Talk:Rank–Raglan mythotype

Oeidpus

How does anyone figure Oedipus scores 21 or 22? I counted 13 for him, and that was counting dubious ones like "he made laws." Since he was a king I guess he did, but that's already covered by "he is a king". If they mean the decree to drive the parricide out of the city, "he made laws" would be a pretty strange way to describe it, if technically accurate. Someone must count things like "His offspring did not succeed him" which would have to mean something like, after his two sons succeeded him, no grandsons did. That's just cheating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.67.35 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As Sienkewicz, Thomas. "Lord Raglan's Hero Pattern" reference shows how many points a person gets various on how the Rank-Raglan mythotype is applied.

Alexander the Great (356 - 323 BCE): 9 (Raglan gave him a 7)

Julius Caesar (100 - 44 BCE): 9 1/2

Augustus Caesar (63 BCE - 14 CE): 10

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821): 8

Nicholas II, Tsar of All the Russias (1868 – 1918): 14

While some people doubt that Jesus and Buddha ever existed everybody else has clear definitive documentation that they existed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Carrier

What on earth are you talking about? How isn't Carrier talking about the Rank-Raglan mythotpye? Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Carrier's work is not an analysis of Rank or Raglan's work like all the other classicists and folklorists on the page. Perhaps he can be added as a foot note, but his context of this work is mythicism, a fringe view on Jesus. He certainly does not merit much space because he is not applying his arbitrary list on many people and certainly is not doing a in depth analysis of Rank or Raglan's work.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is claiming it to be. It's a his version of it. How doesn't that belong in the history section? Who cares if he is doing an analysis or not? That is no reason not to include it. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok will add him as a foot note, and also a criticism of his ideas on his list.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you did not like the add. Perhaps it would be best to not insert Carrier on this page, as I originally mentioned. Carrier's tweaked list is certainly not notable and has not been used by anyone at all except by him to support his mythsicist thesis. It is noticeably catered to fit Jesus' narrative by removing some inconvineninces so it does not have much validity in the "History" section especially since no one else has used Carrier's list.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agreeApollo The Logician (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Utley

i don't know wrote this article, but he would have to explain to me how lincoln scored 22 on the rank???!!! his father was a king, and his mother a virgin?????? --62.235.216.43

You can look up the source and find out - Francis Lee Utley, “Lincoln Wasn't There, or Lord Raglan's Hero,” CEA Chap Book (Washington, DC: College English Association, 1965;, supplement to The CEA Critic 22, June 1965). In part, Utley's piece does show that both Rank and Raglan are useless for anything historical and as such are an absurdity. In fact no serious historian uses it because it is arbitrary as the article cites. Harry Potter is more historical than Alexander the Great and Mithradates if you use the scale.--173.58.132.206 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the quote mentioning Lincoln should be removed as it is obvious to even the casual observer that it is ridiculous! Lincoln very clearly doesn't get to anywhere near 22. It also misses the point of the scoring system in the first place. The only reason the list exists is to highlight an extremely often-told story archetype. It is not supposed to suggest that anything that doesn't match the list is somehow more historic, but more that if a story very closely matches the archetype we should at least be suspicious.

The list of famous figures/gods/heroes that match the list is so long, and match so well, that it becomes silly to say the list has no value. We as humans obviously have an affinity to this particular story structure. And we tell (and like) stories that match it closely. HappyGod (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Francis Utley's academic analysis of Lincoln is actually addressing the usefulness, or lack thereof, of the 22 arbitrary points made by Raglan to show that it really can be twisted to fit anyone including historical people. It is not really a useful tool for determining history - which is why no reputable historian has ever used it to determine historicity or fiction. That was the point of Utley's work - it was a criticism of Raglan's list.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Huitzilopochtli1990, I am aware of all the points you are raising, but what I am saying is that there are obvious flaws in Utley's statements. Lincoln doesn't get close to matching 22 points. Additionally, Raglan never intended the list to be a means of determining the existence of a person or deity, but more a study into the indisputable fact that humans tend to tell this story a lot, and that a large amount of past beings have been ascribed a version of it.

