Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:49, 30 July 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mythology redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:VA

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology Top‑importance This redirect is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Top This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Top‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Top This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy High‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mythology redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Mythical origins of language: Origin of language, mythology, oral tradition, deluge myth, creator deity, creation myth, confusion of tonges, Tower of Babel, VDM Publishing House{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Additional comments OCLC 727116810, ISBN 9786131702686.

Jung to Campbell Citation Needed Issue

Although I am not the originator of the citation needed template on this page , I can see the issue clearly and would like to impose this simple request:

Could the original author of this section (20th Century...) please do a re-write so as not to insinuate that all 20th century scholars of mythology think alike? The attempt to include a segue from each preceding paragraph is implying such a premise. In particular to the Jung/Campbell reference, the highly notated current citation is attempting to do this specifically and, while Campbell and Jung may have had some congruent views on the subject of mythology, The phrase "Following Jung,..." is attempting to segue from the previous paragraph wherein the main discussion of Jung is in reference to his theory of archtype and, while some of Jung's work was an influence to Campbell's own theories on mythology and an inspiration for Campbell to expand his cultural knowledge further, it can not be said that Campbell directly agreed with Jung's archtype model. The current citation provided, explanation and all, still does nothing to prove this in any concrete manner and could be considered original research. WP:OR

If there is no correction or discussion in one week's time, I'll do a re-write of the section.Hyzerflip (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hyzerflip (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, unclear, and seemingly unrelated passages removed

I removed the following text from the section on the functions of myth:

The figures described in myth are often the result of circumstances which may have a moral interpretation. They are worthy role models of human beings because they embody certain combinations of human and animal traits. For example, the Centaur is part man, part beast. The upper body, being human is a symbol of rationality. The lower body, being of a horse is a symbol of animal instinct. The Centaur thus represents the uniquely human psychological challenge of animal instinct in relation to the rational mind. This example shows that myths are not only valuable due to cultural assumption (or 'spirituality'), but because they portray a set of symbols which can be interpreted morally. It is not necessary to introduce divine experience to explain these symbols, since a symbol is by definition a depiction of an idea in physical form. (bird = power, horse = beast, tree = knowledge).

Prior to the modern age, the experience of life is embedded in religion or in cosmology (story-telling) and not separate from it. This is because, in pre-modern cultures, religion was not an "experience to enter into", but a way in which life was organized around story-telling and was thus present in all aspects of life..

In the function of myth, it is important to distinguish between mythology itself, and the concept of a mythical era. Claude Levi-Strauss shows that mythology may be derived, like science, as a natural outcome of the relationship between conscious human beings and nature. Cultures create mythological beings in order to explain human behavior. For example, a person who acts maliciously may be described as like a snake. Over time, this becomes a myth of a snake-man. The idea of a mythical era, however, is a modern construct which is not real in any sense, because it is not possible to a specific time in the past or present when human myths did not exist.

Mythological beings are still being created today. One modern myth, Frankenstein , is an abominable, part-human creature resulting from a scientist who has lost touch with any moral sense. Another modern myth is the android, a machine which resembles a human in ever other way, but does not actually exist in reality. However, one of the primary reasons they are considered in science fiction, now, is because they represent the idea of a rational machine attempting to be human. Both examples, although they do not exist, introduce moral questions which are useful to humans.

Most of it was not sufficiently sourced (e.g. the stuff on Frankenstein). Remember, we cannot add things into the article just because it seems "obvious" to us that they are myths; we need published sources saying that they qualify as myths. Also, the bit from Levi-Strauss was sourced, but it was put in the wrong section (i.e. the section on function rather than the section on origin).

Finally, I fail to see the direct relevance of the claim that pre-modern religion was not an "experience to be entered into". The editor seems to have added that to justify his/her decision to reword the section so that it no longer claimed that "traditional societies" use myths to attain "religious experience". I changed it back. The source (Eliade) for the "religious experience" statements explicitly states that pre-modern, traditional societies do use myths to attain religious experience. There may be other sources with other opinions, but they can be mentioned here only if they explicitly discuss myth (not religion in general).

