User talk:FestivalOfSouls

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics!

You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:

• Wikipedia:Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages.
• Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
• Meet other new users You may want to add yourself to the Wikipedia new user log.
• Assign edits to your username from before you registered.
• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you
• How to upload files and image copyright tags.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

∞Who?¿? 08:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mythology [Cat invocation converted to Cat mention by Jerzy·t 04:28, 2005 August 4 (UTC)]

Moving pages

Hi, thank you for your contributions. However the sudden moving of a page is a very drastic step, we have Wikipedia:Requested moves, for requesting moves such as these. Since the article African American Vernacular English has been in existance since 2004, it is better to discuss the move on its talk page, or request the move. Also, moving pages creates redirects, and you have to ensure all links on the pages that point to the moved page, have been fixed. Please consider using these options before moving a page. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 08:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Your unilateral decision to move AAVE to Ebonics was precipitous and inappropriate. deeceevoice 14:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

omg you moved God. you cannot just do that, it has implications, and will have to be discussed first. I doubt you will get consensus for such a step anytime soon. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mythology

Adding Biblical personages and stories to Category:Mythology is quite controversial. I suggest you get consensus on that before continuing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

a myth is a myth is a myth. Just because they are from the bible (with no outside verification) doesn't make them any less so than, say, the roman myths.

I would suggest that you put the topics in the proper subcategory of Mythology, such as Category:Abrahamic mythology or Category:Christian mythology. This is less controversial and less likely to be reverted. -- BRIAN0918  19:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

a myth is a myth is a myth. I really don't know the difference between those two categories, but I am doing what I can...

If you don't know the difference, then you should get consensus before doing this. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can put it in the myth category, and let someone more in the know put it in the subcategory. atleast them it is in the right ballpark, just not the right set of bleechers. Category:Mythology [Cat invocation converted to Cat mention by Jerzy·t 04:28, 2005 August 4 (UTC)] is much better that nothing.

Many people would argue it is not in the right ballpark. You are making very controversial edits which are bound to incite wars between believers and non-believers. It would be best to get consensus on this first, before acting again. And please sign your posts. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's zero trouble at all for you to say Category:Abrahamic mythology instead of Category:Mythology. Don't be a jerk simply for the sake of being a jerk and provoking response. Either work with consensus or don't make changes at all. Jdavidb 20:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the difference was important,like i said above. Also like I said above, I am willing to find out the difference and put the correct category in. I am in the PROCESS of GETTING consensus right here, rather that multiply the work 100 fold and have to do it on each page. Oh, and would it have been THAT MUCH more work for you to have added them into the correct mythology rather than remove mythology completly? I would have seen that, as I saw the removal, and switched to adding that. Sorry it worked out this way... FestivalOfSouls 20:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

oh and, since those subcategories don't exist, it would make it hard to use them, in my own deffence. FestivalOfSouls 20:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the Devil article, there is no need to list the top level mythology category there, as Jewish mythology is already listed, anmd that's a subcat of that one. DreamGuy 20:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but more other religions are on that page than jewish and jewish variants... FestivalOfSouls 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

FoS, you categorized the article on the Trinity as Christian Mythology. The Christian concept of the Trinity is a doctrine or perhaps a theory, but it does not fit the definition of a Myth, and no logical person IMHO would see it as such. Therefore, this seems to border on vandalism. Jim Ellis 18:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at it in this light: Zeus, and God are not myths themselves, but since they are key components of myths, they get the label. I will concede that it may not be an appropriate labeling, as the trinity itself is not a myth, but I feel that as a significant PART of a mythos it deserves the label. I will not however, conced that it borders on vandalism, as, at worst, it was a difference in our two views on why the label was applied. I would like that label to stay, but I see why you contest it. FestivalOfSouls 18:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