It is simply an exercise in anthropology. Unfortunately, it has unsettling ramifications for some in terms of the uneasy correlations it creates to currently worshiped deities, which causes people to attack it with questionable motives.HappyGod (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi HappyGod. Utley's piece is an academic critique of the uses of Raglan. As a folklorist, he certainly makes an impressive argument on Lincoln using Raglan's arbitrary list, but certainly Utley does not believe that Lincoln was not historical. It is a detailed critique at the absurdity of Raglan's points and how anyone can fit Raglan's points. Looking at how ridiculous the interpretations are, such as Harry Potter [1] being less mythological than Muhammad or Jesus or Czar Nicholas [2], I think that Utley's piece is a wake up call on how easily evidence can be gathered to make anyone fit all 22 points. I am sure that Forrest Gump or Homer Simpson would score low on Raglan too. The fact that even people who do their own analysis of the 22 points on the same person come up with significantly different numbers goes to show that the 22 points are also vague and unclear. Sloppy tool and sloppy tool users does not bring much confidence of Raglan being a reliable method.

As editors, our job is to present numerous voices on the topic - Rank or Raglan - and leave it at that. It is not our job to determine what is the correct "interpretation" considering that this whole topic is controversial and certainly no serious or credible historian has ever used it for anything. It seems to be used only by literature students or folklorists. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not our job to present views that have obvious errors. And the one presented here obviously does; i.e. Lincoln doesn't meet all points, he doesn't even meet most of them. When we provide counter-voices to subjects, we must at least check to see that those voices are credible, and it is not in this case.

It is also not our job to ascribe intent to anthropological insights where there were no such insights. Not once does Raglan ever claim that his list should be used to prove historicity. Those suppositions are added by others. It is therefore not a valid criticism to say that it is not adequate to do that, since that was never its purpose.

Further, Raglan's list cannot be applied to anyone. I for example score 0 points on Raglan's scale (as you would probably). That is assuming I don't match the points that can only occur after my death!HappyGod (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is out job to present diverse views on a relevant topic because that is what an encyclopedia does. It is has to provide numerous points and counterpoints if it is necessary, especially in controversial subjects such as this. Utley's piece is academic (it is not a spoof), it is a reliable source and it does provide a criticism of Raglan's methodology. Plus it is in the appropriate section. There really is no issue.

I do find it odd that you say "Not once does Raglan ever claim that his list should be used to prove historicity." and then you proceeded to score yourself? What is the point of Raglan then? Considering that Raglan himself scored historical people such as Alexander the Great, and other who he presumed were not, it is clear that Raglan is using his 22 arbitrary points to gauge some degree of history and myth. You said " Unfortunately, it has unsettling ramifications for some in terms of the uneasy correlations it creates to currently worshiped deities, which causes people to attack it with questionable motives." Since the issue is controversial why would you be against Utley's criticism of Raglan? With controversial issues like this one is obligated to show points and counterpoints and let the reader decide on their own. Does this help? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The point was and is purely an anthropological exercise. End of story. The problem that people have is the separation of correlation and causality. The flying spaghetti monster movement (a spoof) asserts that global warming is caused by the decline of pirates, this is because as the number of global pirates has declined, temperature has increased. This is (humorously) attempting to ascribe causality to a correlation.

The same is true with the comparisons with Harry Potter and Lincoln. Simply because there is a correlation with certain figures, doesn't mean there is causation. Nobody ever said there was. However if a figure scores extremely highly, it is only grounds for suspicion, as it's obvious that we retell this story a lot, and we usually retell it about characters who are not historical. i.e. Mithras, Attis, Dionysus, Hercules etc. It simply serves as a starting point, not as the be-all and end-all of historical verisimilitude. HappyGod (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree partly with you. However, since the article is not about determining who is right (readers will decide that) and since the topic is controversial (anthropologists, folklorists, mythologists, etc all disagree with each other - no consensus on its usefulness) then points and counterpoints in the article are warranted. There really is no point in debating if Raglan is right or wrong by you or me (though clear fictional characters would score very low too - thus questioning the usefulness of Raglan's method on top of the reficiation fallacies modern researchers make on ancient people's views as if they thought like us in the modern world), the sources do debate the topic well on their own and that is what belongs in the article. Multiple voices, multiple views - and leave it at that. It follows WP:NPOV policy on controversial issues like this.

As a side note, you may want to investigate an academic text which discusses how narratives on human evolution by scientists and naturalists actually match well with mythical structures and are written in the form of hero archetypes ("Narratives of Human Evolution" by Misia Landau Yale University Press). Scientists write in the style of myths even without them being aware of it. So should we assume their narratives are myth? Seems more likely that there are only a few ways to write a story and that structure does not say anything about something being true or false. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hero's Journey

Who on earth is the Hero's Journey concept being discussed here as if it is the subject of the article? It literally makes no sense.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