If anyone disagrees with my edits, please discuss it here. Thanks.

--Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

General edit for clarity

I edited the "Function of myth" section to sound less authoritative and more properly attribute the ideas presented to the specific scholars form which they originated (as is already done throughout most of the article). I moved Joseph Campbell's specific definitions of the functions of myth to this section form '20th century theories' for obvious reasons. I have properly linked and cited all changes. I would appreciate cogent discussion of these edits here rather than broad-brush reversions.Hyzerflip (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section Needed

Hey, I noticed a few problems with this entry. First off, it needs a criticism section. This would include the critiques of mythology given by the Pre-Socratics (such as Heraclitus), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as the Skeptics and probably the Epicureans. This criticism section should also include the work on those opposed to myth such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Kaufmann, and mention and give a link to Demythologizing (and inevitablly its friend Deconstruction). Why is there no mention in this forsaken entry of the great philosopher, Ernst Cassirer? Anyone ever heard of his study, "The Myth of the State"? Wherefore critiques by George Santayana? And of course, the blatant Orientalism that is part and parcel of the whole enterprise of explaining away and summing-up other people's belief systems (a la Edward Said)?

Teetotaler 4 October, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Hi my name is Mitchal could you explain me of why early people would write it down even know If they dont exist. I may sign in this wikipedia but i havent decide yet so I'm 14 year old and maybe if you could help me understand this so I can work in my project Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.66.28 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding the school I graduated from regarding Mythological Studies

Under External links I added the school I graduated from in Mythological Studies. It is the only school in the country strictly offering an M.A./Ph.D. in the field, therefore I felt it may be appropriate to include in this section. thoughts or comments? Nholly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Euhemerist / Evemerist transliteration

Many of us would appreciate seeing the alternative transliteration of "euhemerism," to wit "evemerism," included in the dictionary/wikipedia. This word "euhemerism" is currently enjoying some degree of popularity, but the fact remains that nobody is running around today saying "Euhemeros," "euhemerism" or "euhemerist" because these transliterations are difficult to pronounce. Thus, these words have been transliterated from the Greek also as "Evemerus," "evemerism" and "evemerist," for the same reason that the word "euangelion" became "evangelism."

Here are a few book citations where the transliteration "evermerism" is proffered:

In "Christianity and Mythology" (1900, p. 315), J.M. Robertson comments about "Euhemerism (or Evemerism, as the word ought to be written in English)..."

A search of Google books will reveal the use of this term and spelling as "evemerism" dating back to at least as early as 1856, in the London Quarterly, v. 6, which has an entire chapter entitled "Evemerism Fills All History with Fictions."

In the mid-20th century, Edouard Dujardin said:

"Evemerism is the doctrine of Evemeras, a Greek philosopher of the fourth century BC, according to whom the gods were men..."

Furthermore, a Google Book search for the transliteration "evemerist" or "evemerism" reveals 208 books using those terms. Many of those books are 100 years old, given the transliteration authority.

Experts in ancient and modern Greek assert that such a transliteration is appropriate, pointing to the word "evangelist," which, like "Euhemeros" is spelled with a "u" or upsilon in the orignal Greek. Yet, in modern Greek the "eu" is pronounced "ev." As Misplaced Pages states:

"The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word e?a??????? (transliterated as 'euangelion') via Latinised 'Evangelium,' as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists)....The verb form of euangelion, euangelizo (transliterated "evangelism")

http://en.wikipedia.org/Evangelism#Etymology

The same process may be found with the Greek word "I thank" or "thank you," which is spelled "eucharisto" but which is pronounced "eVkhareesto." Because of the difficulty in pronunciation and the fact that the word is in reality pronounced "evemerism," we are requesting that you included this transliteration in your dictionary/website.

The following relevant link may be helpful: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2160

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jose5643 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Mythicist Position

Many of us would like to see the mythicist position worked into the article here.