another example, perhaps closer to wat i was thinking with the categorization would be Mount Olympus.FestivalOfSouls 18:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The word vandalism came to mind, not on the basis of this one edit, but on what seems to be a pattern of you traipsing through Wikipedia labeling everthing Jewish- or Christian-related as Mythology of some sort. It seems to be merely expressing your POV rather than adding a helpful encyclopedic category. Jim Ellis 19:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Will you please explain to me how adding an appropriate category to appropriate articles is vandalism? the reason I am sticking to christianity/judiasm is because that is what was most lacking on correct categorization. I admit that the categorization is a form of POV, but it sadly is not the one you are thinking of. It would be the Neutral POV that every article on wikipedia strives for. FestivalOfSouls 19:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FoS, I would agree that the story of "Adam and Eve in the Garden" or the story of "Noah, the ark, and the world-wide flood" could properly be categorized as "Abrahamic Mythology." But a religious doctrine or concept based on interpretation of the text or narrative of the Bible is just that, and not properly designated as Mythology. The key word in defining Myths is the word "stories". Jim Ellis 19:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

A doctrine or concept based on a story about how the world ends (said story is a myth, btw) would be an article that fits in the mythology category. It would fully fit the definition of a myth. Please look over mythology. It is all explained there. FestivalOfSouls 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and, ignoring what i said above, the fact that Original sin contains the myth abouth original sin in the content of the article means fits the myth category. FestivalOfSouls 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert war, FoS. I will refrain from additional reverts even though I disagree. I've got to much to do besides clean up after you. I see a difference between an article on the story of Adam and Eve (Mythology) and the doctrine of Original Sin (a doctrine, not a story). Jim Ellis 19:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I also see a difference between an article on the story of Adam and Eve (Mythology) and the doctrine of Original Sin, however, if you read the article in contention (Original sin) you will see that it is not just an article about the doctrine, but and article about the doctrine AND the myth it is based on. The myth is actually included in the article. The same goes for Rapture, but to a much lesser extent, it is not the whole story, but rather quotes from it used as arguments for the belief. I see that as enought to relate the category and the article, as the belief is the direct result of the myth, through the study of the myth (also known as mythology). FestivalOfSouls 20:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Block

Hi FoS, I've briefly blocked you from editing as you seem to be adding pages inappropriately to categories and causing revert wars. I'll be happy to unblock you if you agree to discuss these issues, instead of reverting and calling other people vandals. You can e-mail me using the link on my user page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

how is adding Category:Mythology [Cat invocation converted to Cat mention by Jerzy·t 04:28, 2005 August 4 (UTC)] to myths such as the garden of eden and adam and eve, or noah and his flood in appropriate?

Sorry FoS, I didn't really want to block you there, but you seemed to be on a roll, and what you were doing was arguably vandalism. There are many people who don't believe these are myths, so Wikipedia can't assert that they are. You also added creationism, which again we can't assert is a myth. You might want to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. Are you prepared to stop adding these articles to the mythology category? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Would placing them in the correct subcategory, as suggested by Brian(see above) be an acceptable compromise? By not putting them in a mythology category at all, you are violating NPOV, in my opinion. I can see how creationism might be arguable (some people think it is science, so psuedoscience might be more appropriate) but adam and eve and garden of eden are obviously myths. I know some world holding turtles that are feeling lonely in the mythology category, if you catch my drift.... oh and how do you folks get that signature?

"Obviously myths" is POV. Get consensus for these things. And use 4 tildes in a row to sign: ~~~~ Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that that would be a lot of extra work to ask for permission to add what is a simple thing. How could anything that violates science so blantently be anything BUT a myth? I am confused about that. It is not like myth is a negative term. It is applied to all non-factual beliefs and stories. It is highly appropriate to place that category on all religios myths. I still say that claiming they are not myths is obscene POV, when it is on such silly things. FestivalOfSouls 20:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

FoS, I don't myself mind which categories you place these in. The point is to get consensus when other editors object. It's important not to ignore what others are saying (and even more important not to call them vandals), and that's especially true when you're getting advice from experienced editors, as you were in this case. So by all means, confer with them, and decide what to do for the best. Regarding the signature, you get that by typing four tildes after your posts like this ~~~~. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. I'll lift the block now. Happy editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

oh and here is the definition of mythology from mythology "Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that feature a specific religious or belief system." The very reason you say it is inappropriate (some people believe in it) is the very reason they ARE myths! FestivalOfSouls 20:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am in definite agreement with you here... though I would suggest you use proper subcategories so it's more obvious to others who don't understand the definition to see the point. DreamGuy 20:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I went back and looked, the reason i was confused is the "appropriate" categories are sub-sub-sub categories, and I didn't dig far enough... FestivalOfSouls 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rapture