By looking at the comparative mythology article it includes a section on Hero narratives (monomyth). Monomyths are "Hero's Journey" narratives and certainly looks relevant considering that Rank's and Raglan's analysis is about the journey of many Heros through narrativeand myth. Rank and Raglan clearly link myth-making to the stories of numerous Heros. What do you think?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why should be treated as if it is the subject of the article though?Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure since I did not add that into the lead. I only added the part on interpretation because it was on the lead. But looking at it, it may be better to ask if you see a good reason for it to be removed or maybe it should be moved down? Hero's journey is about a hero's narrative structure. Rank and Raglan seem to be a part of that kind of "hero archetype" analysis. What do you think?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Right but the article is not about a "hero archetype" it is about a type of "hero archetype". The different types of "hero archetype" should have seperate articles. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wider context is given by noting that Rank and Raglan are a part of a wider area of study on hero archetypes. Without the context, the article looks like it is an isolated topic even though it is not. Perhaps we can condense the lead a bit since the part on Campbell is quite long, when it could be shorter (lesser emphasis).Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. 08:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Apollo The Logician, not sure if you forgot about this discussion on Hero's Journey. The intro mentions Campbell since he is a major popularizer of these monomyth studies. They are related.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Classicist Thomas J. Sienkewicz paragraph

The paragraph starting "Classicist Thomas J. Sienkewicz..." seems to be hinting that fictional characters score lower than historical people, but the source given never makes that assertion, making this WP:OR. This isn't even a reasonable conclusion to draw given that most of the top 5 in his list are indeed fictional/mythical. Ashmoo (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed/changed but for different reasons. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, glad you brought it to talk here Ashmoo. I do not see any issue since the source does give those numbers to these Heroes. Also, it is clear that Harry Potter is a fictional character (no one seems to argue that he is real) and persons like Tsar Nicholas II, Mithridates VI of Pontus, Muhammad, Jesus, and Buddha are all historical people (per historical consensus). It is ironic, but those are the numbers.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

But in the cases of Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha, this is begging the question – for Muhammad, and especially Jesus and Buddha (as well as various other religious founder figures), there are serious doubts as to their historicity, as the evidence adduced for it is so tenuous that their historicity cannot be said to be established, and thus they cannot be described as plainly, definitely historical – except by appeal to authority (which the historical consensus is in effect); rather, I would describe these figures as "shadowy" at best and assertions of their historicity as proven as lacking in high-quality evidence (as Carrier shows for Jesus quite independently of the hero narrative argument). (I know Wikipedia's rules effectively enforce appeal to authority, but talk page comments are not bound by this rule.)

While low scores do not mean that a figure is historical and high scores do not necessarily indicate that a figure is ahistorical, high scores at least cast doubt on the narratives – Mithridates VI of Pontus may have been a historical personality, but whether his life really followed the narrative of the archetypical hero is very much open to doubt; his life is heavily mythologised. The same point can be made about Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha: even if there were historical role models for these people at all, the narratives we have are not necessarily factual. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical consensus is that these people existed, so why are you trying to say that there are serious doubts when most historians do not have doubt of their existence? Also, no one has adopted Carrier's position by the way so why use him as an authority on historicity when no historian has adopted his views? Do you have evidence that Carriers views are dominant among historians? With respect to your thoughts on low scores, not sure what is relevant for the article. Rank and Raglan's ideas are not really a measure for historicity or ahistoricity of people. And they do not assess the historicity or ahistoricity of any individual event in each person's life. Furthermore, no historian has used Rank or Raglan as a measure for historical analysis. Historians use sources, records, archaeology, etc to establish their views - not arbitrary narrative structures like Rank or Raglan's studies of story telling.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Carrier (again)

"actually does not discuss Rank or Raglan per se but uses it for Bayesian thesis (reference classes)" - That's fair justification for removing it from the "Interpretation and criticism" section - but I think this application of the mythotype is noteworthy. I suggest adding a new section 'Applications of the Rank-Raglan mythotype', and the following text: "In his Bayesian analysis of the historicity of Jesus Christ, historian Richard Carrier uses the Rank-Raglan mythotype to derive a reference class of ancient hero figures who fit more than half of the 22 Raglan criteria, and uses this reference class to estimate a prior probability for such figures' historicity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckviola (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no application of Rank or Raglan's method in current scholarship. Certainly not in historical research. It is mostly treated as a fossil in the history of folklore studies for its outdated thesis and current scholarship overwhelmingly criticizes both Rank and Raglan archetyping in general. Christ myth theory which is WP:FRINGE, seems to be the main reason for even citing Carrier here. However, he does not make a contribution to the analysis of Rank or Raglan. He merely uses them (manipulates the them actually [3] ) to spread conspiracy theories. Looks like WP:COATRACK. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)