Talk:Hindu mythology

Hindu Mythology?

The Name of the article should renamed to Hindu Puranas/Ithihasa. Hindu's don't regard Vedas, Puranas, Ithihasa as "Myths". Hence the name Mythology is inapproriate and should be renamed or deleted completely.115.113.80.34

Yes, the title should be "Hindu theology" instead or "Hindu traditions." Bladesmulti (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? Traditions, theology and mythology are all distinct. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously because they are not myths, they got some basis, so tradition would fit better. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are misreading myth/mythology to be pejoratives rather than descriptive terms for stories told in the Puranas, the epics and some parts of the Vedas. Please take a look at the wikipedia article on mythology, or WP:RNPOV, or the first definition provided by OED for "myth":

Myth: A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon

Abecedare (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

AGreed. This may be won't the best argument, but i still try, just like other people noted here, that Why we don't regard islamic mythology? christian mythology? Even though they got even much harder justification of this known world. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are articles on Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Jewish mythology but frankly the literature related to "Hindu" mythology is far vaster and richer perhaps because (1) Hinduism is older, not based on a single work, and does not emphasize/enforce monotheism, (2) the weak demarcation between secular and religious pursuits within (what is regarded as) Hinduism, due to which many literary (astronomical, medical ...) texts are counted as "Hindu" rather than just "Indian". In any case trying to fit Hinduism in the mould of Christianity, Islam etc is not only unjustified per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc but would also mean that we delete all articles on various Hindu Gods and deities except Brahman because there are no corresponding articles on List of Christian deities and List of Islamic deities. Silly, isn't it? Abecedare (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's larger because there is much more content. I agree. Another reason would be that there's still no better handling of other religion's articles compared to the Hinduism-related articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be called Hindu Dharma. And there is no real page for 'Christian Mythology' Extremely based, I must say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahaShaktiPremi (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

But myths according to general public is a derogatory word when used about faiths. Fag can mean a cigar, but not in the context of calling someone this word. So when a normal person goes online to google someones FAITH and they see the word MYTH it is clearly biased. If 1.2 Billion Hindus on this planet would like to use a more objective unbiased word then why can't we just use "story", "theology", "theory", "belief", "tradition", "interpretation", "perspective", or literally anything that isn't COMMONLY USED AS AN INSULT StopSayingMyth (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ofc god concepts are just a myth, don't cry religious kids 117.212.48.25 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "Hindu Mythology"

I know many arguments above are highlighting the same issue but please take the time to read and understand my take on this.

While I understand that this well-written article was created with good intentions, the phrase "Hindu Mythology" has erupted throughout all Wikipedia articles about Hinduism- or Hindu-related gods and can be interpreted as disrespectful. Hinduism is a religion, a way of life, and the 1 billion people who follow this way of life hold its "myths" in high regard. The phrase "Hindu mythology" has been incorrectly used synonymously with the religion for many years, which is understandable, but perhaps it is time to modify that. It is disturbing to simply dismiss the religion as "mythology" given that it is still practiced by a significant portion of the world's population (about 15%). Additionally, as a Hindu myself, I believe it to be quite disrespectful to both my existence and my beliefs, and I have no doubt that other Hindus will share this opinion. This religion, our way of life, is a reality for many, so please refrain from dismissing it as a myth. I humbly request that the use of mythology in this article should be corrected.

I also noticed above that the argument presented was that Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, and Islamic mythology are also articles on Wikipedia. Should these religions be degraded with the term mythology as well? Isn't it disrespectful to those who practice those religions? These "myths", "legends", and "stories" from all these religions are not simply "myths", "legends", and "stories." They serve as a reality to many people in today's world.

The definition of a myth: A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, etiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon. Well, this term does appear to be more respectful than most people are giving it credit for. However, note that the word "story" appears as the third word in this definition. This word carries a connotation that this "narrative" is fictional. Furthermore, for a long time in our society, the terms "story" and "myth" were mistakenly used interchangeably. The point I'm trying to make is that there are more respectful terms out there to use in place of this derogatory term.