I'm not sure if you meant to, but you reverted my edit in addition to Jim's...mind if I change it back? freestylefrappe 19:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If you don't fix it I will shortly. FestivalOfSouls 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories again

Hi FoS, there has been another complaint about your categorizing certain ideas as myths. For someone with so few edits, you're causing quite a bit of trouble, so you might want to reconsider your approach or interests, at least until you're more settled here. Perhaps you could explain how you're defining "myth" (and please don't refer me to another Wikipedia article): it would be good to know whether you're using a scholarly definition (and if so, whose) or a personal one. The idea of "original sin" being a myth, for example, is arguable, though I see what you mean, but the story of Adam and Eve is only one example of a narrative illustrating the concept of original sin, which I'd call a concept, not a myth, though I accept the WP page focuses on that narrative. Other edits of yours are not so ambiguous — classifying God as a myth is clearly not going to go down well in certain quarters. It might be helpful to separate the concept of myth (generally speaking, stories with a didactic purpose) from the ideas they transmit. Let me know whether, and if so how, you intend to continue with this. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I plan on continuing, assuming wikipedia lets me. I have been using myth in the contemporary sense, that of a story or parable relating to the supernatural, that are not scientifically provable.

Using a personal definition is hard because you'll always be running into exceptions. Would you call the idea of "sixth sense," or stories arising from it, a myth, for example? That an idea is unsupported by science doesn't, in and of itself, make it an example of myth.

I have been using the examples of other articles as a basis for my edits. For instance, the claim that God is a myth was only made after checking and seeing that Zeus was labeled a myth.

Stories about Zeus do fit the scholarly definition of myth, and some stories about God do (stories about Jesus, for example), but concepts of God are not stories.

While I admit that it may not have been the most politically astute edit ever made, but going by the definition set forth in mythology, the corresponding definition from dictionary.com :"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"[1], and the examples set forth in other articles such as Zeus and Mount Olympus, which are generally agreed upon to be myths, it was a legitimate edit.

The key words in the dictionary definition are "that serves as a fundamental type." A myth has a didactic quality to it. It illustrates a category, a form, a type. It might help you to look at some scholarly work.

I also, personally, feel that beliefs based solely on myths as appropriate to label as a myth. An example I am sure most people would agree on is that "Lighting is caused by Zeus" is a myth, even though at one time it was considered to be a doctrine embraces and supported by many.

No, I wouldn't call that a myth. It's a false claim, not a story illustrating a category, form, or type.

I stand behind all my edits, although I am willing, at least for the time being to concede and let trinity escape the category, and to a lesser extent Rapture. In an ideal world, they would be labeled, but then again, this wiki is only striving to be an ideal world, and it is not there yet. I honestly do not see why anyone would complain about the these articles being placed into the mythology category, let alone into the specific subgroup that the most fit into. Thanks for being so reasonable on this issue, and not being a knee-jerk reactionist like some people. FestivalOfSouls 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If I have time, I'll look around for some scholarly work, maybe a paper, giving a clearer definition. I can't promise though, as I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, you seperated the text at the wrong places. When I said contemporary definition, the parts about the wiki, and the dictionary go with it, as int hats what I used for a definition. The parts about examples were where I checked the wiki for precidence, and went with it. Again, since the article on God was based on myths and included myths in it, it falls into the mythical category. FestivalOfSouls 20:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

