Talk:Myth and ritual

message: Phatius McBluff, Much of this article appears to be original research, I see you are new and have had similar issues with Eternal return (Eliade), and are currently working on that. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can assist in any way. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second examination, it looks like its mostly your formatting, which makes the article look less well referenced, and some phrasing in the intro. I have converted some of the refs, perhaps you can do the two remaining? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: it has potential. First of all, it should be made a  article of a section at ritual and mythology each. And then we need some basic wisdom from C. G. Jung, Walter Burkert and similar coryphæi. Religion and mythology is largely overlapping with this one I suppose, since religion is really about equal to myth+ritual, maybe we can merge it there. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: In response to dab's comment, I'm thinking it might be better to just transfer material from this article to Ritual. I looked at Religion and mythology; but, strangely enough, it didn't look like material from this article would fit into Religion and mythology as well as it would fit into Ritual.--Phatius McBluff 20:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer material from this article to [[Ritual]]?

message: To those who saw this article as "original research": As far as I can tell, the problem wasn't that I went too far in this article; it was that I didn't go far enough. I only mentioned a few scholars, and then compared/contrasted them with some rather artificial-sounding commentary, thus making the article read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. To address this problem, I recently added information on more scholars, along with more citations. I think I've fixed things to everyone's satisfaction, so I removed the "original research" notice. --Phatius McBluff 23:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: congratulations for the progress made. You have certainly established the article's topic as valid.  I'd agree you resolved the "OR" accusation satisfactorily, although we may now be relying rather slavishly on a single summary (Segal). Also, I am still unsure how to accommodate this article with the material of religion and mythology. A "religion" is basically a conglomerate of myth, ritual and faith. Of these, myth and ritual are much more closely connected, and their interdependence should be treated here, while the religion and myth article should focus on how (myth+ritual) relates to (faith+spirituality). Anyway, thanks for your efforts on this! dab (𒁳) 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think I fixed things

message: The article should consider mentioning the liturgical and doctrinal concept of lex orandi, lex credendi. It refers to the relationship between worship and belief, and is an ancient Christian principle which provided a measure for developing the ancient Christian creeds. ADM (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lex orandi, lex credendi

message: This article begins by proclaiming that myth and ritual are central parts of traditional societies. However, I believe that even though this idea is common in social sciences, there are many publications in which the idea has not been accepted (e.g Rappaport 1999, but there are others as well). So, would it be more correct to start of by saying this? Tpylkkö (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some claims a bit too "heavy"? 

message: which was the ritual in the fiji-example quoted Stanley Edgar Hyman writes about?? the reader just has the fact that there is only a small area of fertile land which indeed begs for an explanation in the mind of 'early' (if the term is allowed...) people... HilmarHansWerner (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley Edgar Hyman - which was the ritual?