Acharya S has created the first succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists in her book, Christ in Egypt (2009):

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."

As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 11-12

"What is a Mythicist?" article

The Mythicist Position video

--Jose5643 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Jose. Thanks for your suggestion. However, I think this is the wrong article for your proposal. This article is simply titled Mythology; thus, it should contain only a very general overview of the basic characteristics of myths and a very cursory summary of major approaches to studying myth. At most, the "mythicist position" should get a one-sentence summary in the section on the study of myth. A more appropriate place for a discussion of the mythicist position would be Jesus myth hypothesis or perhaps a separate article titled The mythicist position. If you have any more questions, let me know. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Phatius is right. A mere "see also" is more than enough. In my view, this article needs to remain completely off-limits to the Christ myth nerds. It is enough that they cause havoc at the dedicated Christ myth theory (now unhappily called "Jesus myth theory") article. It is unacceptable that this red herring should have even the slightest influence on the main "mythology" article. A definition of "Mythicism" as, essentially "Mythicism represents the perspective that mythological characters are mythological characters" is idiotic. "Mythicism" in the Christ-mythers sense of the term is "the perspective that Christ is a mythological character". Period. Acharya S cannot be cited as a relevant source to anything other than Acharya S. This is pulp literature on what would be a serious topic. But since it is clearly impossible to turn the "Christ myth" topic into something encyclopedic without going insane, I prefer to turn a blind eye to such stuff being discussed there as if it was "literature". But I cannot see myself agreeing to any such stuff being submitted to mythology. There is enough good literature on the topic to make this WP:UNDUE by several orders of magnitude. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This article should at least acknowledge the existence of modern religions, or non-modern religions that have survived modern times, and how the only thing that separates these religions from the notions of mythology is that many people still believe these modern notions. The article should not act like modern religion doesn't exist or that it's something completely different from mythology. At least make mention why modern religion is not discussed in the article, rather than acting like it is completely irrelevant to mythology. Modern religions and mythology are essentially identical and should not be treated as though they are completely different. Pulseczar (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead as summary

The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Because of prior editing cycles it is primarily an apologetic "usage" section to ensure readers don't argue over the word usage later. I will add to and rearrange the lead with the view of demoting some of its current text to the "related concepts" section (which would be better titled "terminology") at a later date. JJB 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's a good idea to split the 2 examples (comparative mythology and Greek mythology) off into their own paragraph? While reworking the article a while back, I specifically wanted those examples to illustrate the fact that "mythology" can mean either the study of myths (as in comparative mythology) or a body of myths (as in Greek mythology). Removing them to a separate paragraph makes it less clear what specific point they're supposed to illustrate. (I also think that the phrase "As examples" should be changed to "For example", but apparently people disagree with me.) I won't press the point, because I don't think it's that important. But I thought I'd put in my two cents. By the way, I think your edits, overall, are a step in the right direction. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no, and thank you. That paragraph indicates text that is overweighted on a single point and can be demoted from the lead to its own section. But I think you'll like how I do so. JJB 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Science slap

"Because it is not the job of science to define human morality, a religious experience is an attempt to connect with a perceived moral past...". Ummm, dont tell that to the secular humanist, the humanist secularist, the agnostic, the athiest. We dont need religion to make us humane. 108.23.43.73 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mankind" versus "Humankind"

An IP keeps edit-warring removing "Humankind" and replacing it with "Mankind". I think "Humankind" is a gender-neutral term and so it has to stay in the article. Δρ.Κ.  01:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Bahá'í Faith