My role

_ _ Well, i don't think i accomplished anything, but i've no regrets.
_ _ Your situation was different from mine, and i'm unclear whether the arguement i was making (in vain) applied in yours. But i'm glad that what may be an equally good arrangement was put in effect, and you deserve significant credit for at the very least preventing the horrible result we both resisted.
--Jerzy·t 22:00, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Hi Festival. You seem to be arbitrarily (i.e. without discussion) adding 'mythology' categories to a number of articles on Biblical and theological matters. Doing so is likely to be perceived as not conforming to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please discuss these changes on the appropriate talk page. DJ Clayworth 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The shear number of pages missing the categorization prevents that. Since the categorization is appropriate, and accurate, there should be no need. That is like saying that all greek mythology must have a discussion before being placed int he greek mythology category. There is nothing arbitrary going on, other than some religious people are attempting to bias the wiki by removing the category. They are not arguing the category, just that the word "mythology" not appear in a category name on there page. As soon as it came to light that some of the pages in discussion were categorized as subcategories od a mythology subcategory (that didnt have "mythology" in the name, they stopped fighting. FestivalOfSouls 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Which pages were those, and which categories? Anyway, you are most certainly making undiscussed changes. If this discussion has taken place and reached consensus on another page then you should make a link to it on the talk pages of the articles you change. I traced the talk pages of the articles you modified and failed to find a consensus for keeping this category. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to make a change on any page that does not meet the requirements. So what if it is undisccussed? That doesn't mean it is unwarrented. The discussion does not need to be held on every single page. It is just repeated ad nausium. The only argument people have against the category is that the category has a slightly negative connotation it their view, but I have failed to find a more appropriate term, and that is an issue to take up on the category talk page, rather than each induvidual page. In an effort to compromise, I have proceded to use subcategories, which the original complaintants have decided was OK. Again, why should I need a concencus? does every page in the category:science need to be discussed before it is placed there? what about category:fiction? Give me one good reason why I should stop placing myths in the category:mythology and sub categories? A few biased religious nuts (notice, everysingle complaintant has a pro-religious POV on their user page) are oposed to a NPOV categorization is NOT enough of a reason. Personal bias of users is never a good reason to make or prevent edits on wikipedia. As soon as I see a real controversy over an article, I will discuss it. As yet, nothing has arisen. FestivalOfSouls 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The aim should be to avoid edit wars, which would make each article a battleground of contention. This is unnecessarily disruptive, and it is destructive of good will. Please let articles on theology retain their most appropriate categorization, and do not abuse the Category feature for the purposes of promoting a point of view. Categories should represent a neutral description of what the article is about, arrived at by the process of mutual consent, and should not hint at, let alone promote, a particular evaluation or characterization of the content. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The aim should be to avoid edit wars, which would make each article a battleground of contention.

Exactly, hence discussion on each page should be avoided.

This is unnecessarily disruptive, and it is destructive of good will. Please let articles on theology retain their most appropriate categorization, and do not abuse the Category feature for the purposes of promoting a point of view.

I plan on it. I intend to make sure that all mythological topics are labeled as such. Remember, leaving the category OFF can be POV too, such as on these pages.

Categories should represent a neutral description of what the article is about, arrived at by the process of mutual consent, and should not hint at, let alone promote, a particular evaluation or characterization of the content.

Based on said content, these articles can be categorized. You don't like it, remove the content that makes the category appropriate.FestivalOfSouls 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking Empty tomb as an example, what content do you feel should be a removed that necessitates the addition of the 'mythology' category? DJ Clayworth 18:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

Festival, please have a read of the official Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Three revert rule. It essentially means that if you make the same disputed change more than three times in on 24hr period you should receive an automatic ban on editing for 24hrs. You have already done this at Empty tomb, but I'm going to let you off on the grounds that you maybe didn't know. However you should not break this rule again. It is designed to make people talk to each other. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I am quite aware of that rule, and fully admit it. This awareness includes the fact that removing vandalism is an allowed exeption to that rule. Since removing valid content(such as appropriate, and correct) categorization would be vandalism, and all revisions done by me have been to revert to a pre-vandalized version, I have yet to break said rule. It is nice to know that you are watching and will be blocking said vandals shortly. Thank you for your concern. FestivalOfSouls 18:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You will appreciate I'm sure, that every violator of the three revert rule argues that they have met the criteria for this exception. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in order for you to prove other wise, you would have to prove that the category is not appropriate on the articles I made more than 3 reverts to. Good luck at that. In this intire debacle, I have yet to see a single valid argument, let alone a convicing argument. FestivalOfSouls 18:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See the points I make above? DJ Clayworth 18:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Festival, the exemption applies only to reversion of Simple vandalism, which means undisputed vandalism. The very fact that there are two of us here disputing with you means that what you are reverting is not simple vandalism. Once again, if your edits represent the consensus view, show us where this discussion took place. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I concede that point. Because the vandals are insistant, it is not simple vandalism. However, I maintain that it is still vandalism. I was not aware that 3rr makes a distiction between the two, and am sorry for that. However, I still stand behind my actions fighting said vandalism. FestivalOfSouls 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is not to convince you of our perspective, but to encourage you to work within the bounds of consent. That's the purpose of the 3r rule. Your implied definition of "valid argument" also raises issues for me. It seems that you mean, you are not persuaded - that much you've already made clear - but it would be helpful to discuss "validity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A user saying " I don't like you pointing out that my religion is based on myths" is not, in my eyes, a valid argument against doing so. I did not intend to say their was no opposition, just that their was no valid opposition, meaning those that oppose this do so for trivial, unimportant, and often irrelevent reasons. It is like me opposing a change YOU make because I have a cat. Irrelevent. FestivalOfSouls 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC) [2]

What you don't seem to give weight, is that those who hold these beliefs do not agree with you that these stories would be true (to whatever extent they are perceived to be true) whether or not they actually happened. Their belief, and the interpretive meaningfulness of the story, is specifically vested in the factuality of the story. The meaning is, first of all, that it is history. If someone else believes in these stories, but not necessarily in their factuality, then to them it is a myth. Your perspective is naturalism, and it is in that vein specifically that you are using the category. Your correspondents understand this. You also admit this, and this is why you are constantly labelling your correspondents "religious". That is why you are being accused of pushing a POV by abuse of the Category feature. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, if you were to read the definition of myth from the mythology page, you will see that it is that very belief that you are touting that makes it a myth. Until that definition changes, I am not pushing POV, but pushing that definition. FestivalOfSouls 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

By 'myth' here do you mean the academic sense, which is the one you seem to imply we should use - i.e. that a myth is an explanatory story that may or may not be true? If so, how could anyone object?

See abouve. 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

However let me reiterate again, that that is not the popular usage of the word 'myth'. The popular usage implies untruth, which means that your edits are making a statement of your own point of view. Most importantly, what is true "in your eyes" is not necessarily important if other people disagree with it. Who is the judge of validity? Is it you and only you? DJ Clayworth 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what the popular definition is, only the category definition, which happens to completly agree with the dictionary defintion. Until those two change, you have no legs to stand on with that argument. FestivalOfSouls 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Then maybe we should change the category. That's why this is a Wiki. DJ Clayworth 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the definition in Mythology was wrong, and I fixed it. There is no need for a story to be believed for it to be a myth. In fact a quick look at Dictionary.com will show that fictions and half-truths are included. DJ Clayworth 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no irony here, FOS. Wikipedia is a work in progress. The fact that the mythology article is not quite finished, and is not fully reflective of all scholarly perspectives is not a matter that causes me concern, even as much as it causes you to gloat. The problem here is that for a believer in naturalism, presumptively, there is no such thing as "scholarship" which does not share this view. And as "mythology" is a favorite category of believers in naturalism, by which Jesus can be listed somewhere above Santa Claus, the article will naturally attract the same disagreement as I am having with you right now. In short, it doesn't settle the issue to cite an encyclopedia or even a dictionary, if there are (for example) other encyclopedias and dictionaries that also can be cited to support the other views. The solution to this kind of deadlock, is consent. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Festival, you are not doing yourself any favours. Let me point out some facts to you. 1) You have now added your category to Transubstantiation four times today, which would count as a violation of the Three Revert rule. Any admin can block you for this. I won't because I prefer not to act as an admin in disputes that I have been involved with. But I will if you continue like this. 2) You have made these changes without any discussion as far as I can tell. You said that you preferred to talk on your talk page, or Category talk:Mythology yet you have not edited any of these today. 3) You keep stating that other users agree with your position on these categories. To back this up, please give the username of any editors who have agreed with your position. Then maybe we can arrive at a consensus instead of just having an edit war. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

