Talk:Mythology/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Archived

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 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)
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 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)
thread_title: Pro arguments:

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See this edit and this edit, both made by yourself. Adrian.baker 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV policy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sensitivity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Can't we utilize both?

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting the article again? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggest mediation 

message: 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)
thread_title: My Two Cents

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I see no issue with changing to "popular useage". KillerChihuahua?!? 14:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I've made the Myth disambiguation page

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

text: Well, it's not perfect.  But it certainly is notable.  KHM03 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it's got an Alexa ranking of 22,485 and its own Wikipedia article. - Haukur 21:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure what it is you are trying to argue here. DreamGuy 03:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's noting the use of "mythos" used in conjunction with a historical group.  Jim62sch 14:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Rangers 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  And now for the true History of the Usage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's an ignorant thing to say.  KHM03 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignorance