Talk:Myth and ritual: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:08, 2 June 2007

Original research?

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)[reply]

Hmmm ... I realize that much of the material I initially put in Eternal return (Eliade) was original research under the Wikipedia definition (I got that cleared up), but I was careful not to do the same thing here. If you could pinpoint exactly where I'm going wrong, I would appreciate it. My interest in making both articles was simply to fill in a couple of glaring gaps in the Wikipedia literature. If other people want to take over from here and radically improve these two articles, I'm OK with that. --Phatius McBluff 11:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is going nowhere. I'm realizing that it should have been written by someone far more knowledgeable than me, or not written at all. Although I still think there should be a discussion of this topic somewhere on Wikipedia, and although what I put down is true as far as it goes, the addition of the "might contain independent research" notice means that many intelligent readers probably won't take the article seriously anyway (especially since it's so short). I think we should just remove it.--Phatius McBluff 10:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has potential. First of all, it should be made a {{main}} 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)[reply]

Transfer material from this article to Ritual?

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)[reply]

I think I fixed things

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Myth and Ritual School

In light of what I've read recently, and put on the "overview" section, I think that maybe this article should be renamed the "Myth and Ritual School". This is the name most commonly used to aggregate the positions of scholars discussed in the article. This topic is especially a part of the broader subject of mythology; the mythology article should include a summary of it, and be more "scholar-oriented" than the current form.--BMF81 09:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 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. --[[User:Phatius McBluff|Phatius McBluff]] 23:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 :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! [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
+== Myth and Ritual School  ==
+In light of what I've read recently, and put on the "overview" section, I think that maybe this article should be renamed the "Myth and Ritual School". This is the name most commonly used to aggregate the positions of scholars discussed in the article. This topic is especially a part of the broader subject of [[mythology]]; the [[mythology]] article should include a summary of it, and be more "scholar-oriented" than the current form.--[[User:BMF81|BMF81]] 09:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)