User:FimusTauri/Myth

Please note: this is an essay written by a Wikipedian. It is not part of policy, nor is it a guideline. It is certainly not a Wikipedia article and the reader should form their own opinion as to its veracity.

Introduction

The use of the term "myth" or its derivative "mythology" in articles on religious topics has caused considerable and often heated debate on Wikipedia. Many editors object to the term for many different reasons, citing a range of policies and guidelines. Other editors believe that it is the term used by the "academics" and therefore wholly appropriate in Wikipedia.

It is my belief that there is a middle ground.

There are two main ways in which the term is used: as part of an article title; and "in passing" within other articles. As an article title there are far less problems, as the article should (one hopes) explain in detail what the term means. Therefore, this essay specifically addresses the use of the term "in passing".

It is my belief that the various problems are almost entirely a result of editors using the word without sufficient explanation. Very often, it only requires a small change to the text to provide sufficient explanation to ensure that the reader understands what the editor means by the term. There is no need to reiterate dictionary definitions or to add "infoboxes" or disclaimers.

As a simple example, consider the Battle of Armageddon. To say "the battle of Armageddon is a myth" is a bald statement that I believe violates several policies, most notably NPOV, for reasons that are set out below. On the other hand, to say "the battle of Armageddon is an eschatological myth" is to provide additional context. Any reader familiar with the term will understand this context. Any reader who is unfamiliar will almost certainly click the link. Some may argue that the reader can click the Myth link in the same way - the difference here is that most readers already "know" what a myth is; unfortunately, most readers assume that it means a "made up story".

The main issue over the use of "myth" is the ambiguity of its definition. In the next section I will demonstrate how various definitions are offered; then I will illustrate how this affects the inclusion of various Biblical stories in the category of "myth"; finally, I will show which policies and guidelines are transgressed as a result of this ambiguity.

Defining the term Myth and its implications for Bible stories

Some definitions

There are numerous ways in which "myth(ology)" is defined. On Wikipedia I have found the following:

From infobox on Islamic mythology and Hindu mythology and Greek mythology and Roman mythology: In an academic context, the word "myth" refers to any sacred and traditional narrative.
From Islamic mythology: For scholars in religious studies, myths are stories whose main characters are gods or demigods
From Mythology: The word mythology (from the Greek μυθολογία mythología, meaning "a story-telling, a legendary lore") refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.
From Mythology, quoting the OED: "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, 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"
From Mythology: in folkloristics, a myth is traditionally defined as "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form"
From Mythology: myths – stories traditionally considered true and sacred, set in the remote past, in another world or an earlier stage of this world, whose main characters are non-human
Posted on the NPOV/FAQ discussion, from Random House: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Posted on the NPOV/FAQ discussion, from American Heritage Dictionary: 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: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
Posted on the NPOV/FAQ discussion, from Websters: A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.
Posted on the NPOV/FAQ discussion, from WordNet: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
From WP:WTA #Myth and legend: It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth.

There are other definitions, but the above shows the wide range of these meanings. I have also omitted definitions that are similar to ones expressed above and also any that follow the "common" usage of the term (that of a "made up" story).

Selected Bible stories

Using the definitions above, I will demonstrate which of the following Biblical stories should be classified as a "myth". All of the following have been classified as a myth somewhere on Wikipedia, either explicitly or as part of some sweeping generalisation.

Important note: all of the following are treated as stories. In no sense should their status as allegory be implied. Equally, where a definition above uses the word "true", I will treat that as meaning "historical" and not have regard for any "higher truths" or "religious truths". If anyone can demonstrate that this is the intended meaning for any definition then I will amend the following accordingly.

Creation

Certainly covered by definitions 1-5, 7-9 & 11 In 6, the requirement that the main characters be non-human would exclude Adam & Eve and any parts of the story involving them. 10 states "accepted as history" without defining when or by whom. Almost no-one accepts the Bible account as history.

The Flood

Again, no problem with 1-5, 7-9 & 11. 6 precludes this story because Noah is human and 10 precludes it because the story is not seen as historical.

The Battle of the Vale of Siddim

1 is fine. 2 precludes this story as God is not involved. 3-5 preclude it as it does not attempt to interpret natural events or explain the nature of the universe. 6 precludes it as all of the characters are human. 7-8 only just about include this story by stretching them to the limit. 9 precludes it as it has nothing to do with "wonder" or the personification of forces. 10 precludes it as it does not explain any world view. 11 might just about include it at a stretch.

The Exodus

1 is fine. 2 is dubious as most of the main characters are human. 3 includes this story, as does 4. 5 precludes it as the exodus has no bearing on how the earth or humankind came to be in their present form. 6, no, as the main characters are mainly human. 7 includes it. 8 does not as it specifies "a creation myth". 9-11 would all include it.

David and Goliath

1 includes this. 2 does not as all the characters are human (Goliath is termed a "giant", but that is generally taken to mean a well-built and/or powerful human). 3 excludes this as there are no supernatural elements. Ditto 4. 5 excludes it as this story has no bearing on how the earth or humans came to be in their present form. 6 excludes it as the characters are all human. 7 doesn't cover it in any way. 8 excludes it. 9 could only include it at a stretch. 10 excludes it as it does not explain a worldview. 11 excludes it as it does not seek to explain anything other than what it perceives as a historical event.

The Fall of Jerusalem

Not one of the definitions above would include this story, which is regarded as a piece of history.

The Birth of Jesus

Possibly the only story here that could be included - at a stretch - by all of the definitions above, although 11 demands "forgotten or vague origin" which would preclude this story.

The Parables of Jesus

A parable is a parable, not a myth. None of the definitions above apply here.

