biased. The academic definition, in fact, is specifically created to be unbiased, with no value judgments on the truthness or fasleness of any stories. Go ahead and "report" me. The racist term above was not used to attack anyone but was used to give an example of people incorrectly thinking a word meant one thing when it doesn't, for you to portray it as a racist attack is simply disgusting. The blkock I had was improper, as many admins have since noted, and came from someone breaking rules to get at me. With any luck that admin will be disciplined for it. With your calculated POV-pushing, personal attacks, highly uncivil actions, and outright lying to try to get your way, with any luck you'll be blocked yourself. DreamGuy 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  OMG I've just been called uncivil by... by... DreamGuy...  I guess he'll always hold others to a higher standard than himself!!! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two accounts 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I scored out the undiputed text.  Yes I agree the fuller explanation appears to be much better.  I do not understand why that needs to be changed. That is what i was trying to understand. David D. (Talk) 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why is one better than the other

message: ----
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)
replies: text: I scored out the undiputed text.  Yes I agree the fuller explanation appears to be much better.  I do not understand why that needs to be changed. That is what i was trying to understand. David D. (Talk) 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Verion A''' - Dreamguys preferred version:

message: :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)
replies: text: I scored out the undiputed text.  Yes I agree the fuller explanation appears to be much better.  I do not understand why that needs to be changed. That is what i was trying to understand. David D. (Talk) 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro arguments:

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Con arguments: