text:
User talk:Shmm70

Hello, ! I'm ulayiti, and I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * How to avoid common mistakes

When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me on my talk page. You can also have a look at the help pages or put up a question at the village pump. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! - ulayiti (talk)  17:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Cursive 18:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Alternatively - create a user subpage by clicking User:Shmm70/sandbox and editing that page - it will give you somewhere permanent to test/prepare your new contributions until they are ready to be put into the encyclopaedia. Cursive 18:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Untitledseyed.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Untitledseyed.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shmm70


text:
User talk:DefectorMKB

Howdy.

I have really become quite inactive in what I do on Wikipedia. I am sure the message you received in my name did not come from me.

I would be willing to assist you to find out who actually sent the message, but I am not sure if there is anything we can do to find out who really sent it.

I have been away so long from this I have even forgot how to sing my name. I will try what I remember.

Here goes:

KeyStroke 17:39, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:DefectorMKB


text:
Talk:Aquila (constellation)

Typo in image
Altair is marked on the map at "Atair". Is there any way anyone can put in the missing L? Said: mr X

 * Literal answer: yes. Pragmatic answer: I just did. The procedure is this and that complicated, but since I've interests in direction of star map programs, I downloaded PP3 before and regenerated a new aquila, where the name of Atair really is "Altair". Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Aquila - in Latin it would (?) have been circa, the first one illegal:  being the legal one, resulting (by normal sorrowful English vowel distorsion) in. Can anyone attest the monstrosities from any source?? Rursus 10:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aquila (constellation) Trivia
According to the Australian newspaper mX, 3 June 2014, there is enough alcohol in a cloud of the Aquila constellation to make 400 trillion trillion (sic) pints of beer. Any truth in this story? Eligius (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

389 BC Nova
I have tagged unsourced information about a nova observed in 389 BC reportedly being as bright as the planet Venus. This looks like complete BS to me and may in fact simply be a supernova. I haven't been able to find anything about this online. --189.106.227.35 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Delphinus, Sagitta, Aquila, and Antinous.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Delphinus, Sagitta, Aquila, and Antinous.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 4, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquila (constellation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727034820/http://contentdm.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2Fstar_atlas&CISOPTR=479 to http://contentdm.lindahall.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2Fstar_atlas&CISOPTR=479

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Alshain etymology
The statement that Alshain is derived "from the Arabic phrase shahin-i tarazu, meaning "the balance"" is seemingly at odds with Allen's Star Names and Their Meanings, which states that Persian shahin tara zed, "star-striking falcon" (elsewhere also translated as "star-studded") was the name used for the constellation by Persian astronomer Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. Allen does note that three other stars in the constellation were known as the "scale beam", so for all I know what is says now may not be incorrect, but unless Allen was off the tracks it seems at least incomplete. 2A00:1598:B01A:2069:11CA:C2A7:EBE5:4416 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It has a citation. Who are we to say which is the correct explanation?  You could add descriptions of both in the star article itself, which is lacking a good explanation of the proper name, then possibly summarise here.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aquila (constellation)


text:
Talk:Religion and mythology

NPOV - POV arguementation
If anyone has any specific complaints about the quality of article, then post them here. Because the one who added the npov tags did not bring forth any arguements I'm going to remove the tags. If specific arguements arise I'm welcome to restore the npov tags. Androg 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversial
It seems to me that this article about the difference between religion and mythology should not exist. In this sort of logic there could be articles like "Religion and Sorcery", "Mythology and Magic" and so on. There are people that certainly can relate Sorcery to Religion saying that religious rituals are forms of sorcery or people that relate mythology to religion saying that certain stories or events are described to make us believe about God. I consider religion as matter of faith and revelation wich has nothing to do with allegory, prose or paranormal and supernatural beliefs. Mythology in religion seems to me as a poetic form of describing a certain excepcional event, fact or moral. Mythology in primitive or pre-scientifical societies was made to explain the order of Universe or natural events like rain or disease. Science has it´s own "mithology"; in fact, no one can proove the Big Bang. But this discussion is endless (and interesting) because we cannot determine or have any absolute resolutions about the beggining, meaning and end of all things, therefore, this article does not contain information but opinion or belief and should not exist and both questions should be dealed separate.I finish saying that The Monster of Loch Ness is also a myth.--Fpenteado 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion, there probably should be articles like "Religion and Sorcery", "Mythology and Magic", etc. Magic and sorcery have always been a large part of every religion. Religion is, as you say, a matter of faith. However it's faith in paranormal and supernatural beliefs. Also, science is absolutely nothing like mythology or religion, as it constantly changes with new evidence and therefore to be a scientist requires constant and persistent incredulity - the opposite of faith. By the way, in case you're interested, nothing can be proven, except in formal logic. To not be gullible means to accept whatever has the greatest amount of evidence; in the case of the creation of the universe it's the big bang.