The Sermon on the Mount

A sermon is a sermon. Given that Jesus is generally accepted to have been a real person (whether the son of god or a charismatic conjuror is up to the individual to decide), the sermon is taken as a historical account. Even if its historicity is disputed, it does not fall into the "myth" category.

The Resurrection of Jesus

This is similar to his birth. Most of the definitions would cover this story.

The Battle of Armageddon

Covered by 1-4. Excluded by 5. Excluded by 6 as the events referred to are future (I know there is a dispute about that - unless the dispute is explained the term cannot be applied under this definition). 7-8 can be stretched to include this, although it is not a "creation myth". 9 & 10 preclude it as it is not historical (see note above for the dispute). 11 might be stretched to include this one.

Cautionary comments

The above deals only with the ambiguity of the various definitions of the word "myth". There are numerous other reasons why some of these stories may not be termed "myths".

So long as the term myth does not have a definition that is agreed upon by all of the sources, it cannot be used "out of context" to describe a religious story. By this I mean that the reader must be reasonably certain which definition the sources are using and who those sources are.

Relevent Policies and Guidelines

The following is a list of some policies and guidelines which are currently being violated by the way that the word "myth" is used on Wikipedia.

WP:SOURCES - "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". As made clear above, there are numerous definitions of the term and it is applied and defined differently by the various sources. At present, the term is being added to articles with the claim that "this is the term used by academics", but we are not told which definition is being used. If we do not know which definition is being used, how can we know if the source directly supports the information as it is presented in the article? How can we determine if it is appropriate?
Also from WP:SOURCES - "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." An editor may be using one definition of "myth" to justify using it, yet there exist many other (equally well sourced) definitions that would preclude that story from being called a myth. By refusing to specify a definition an editor is using the word weaselly; however, once a definition is included, the edit is open to accusation of WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV.
From the quote above, there are editors who refuse to acknowledge that theologians have the same (or any) value as secular writers. A theological viewpoint is still a viewpoint, even if it is not "grounded in science".
From WP:NPOV - "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Simply stating that something is a myth is denying the reader this opportunity.
From WP:NPOV - "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" Since we do not have a definition of "myth", any assertion that a story is a myth is an assertion of opinion, not fact.
From WP:NPOV - "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" Unless it is clear what is meant by the term "myth", the reader will assume whichever definition of the term they are used to. In the majority of cases this will mean a "made up" story.
WP:MORALIZE has the statement, with regard to Saddam Hussein, "You won't even need to say he was evil". It is equally true that, with regard to religious stories "You do not need to say they are myths."
From WP:MORALIZE - "Let the facts speak for themselves." Asserting that a religious story is a myth is not allowing the facts to speak.
From a previous ArbCom case - "The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible." At present, all religious viewpoints are dismissed.
From a previous ArbCom case - "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." At present, the word is often used without attribution. To simply state that a story is a myth is to fail to attribute.
From a previous ArbCom case - "Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves." Speaks for itself.
From WP:NPOVREASON - "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents" There is no doubt that contriversy exists over the classification of religious stories as myths, yet this controversy is almost universally ignored.
From WP:UNDUE - "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" Religious articles are on religious subjects; the scientific (even if majority) viewpoint should be given appropriate reference - the article should not be about debunking the story from a scientific perspective. It is totally unnecassery to assert that a story is a myth in the lead when that question is addressed in the appropriate section.
From WP:JARGON #Related guidelines and templates - "do not assume that the readers know anything about Wikipedia." The current guidlines on the NPOV/FAQ page tell editors to go ahead and use a word so long as they stick to the "academic definition", utterly ignoring the fact that readers will not necessarily know that definition - or even which of the many definitions is intended.
From MOS:BEGIN - "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" There are almost no circumstances in which adding "myth" to the lead on a religious article will further enlighten the reader as to the answer to those two questions. See Noah's Ark for a glaring example of an editor insisting on adding "myths" to the detriment of the lead.
From WP:LEADCITE - "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies." A bald statement that a story is a myth does not conform to a whole host of policies.
From WP:MTAA - "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience." Assuming that the reader knows the "academic definition" of the word myth is not making the article accessible, unless context explains what is meant by the word. Very often the word can be left out or substituted to make the article more accessible.
From WP:WEASEL - "Weasel words are generally considered to be words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." If we do not know what is meant by the word then it is weasel.

Possible Solutions

For me, solving this issue is a relatively simple matter. Each instance will be different, but the following may provide some helpful guidelines:

As suggested in the introduction, it is often enough to tie the word "myth" to a more specific phrase such as Eschatological Myth, Deluge myth, Creation myth etc. The potential flaw in this is that the article linked to may not provide adequate explanation, so that would need to be addressed.
In some cases referring to the appropriate field may be enough. For example, "In the field of folkloristics..." informs the reader that what follows is classed as a myth in a specific field and that the (broadly) agreed definition in that field will apply.
In some instances it may be better to use the term in a different part of the article. An obvious example is in the lead sentence, where stating that the subject is a myth may be unnecessary or where providing additional clarification would be unwieldy. Simply moving the term down to the following paragraph (still in the lead) will give space to provide the additional clarification required.
Check the sources. Because of the ambiguity over the definition, take care that the sources you cite actually define the term (or use a definition of the term) myth that you intend. If possible, provide references not just to where the term is applied to the subject, but also to where the source clarifies the definition. Most reputable sources will make clear how they are using a term such as this.
If all else fails, tie the use of the term myth to the reasons why it is used. For example, "Because the story of Jesus contains fantastical elements, some sources treat it as mythical." Such an explanation is a little long and unwieldy, but may be required to provide the necessary clarity ("some sources" here should be changed to something more specific, with cites).