He is also edit-warring on Mythology with mocking edit-summaries to the effect that "the SPI went well". Δρ.Κ.  00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You´re the one pointedly edit warring over a minor edit. The summary was in response to your last revert in which you gave the reason as socking on my part. In response to Sound, I think humanity sounds much better. I don´t see anything wrong with it while humankind has several problems which have already been said. Edgth (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are edit-warring without discussing your edit on the talkpage of Mythology. If you had bothered to read the many edit-warring notices on your talk, before you blanked all of them, you would have noticed that you are not following the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle WP:BRD but you are blindly reverting without discussion. I opened a discussion on the talkpage of Mythology, you are invited to participate there. Otherwise you have no consensus. Δρ.Κ.  01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion you opened was in response to the mankind edit in which you say the gender neutral word is preferable. It´s now humanity which cannot be controversial and doesn´t need discussion. Edgth (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. For the same reasons we are having the discussion here. You cannot go on different articles unchecked and keep replacing "humankind" with "humanity". This needs either a centralised discussion or at least consensus on the talkpage of the article as we are doing here. Not an opportunistic, edit-war assisted, replacement of the word every time you feel like it. Δρ.Κ.  01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn´t. ´´Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Misplaced Pages be bold policy.´´ You still haven´t provided a reason why mythology shouldn´t say humanity. Unless humanity contains some controversy I haven´t heard of, then there´s no reason to revert the change on mythology. Edgth (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Being bold does not give you the license to edit-war in multiple articles to impose your POV and to reignite edit-wars on the same two articles using deceptive edit summaries that there is no consensus, especially after being blocked for the disruption you caused in round 1. And you still have not proved that "humanity" is a more apt or more frequently used word in Mythology-related literature and why it should be preferred over the word "humankind". Therefore you cannot come here and demand that the word "humankind" be replaced with the term "humanity" without a serious review of the literature to establish the superior usage and more suitable meaning of the latter term as applied to Mythology. Δρ.Κ.  02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It´s not a deceptive edit summary. When three users express dissaproval of humankind, there has to be many more to support it for there to be consensus. There were not many more. I don´t have to prove that humanity is used more in mythology related literature. I feel that humanity sounds better and so I changed it. It would be a huge pain to edit Misplaced Pages if we had to follow your made up rules. Edgth (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it is not an excuse to erase a word that has wide usage in Mythology-related literature. And these are not "my made-up rules". This is common sense and relates to the currency and common usage of the term. I feel that humanity sounds better is not sufficient. You have to prove it. Δρ.Κ.  03:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Google results: "The creation of humanity" About 307,000 results (0.14 seconds) vs. "The creation of humankind" About 331,000 results (0.17 seconds). Conclusion: When combined with the noun "creation", "humankind" is the preferred term. Δρ.Κ.  03:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m replacing humankind with humanity. Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind. I don´t need to follow all those conditions you laid out. Your combination of creation and the words don´t prove that humankind is preferred in sources discussing mythology, just that a certain combination of words is slightly more popular than another combination. Edgth (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mankind gets double those hits but you edit warred to keep that out of the article so I don´t think you value Google hits too much. Edgth (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a community and just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to get your way. Consensus also doesnt' mean that everyone has to agree, but in this case the vast majority of people (everyone but you) is ok with the current version of the article. Your comment "so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind" doesn't abide by Misplaced Pages's policies, and if you are going to be a useful contributer to Misplaced Pages, you have to learn to play within the rules. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Jeff3000 said. Also Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind.: Unacceptable. Please read WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Mythology deals chiefly with the creation of humankind. Google results just established that the common term when dealing with creation is "humankind" and not "humanity". Google easily trumps your IJUSTDONTLIKEIT response. You have submitted no valid reasons for keeping your massive edit-warring-imposed edit on Mythology. Δρ.Κ.  04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mankind gets double those hits but you edit warred to keep that out of the article so I don´t think you value Google hits too much. Not so. There is the added restriction as you have been told many times that it must also be a gender-neutral term. This discussion is about the two alternatives. Δρ.Κ.  04:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are actually enjoying the way this has been going round in circles. Forgive me if you really are concerned about the quality of the articles you have been attacking but that is not the impression anyone would get from reading your comments. Read WP:EW - YOU are the one edit warring - the people you are accusing of "edit-warring back" (???) have been doing no more than defending a sensible compromise consensus. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m not, I hope he´ll drop this pointless conflict. We´re discussing the mythology article, not this one. On the mythology article he is pointlessly edit warring to keep humankind when there´s nothing wrong with humanity. Edgth (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn´t see the other text amongst this jumble. To Jeff I was talking about the mythology article in which there´s nothing wrong with using humanity instead of humankind, so I can change it just because I prefer humanity. To Dr.K, humankind beats humanity by just a few percent and it just proved that a combination of words gets that few percent more, not that humankind is used more in mythology sources. Edgth (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have proved to you using Google that "humankind" is the preferred term in creation-related accounts which is exactly what Mythology covers. End of story. No amount of obfuscation on your part or I just don't like it or I didn't hear that arguments can refute this fact. Δρ.Κ.  05:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The mythology article is broad and here is a more relevant result: over 7 million for humanity while humankind has less than 10% of that: . Edgth (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, these are unconnected occurrences of the two terms. Your edit-warring addition to Mythology is connected to the "creation of humankind", not just "humankind". This combination of terms is important: usually explaining how the world or humanity came to be in its present form , i.e. "was created". Δρ.Κ.  05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also: "humankind was created" About 303,000 results (0.30 seconds) vs. "humanity was created" About 270,000 results (0.31 seconds). Δρ.Κ.  05:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the article doesn´t use those words ´´creation of...´´ so how many other sources haven´t used that exact language you typed into Google? Your Google hits are pointless because it just compares a specific combination of words. My hits accurately show that humanity is preferred when discussing mythology while, again, yours doesn´t show anything like that. Edgth (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. We don't have to use the exact language. But when the Gods "create" something, that something is described more often as "humankind" not "humanity". Therefore when your refer to "creation" or equivalent terms, the more popular term associated with them is "humankind". However let's wait for other editors to chime in because I can see there is no way you will accept these results. Δρ.Κ.  05:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is correct. This article doesn´t use the word create, it says came to be. Your hits don´t count that and many other sources that similarly don´t use that exact language you typed in. Sure, let´s waste the time of others on this ridiculous debate. Edgth (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