When I have a little free time I will go back and find the users that have also replaced the category. I prefer to talk on this page, rather than on every page that gets edited, because as past actions indicate, the 2-3 users I "upset" will post the same comments on every page I edit, requiring me to make the same response in multiple places. Since nothing I have done today should be controversial, there was no need to pre-emptivly post. If people post, I will responde, but like I have said before, since the category fits, there is no need to explain every single page I edit.FestivalOfSouls 18:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[3]

[4](Garden of Eden needs to be included in Category Mythology no matter what we may individually believe) that is user:Wetman

This is off of the Noah's Ark talk page, "As'm't to Cat "Mythology" _ _ My edit summarized

(rv ed of Jayjg to last by Festival of Souls, since cat is defined "Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious..) restored the article to Category:Mythology, whose full description is

Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and which feature a specific religious or belief system. For more information, see the article about Mythology. _ _ In response, user:Codex Sinaiticus reverted, summarizing

(rv; pick a less offensive term) _ _ This talk page's article meets the Cat't criterion (which BTW is long-standing, see Category talk:Mythology), and the aspects that make it do so are significant aspects of the article, so it belongs in the Cat; in that light, removing it destroys an appropriate WP navigational facility, and constitutes vandalism. No single article (or group of articles for that matter) is an acceptable place to act on any complaint about the offensiveness of the word "mythology" in this context (or for that matter, the accuracy of the Cat's description): if there is any problem, it is a problem with the Cat and must be addressed on it or its talk page; in view of the already evident controversiality of the desire to remove the Cat tag, it would be foolish to start with the Cat page rather than its talk page. --Jerzy·t 21:43, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

The following material is being deprecated here by strikethru, with the contents copied to the various talk pages where they are pertinent:

The first sentence to User talk:Jerzy/Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy; The second sentence to User talk:Codex Sinaiticus#Formal Warning; The remainder to Category talk:Mythology. --Jerzy·t 19:40, 2005 August 3 (UTC) "

Dear Festival:

There is something wrong with your definition of "mythology" if it includes subjects such as "Resurrection of the dead", etc., because that is not mythology. It may be "mythology" from your point of view, but that is just your point of view. Consensus has not been established for this point of view. Tweaking the definition of "mythology" so that it does include this is a somewhat disingenuous method. Generally, the belief systems and doctrines of ANY of the world's currently practised major religions (This includes Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) should not be labeled as "mythology", because of the offensive nature of such a term. Now ideologies that no people has seriously believed in for 1700 years, like Apollo and Hercules, that's a different story. If there were a nation today where the majority of people still believed in Hercules and Apollo, we might refrain from use of the term "Mythology". See the difference? Cordially yours, Codex Sinaiticus 18:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry, but the dictionary does not say ANYTHING about "it is not mythology if it offends some one to call it mythology" I will give you a dollar to find a real dictionary (as opposed to urban dictionary) that says anything even close to that. Nor did it have any sort of minimum time span for the most recent believers on it. The only time reference was the words "typically ancient", but, even using your number, 1700 years ago these stories were around, for the most part. I find it offensive that Creationism Science uses the word science when it is anything but. Does that mean I can demand that the word stop being used on the page at all? Your argument just doesn't hold water, as I have said repeatedly. FestivalOfSouls 18:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

my·thol·o·gy: "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. "[5] Gee, sounds like religion is pretty darn close to that, and might have a little overlap.... FestivalOfSouls 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are ways to express ANY viewpoint in an article from a NPOV, but you aren't doing it. You can certainly write: "Many people today consider this to be mythology". But you cannot write: "This IS mythology", because that is favoring one pov to the exclusion of the other. Codex Sinaiticus 19:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Are you REALLY that obtuse? It is NOT POV to state that something is "x" if it fits the dictionary defintion of "x" exactly. It would be POV for me to say "a rose smells bad", as that is a point of view. To say "this is a rose" is NOT POV if it is infact a rose. Let me try a different approach. If you were born, say 15 years ago, you cannot accuse me of favoring a point of view to state that you are 15 years old. I am not, due to the fact that you would be 15 years old. It would be a point of view if i said "you are just a kid", due to the fact that it doesn't quite fit that definition. Is it POV to say that water is wet? or that the sun is hot? I think not. Again, grasping at straws here, and you still do not really have an argument to stand on. FestivalOfSouls 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the definition you provided above for "mythology" only refers back to the definition for "myth", which is in itself quite controversial... You might label these as "myths", bu there is no consensus, and that's really how wikipedia operates, bottom line... Codex Sinaiticus 19:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Try again. "my·thol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-thl-j) n. pl. my·thol·o·gies