I believe the article (linked below) put it best...although the words myth or mythology itself do not mean fiction, they certainly imply it. Perhaps using the phrase "Hindu epics" or "Hinduism" itself is a start.

https://bookriot.com/hindu-epics-are-they-myths/

Thank you for understanding and hope to see some changes! :) OtherstuffWP (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

Please do not use the word ‘Mythology’. Hinduism is not a ‘myth’. It is our history. We don’t say islamic mythology or Christian mythology right? Please use the word Hindu Theology. 103.89.235.102 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Heart ^(talk) 01:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes we do: Christian mythology. And: Christ myth theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that even mainstream scholars think that the stories in the Gospels are mostly fictional and do not treat them as historical sources anymore, or at least consider them unreliable. In any case, they are not critical biographies or historical accounts in the modern sense (they may be biographies as a genre, but in antiquity, fictional biographies written about both historical and mythological figures were common). Even far more recent characters have had legends develop around them. Hebrew scripture is full of unverifiable legends, too. All parts of the Bible are far more problematic and difficult to use as sources for history than scholars used to assume because they are full of symbolism, propaganda and hagiography and are extremely biased. (Even in antiquity there were relatively critical historians such as Arrian.) Critical, secular scholars do not treat the Abrahamic religions, and especially Christianity, any differently from Eastern religions now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Myth and Story are the same word

No one would have a problem with the word story, and story cannot be used for discrimination purposes. It is very biased to use the word myth to talk about stories which over a billion other humans believe as true, and whether you are a devout HIndu or think the religion is a joke, it affects all of us. If people on this site feel they can demean and belittle and attack and discriminate against one group of people, it is only a short time before they begin to attack you also. Please stand up against the bias and discrimination and change the word to one of the +25 synomnyms which mean exactly the same thing but aren't clear underhanded discrimination. If the common consesus among people is that "myth" is an insulting word then the definition you have made up does not mean anything. Go ask you relatives, friends, family, and other people if they would like the word "myth" applied to their beliefs. Ask yourself if you want to see your favorite page filled with words that can be used to demean you? There's nothing wrong with the word story and all people are fine to call something a story. That is a true unbiased word. But "myth" needs to be changed StopSayingMyth (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of adding to your ever-growing reading list, I think you should take a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and seriously consider whether you want to keep pursuing this across various articles on Wikipedia. I'm afraid it will only lead to further frustration on your part, @StopSayingMyth. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well thank you for your concern. I am trying to be part of the community and in order to be part of the community I must be honest with myself and pursue what matters to me. Forcing myself to edit articles on basketball won't do much for my personal growth or enjoyment. I am doing what I enjoy, which is standing up for equal rights, and I believe that will bring me the most joy. The only way to be part of a community is to be yourself and if I can't be myself then I might as well get banned. StopSayingMyth (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude will likely lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I am "civil, calml, and in a spirit of cooperation". This website has very objective articles for the most part it's just with people's beliefs in religious/faith stuff the administration is comfortable being discriminatory. I hope to change the mind of just one admin and cause them to be kinder to others. StopSayingMyth (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Admins do not make decisions about content. We make decisions about content - you, me, the admins, everyone. The community. And you're going to find that the community - at this moment - is against making any such changes. You'll find that this essay is a pretty accurate reflection of general attitudes. And you'll find that if you persist, you will be removed from the community via a block. Many are willing to accept such an outcome; if you are too, then have at it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Threats show your true feelings my friend. Each response that is given is just proof there is bias. When I came here first I was hoping to meet reasonable discussion, instead I have seen more and more intimidating and controlling behavior.

The consensus on this talk page is overwhelming - the word should be changed to "Story" or something neutral. Additionally the "myth" camp has no leg to stand on. There are +25 words that can be used but only this one is offensive. So you want a factual word and we want to not be insulted, both can be achieved through a word such as "story". If our community says that it is an offensive word than it is offensive and this is the consensus.

Just admit you want to offend people of faith and you want to use words that put them down. Then we can start an honest discussion instead of pretending. Thank you StopSayingMyth (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I issued no threats, and consensus on this page is not for the word to be changed. Quite the opposite. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well then let's change it. Why do you want to only this one specific word when there are plenty of equally factual synonyms that cannot be used for discrimination. Shouldn't a factual and unbiased site be okay with using the less offensive words if they are both equally accurate? StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We use it because that is what reliable sources use. Wikipedia is a reflection of reliable sources. Those sources may, in your view, be hateful; Wikipedia will then be, in your view, be hateful. That's how this place works. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

So we should just include discriminatory language because past articles include it? Are we then going to use words like "negro" to discuss African-Americans also? I think the people on this site are beyond this StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@StopSayingMyth, I think you'll find it quite hard to convince anyone else that the word "mythology" somehow undermines equal rights. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well before going through the trouble of making an account and making these posts and all this I talked it over with my wife and with my friends and also my parents and all of them agreed that you shouldn't call people's beliefs "myths" and that there are much less biased words. I would like to also mention only me and my wife are practicsing Hindusim most of the people in my life are Christian or non-religious. But their support and encouragment has empowered me to attempt to bring this topic to light. StopSayingMyth (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what the word myth means. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think popular media such as Mythbusters - a show which aims to prove things as either true or a myth - may be a good place to start... StopSayingMyth (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid your family and friends don't hold weight at Wikipedia over reliable sources and consensus, nor does any individual editor. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If the majority of wikipedia administrators are biased against religious people then how is a consensus a good decision? Is this not just mob rule?

