Wikipedia: Myth/Talk

From Creation myths/Talk

A creation myth is a specific type of myth? which tells how the Universe, the Earth, life, and/or humanity came into being. A myth is just a story for which there is no documentary or scientific proof. Is there a way to revise this paragraph to indicate that a 'myth' usually dates from antiquity?

And that the authorship is always untraceable? I mean, it's too late for anyone to create any new myths, because the rest of us would know who wrote it -- or at least when.

Yes, but that kind of detail should go into the myth article, not here. That's why I linked to it. :-) --Dmerrill --Ed Poor

"it's too late for anyone to create any new myths"

I don't think this is true at all. Witness for example the belief that UFO's may bring wisdom or danger from other worlds.

I am thinking we ought to just redirect to Mythology. This is rapidly turning into a duplicate of it. :-) --Dmerrill

: I started the Myth page and I have no objection as long as we preserve (merge) any worthwhile content.

I think we have to be careful to avoid the implication that myth = falsehood. Many of the ancients did not consider their myths falsehood. Ultimately Graeco-Roman myths are no different from Jewish or Christian stories. To call one myths and refuse to call the other myths also is to make a distinction that does not exist. (Unless the distinction you wish to make is one of truth, but that isn't NPOV.) -- SJK

: This, of course, is true. But in common every-day useage people equate the word "myth" with a story that is not true. In any case, I agree with your position. RK

: One common use of myth is unrelated to theology and legend. I added "myth" to refer to journalistic uses such as "ten myths about hair loss."

: Sorry, but this addition that I just removed

[The Myth of the Lone Inventor]

: does not fit the journalistic use (traditionally as a list of falsehoods on non-controversial subjects). It properly goes on the Science mythology page, where I am about to put it! :-) -- Cayzle

Look, my new entry (second one on the page) is intended to refer to the journalistic practice of "dispelling myths" -- most often in the form of a list of common and non-controversial misconceptions corrected in the list. This [The Myth of the Lone Inventor] does not fit with the other examples! -- Cayzle

Exactly; I meant it as an example of the first definition, not the second. I wouldn't put on the Scientific myths page, though; it's really just personal commentary, and I certainly don't have the credentials for my commentary on the matter to belong in an encyclopedia. I just like to point to it in Talk pages to explain why I make certain changes to pages about inventions. --LDC

I have heard that Campbell, a mythologist (is that the correct word? I'm not sure) referred to Star Wars as a "modern myth" where "myth" is used in the legend/tradition sense. This contradicts the idea that a myth doesn't have a specific author. I don't know, however, if Campbell's view is supported by other scientists. Does anyone have information on this? --KamikazeArchon

I don't think "no specific author" is a defining characteristic of myths (in the first sense), just a common attribute. Wouldn't you say the names of Santa's reindeer, for example, are an importasnt part of the American myth of Santa Claus, even though they were created by Clement Moore? --LDC

Good point. --KA