A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes. 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). The field of scholarship dealing with the systematic collection and study of myths. " I just provided the link to a search for myth as it returned both "mythology" which has a definition "the study of myths" and "myth" that which is studied, for completness. Take a look again. I am sorry If you find the dictionary controversial. That must be a petty and sad life you live. FestivalOfSouls 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Myths

I personally agree with your stand that the Garden of Eden, for example, is a "myth"...which doesn't of course mean there is no truth in the story, just that it is, technically, myth. I see your point and affirm it. But I was a little perplexed that you wanted to put a doctrine like Transubstantiation in the myth category. There is a big difference between doctrine (which may be in part based on myth) and myth. The two are not synonomous. Please consider this in your editing. Thanks! KHM03 19:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Transubstantiation is the belief held by many Christian denominations that the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus during Consecration." Take that, plus the story about why, which is in the article means that the article fits the definition of a myth. Any way, thanks for your help. FestivalOfSouls 19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The story behind transubstantiation might be a myth; transubstantiation itself is not...it is a doctrine (one I happen to disagree with). A myth is a story...a doctrine is an explanation. There is a difference! See Category_talk:Christian_mythology#Christian_myths_vs._doctrines for a further explanation. Thanks! KHM03 20:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Many of your edit comments could be construed as personal attacks, and a hostile bias toward religious people and perpectives. Please refrain.

I'm sorry, which one would that be? how could it be misconstrued that way? The only thing that comes close is when I inform users about Codex's tricks.

I'm sorry that you have not found the discussion of alternatives helpful, however, this method of resolving differences is endorsed by the official policy of this project. You labelled this collaborative process "fillibustering" - unfairly, I think, since except for you there seemed to have been a convergence beginning between various perspectives. Without requiring anyone to change their point of view, a consensus has been partially formed; and although it is a slow and on-going process, in the long-run it is the only approach that will succeed.

The reason I have a problem is that rather than even attempting to compromise, people have latched onto irrelevent topics (it might possibly offend someone too stupid to read a dictionary, or understand common parlancce of a word) and refuse to budge. They seem to think that by not cooperating, since no concensus will be reached (how can it when one side refuses to compromise in any way). Since I have already made compromises, and since the discussion is not procedining in good faith, it would basically be filibustering. I am more than willing to use a different category, or re-name this one, but after a few suggestions, which were shot down, all discussion stopped.

In the meantime, it has been strongly disputed whether "Myth" is a NPOV category for describing narratives in the Tanakh and the New Testament, because of the obvious ambiguity of the term. Please be patient and work through the process. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As long as the process is working, I will work through it. When one side stonewalls and refuses to compromise, or bring up any relevent, valid arguments, no "working through the process" is needed, since no real issue exists. FestivalOfSouls 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't get the choice to say, "The process is not working, so I will ram my changes through, anyway." Your choices are to follow Wikipedia's processes or leave. You are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, nor are you allowed to put something into a category if it is controversial (Wikipedia:Categorization). Work with the rules, or leave. Eventually this can be resolved in a way satisfactory to all parties. Quit trying to ram your changes through when you know you don't have consensus. Quit breaking rules like making personal attacks in your edit summaries. Quit repeatedly reverting changes without consensus. As Mark said, you are the only one who thinks this is an urgent manner. If you are too impatient to wait for Wikipedia's process to work, then you need to leave until you cool down. Jdavidb 17:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to satisfy your concern, here. "Common parlance" is exactly what raised this issue in the first place. In common parlance, "myth" means (and likely will always mean) "false". The fact that academics speak of "myth" differently does not change the issue of common parlance - and even for that matter, they use the word ambiguously. Your insistence is exactly the same as Codex's; only from the other point of view. Just as he is taking one half of the definition, you also are taking one half of the definition. Both definitions - need to be taken into account, and this is not easy to do since they are essentially antithetical to one another.