Consensus is also interesting as consensus in the general public I think would very much so agree with my point. You can see a number of people from the general population raise this exact same point here on the page, and if you go and speak with your family, friends, people in your community about the topic I think you will see that the "consensus" among normal people and the "consensus" among admins of wikipedia are not very well aligned. StopSayingMyth (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We recognize that readers come to wikipedia with different knowledge and backgrounds, and may find some of the material unfamiliar, uncomfortable, or even disturbing. But as an encyclopedia, we cannot tailor our content to a reader's, or even the "general public's" sensibilities. Rather as a tertiary source, we seek to summarize what reliable sources have said about a subject and if you peruse the sources listed in the General sources and Further reading of this very article, you'll see that "mythology" is indeed the term commonly used by scholars in this area. So we do too. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand these things which you have said. I am not asking Wikipedia to put their logo as an Om symbol and say that these are factual events.

I am saying that Wikipedia should be factual and unbiased. Any other synonym is okay with the people who have commented. Just because the sources which have been used are using demeaning language doesn't mean the article should also contain this same bias.

If you want unbiased articles so do I. Put an unbiased word such as Story, Tale, Theory, Belief, or other such words. Only myth is demeaning, and defending this one word when so many others mean the exact same thing without the discrimination is clearly revealing the bias StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Any other synonym is okay with the people who have commented. I don't think that's true, and it certainly isn't for me. You're the only one who has a problem with "myth" and I think everyone else opposes a change. WPscatter ^t/_c 21:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This is clear misrepresentation. Just because the other posters don't want to mindlessly argue with closed-minded people the way I am willing to doesn't mean you can write them off. People have posted 4 different times to change the word myth. And as I have said if they are synonyms then just change it to a different term. But you are quite literally defending discriminatory language which is a strange thing for an "unbiased" "factual" person to do.... StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Talking about "mob rule": Consensus is also interesting as consensus in the general public. And WP:OR: you do a biased questionaire among a non-random sample, and conclude that "myth" has only one meaning, namely as synonym for 'unture story'. Well, let's bust that myth: myth, in the way it is used here, is not a fairy tale or an 'untrue story', but a narrative with an appealing meaning. Myth as you understand it may be derived from this scholarly usage, but is not it's original meaning, nor how it is used here. And talking about "closed minded": the aim of an encyclopedia is to present scholarly information, to 'enlighten' readers and broaden their views. Obviously, this aim is lost on you, as you stick to your own, limited understanding and refuse to read further than the first line. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BlueMichaela (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BlueMichaela (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of "myth" section necessary?

The very first mention of the word myth links to the wikipedia article that explains what a myth is and also has a note attached that explains it. Do we really need to have a whole section also dedicated to explaining this word? From what I see of the talk page it seems that some people have misunderstood the word. However, this isn't consistent across other mythology pages. I can see that the term has ruffled some feathers but if we pander to everyone who doesn't know what a word means then wikipedia pages would have to include a dictionary of terms several times longer than the article proper. At any rate the second paragraph listing seminal texts in this section mostly consists of information already present in the introduction which ought to be condensed into the introduction or given a dedicated place in the article as the paragraph has little to do with explaining what a myth is. Cymroes (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, it's necessary; it's not "ruffled some feathers," it's a consistent pov-pushing who find the term 'Hindu-mythology'offensive. Regarding the repetition: the lead summarizes the article, so we can't mention those texts only in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean by pov-pushing but if you mean the consistent complaints I can understand if it's a unique issue to these articles (I have found that the definition is also brought up for the mythologies of other active religions) I would say it might make sense for it to be a "box note"/disclaimer at the top of the page rather than a main body section. As for the repetition thank you for explaining, perhaps the texts should be mentioned further down the article though because the flow feels a bit awkward to re-tread that information so quickly when there's so much overlap. I can see from your profile that you've spent far more time and energy on this topic so I'll defer to your knowledge/experience on this. Cymroes (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)