may prove interesting to all concerned in this discussion. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We´re debating humankind and humanity now. I compromise on mankind with humanity but for some (Personal attack removed) reason, that wasn´t good enough for Dr.K and we have this long and very, very boring discussion. Edgth (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

for some OCD reason....Be careful, thin ice ahead. Do not personally attack a fellow collaborator. Perhaps you should discontinue your input into this "boring discussion". Read the article. It deals with all 3 words. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr.K would you be happy if it read ´´the human race´´ instead? Edgth (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I find "the human race" a bit dramatic in its tone, but this is just a personal opinion with no encyclopedic value. However, given Buster7's input and the paper he linked to about the two previous terms and also your constructive proposal, I'll let this go. I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer. Δρ.Κ.  06:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As I already explained on your talk your latest edit was not what I agreed to and I asked you if you could revert back to the previous state. What I said above was: I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer., which meant "I will not contest the word 'humanity'". Your edit removed not only the word "humanity" but also the last remaining occurrence of "humankind" and replaced them with the phrase"human race", a result which removes one occurrence of each term from the article and replaces them with two occurrences of the phrase "human race". This is unnecessary repetition and it is not what I had agreed to. Δρ.Κ.  13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay it´s now humanity, hopefully that pleases everybody. Edgth (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

To avoid repetition and return to the status quo before your "human race" edit I replaced one "humanity" with "humankind". Now everyone should be happy. Δρ.Κ.  21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Lila Abu-Lughod, Imagining Nature: Practices of Cosmology and Identity
2. Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/Frankenstein

• NA-Class Mythology pages
• Top-importance Mythology articles
• NA-Class Anthropology pages
• Top-importance Anthropology articles
• Redirect-Class Religion pages
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Redirect-Class Philosophy pages
• High-importance Philosophy articles