Discussion stops only because the problem is not easy, and because no one except for you really thinks that this is an urgent matter. But I don't understand your grounds for saying that the discussion has not proceeded on "good faith", just as I don't understand why you can't recognize the validity of the arguments on the "other side". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I say they have no valid arguments, because they don't. Wikipedia is about facts. Just because people might be offended by a fact, makes it no less true. It is a fact that the definition of mythology is such that these articles fit into it. It is a fact that the articles may or may not be true, and that even assuming that they were true, you would be hard pressed to prove it, and that the fac that the may be true makes no relevence to their status as a myth. People were offended that the earth was said to be round, or that the earth went around the sun and not vice versa. Try arguing that those facts should be left out of a science book because someones feelings might be hurt, and you will be laughed out of the room. All I am doing is insisting that we be factually honest, and accurate on wikipedia. It is not even that we are taking seperate halves of the definition, in order for that to be the case, Codex would be required to prove that since his argument is that they are facts and thus cannot be myths, he would have to prove that they are true, and that that truth invalidates the dictionary. All I have to "prove" is that the factuality is unimportant and they are myths regardless, and that is quite easy, open a dictionary for yourself. FestivalOfSouls 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about a neutral presentation of facts. When people are offended by the perspective in which the facts are presented (as they are by your misuse of the "Mythology" categories), it's an indication that their point of view is not being taken into account. What is easy to prove is that your partial citation of the dictionary definition is no less biased than Codex's - you are mirror images of one another. That's why the revert wars in which you are engaged cannot succeed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I would think facts trumps the "you hurt my feelings" argument. I am offended that the infantile, emotional opinions get as much weight as does factual definitions and honest representations, but you rarely see me use that as an argument, and even then only in jest. I am offended by you saying I "misused" the word "mythology". Read the definition of the word, all of it, and then try and claim that. If you track back my "partial" citation it is most commonly used in reference to Codex's attempts to lie to the wiki users to drum up sopport. Unlike him, I never pretended that the rest of the definition does not exist. Looking at the definition as a whole you see that it still applies and is still accurate, and to say it doesn't shows your inability to read a dictionary, your refusal to read it, or the biased stonwalling of a user. Until a better category exists, which I fully support, it is all we have. Eventually people will notice, and find out the definition of mythology, and see Codex for what he is. I can only hope that in the meantime his efforts do not smear mud on the wiki's face, or generate even more bad reputations of bias. I am doing my part. Will you? FestivalOfSouls 18:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Quit discussing in your edit summaries. Start using clear and unequivocal edit summaries. If you added Category:Christian mythology, just say "added category Christian mythology" in your edit summary. Don't say "fix omission" (btw, you misspelled omission) like you think all the editors before you were stupid. Just say what you did. If you need to discuss, use the talk page. That is what it is there for. Jdavidb 17:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I DID just state what i did, since I did fix the omission (meh, typos) but next time I will be more clear. 17:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (silly kiosks)

I am trying to do my part, by trying to de-fuse the controversy, foster a collaborative venue, and discouraging revert-wars. I did not say that "you hurt my feelings" is an argument. I said that it is an indication that you are not being neutral. The argument is that the terminology you are using is ambiguous, and because "Common parlance" more typically defines "myth" as "false", it is not preferrable terminology (because it is not "neutral") — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

While a few people might argue that it is not neutral, we are seriously lacking a better term, and unless they can come up with a better argument than " I don't understand how to use a dictionary" there should be no need to cave to them. FestivalOfSouls 20:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Signatures and Format in comments

Hey, there, FOS. Just a quick request to be a little more careful when adding comments. A recent comment of yours ended up looking like it was coming from me; see your original comment as compared to my reformatted version (I'm sorry, you'll have to scroll to the bottom to see the difference). Also, for the same reason, please don't forget to add your signature. Thanks! JHCC (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, there. There were a couple of edits to Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises that were signed 134.161.244.59 but looked like they were from you. Might want to change 134.161.244.59 to FestivalOfSouls if they were. Best, JHCC (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Stupid cookies, indeed. JHCC (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

More Christian mythology

There is a new proposal at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#JHCC's_new_proposal. Please read and comment. JHCC (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)