What does the loch Ness monster have to do with anything? Because it's a story with no evidence, like religion and myth?--124.149.49.239 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit for NPOV
I think that in the re-write you'll have to take into consideration that for many religious people "Mythology" has absolutely no conscious bearing on their religion whatever. You might write the article in such a way that you call all of those people "ignorant" or mistaken. Or, alternatively, you might try to account for what gives rise to their understanding of the relation between Religion and Mythology. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * For some religious people, "Mythology" may have absolutely no conscious bearing on their religion whatever. That is a subjective opinion that an individual can make. Others differ in that. The connotation that the word "Mythology" is a bad thing or a good thing is subjective (eg., making choices about how to allocate meanings to some data).

 * If you believe that an article should call people "ignorant" or mistaken, then we would have to disagree. I believe that an article should just state the facts of the subject objectively. As to the suggestion for accounting for what gives rise the relation between Religion and Mythology, that could be covered in the similarities section. JDR 18:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Could you list exactly why the POV tag is there? A list of your objections could be good. If not, then the tag should be removed. JDR 18:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that I did, at the top of this article.
 * These aren't "subjective" opinions more than ours are. The definition of a "myth" is given, and the religious view of these people is that it does not describe their religion.  It is in fact what their religion teaches.  IZAK has discussed this regarding Orthodox Judaism.  Another user has said the same thing with regard to Assyrian Orthodoxy.  "Mythology" does not underlie their religion; it is the wrong category to apply - according to them.  Mythologists have a different opinion.
 * Now here we come along and create articles and categories that actually dogmatically assert that they are objectively incorrect, and relegate their objections to a mere scruple, a subjective conflict of perceptions. You don't like the word "ignorant", but this evades the fact that you are calling them ignorant by the things that you assert as "fact" (which is, after all, a POV). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Not really ... a bulleted list would be nice.
 * How about these ...
 * "subjective" opinions
 * Article titles
 * definition of a "myth"
 * terminology
 * Now ... I'll addree them here ...
 * Made a whole section on this.
 * The titles of the articles are mainly objectively correct and NPOV. Your religious POV (eg., Orthodox Presbyterian Church elder) seems to cloud your view of the title.
 * The religious views of a people (any group current or historical) is thier mythology.
 * I'm not calling them ignorant. The terminology objections are doubts about the subjective conflict of perceptions. That is a POV and it is now covered in the article in a NPOV fashion. The terminology that are asserted are common knowledge.
 * As to your other comments: Mythology does describe a religion (true or untrue). It may be a fact what a religion teaches it's followers. But those outside the religion don't see it as a fact of reality. Varying views, varying mythologies. "Mythology" does underlie religions; it isn't the wrong category to apply to them.
 * If you could source the opinion of a reliable mythologist, I'd be in favor to include it. JDR 20:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you name a "myth" where "Trinity" is the subject of the narrative? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "Trinity". The Encyclopedia Mythica Online has this in the "Other mythologies" section. JDR 18:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No - not a mythologist who lists the Trinity as a "myth"; I mean, a myth - the explanatory story, the traditional narrative in which the Trinity appears. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Trinity is an element (eg., the deity) of the Christian catechism (eg., christian mythology) that God exists as three persons. JDR 20:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia must not dogmatically assert, suggest, or massage the reader into believing that the correct way to look at all religions is in terms of mythology, when those religions dogmatically assert that this is not the correct way to look at their religion. And you are really stretching the meaning of "myth" to the breaking point, when you apply it to a doctrine, or a doctrinal summary.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that your copyedit was pretty good Mkmcconn. Congrats. JDR 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And thank you for letting me pull you aside to discuss this.  I still have a problem with the use of Myth as a category; but perhaps you would be interested in looking at the discussion on Category:Christian mythology, where a categorization scheme is being worked out, that is sensitive to issues raised on this page.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

-- Ok, I might not be a registered user on wikipedia, but I am studying theology and therefore also mythology. Now... I don't mean to be offensive, but I honestly think that Mark here doesn't understand what mythology is (considered to be). And thus he's constantly trying to argue against it.

For example: "I think that in the re-write you'll have to take into consideration that for many religious people "Mythology" has absolutely no conscious bearing on their religion whatever."

Ok, lets cut it simple - Show me a religious person for whom there are no "stories" or "narratives" which carry an important sacred meaning. Heck, one could not be a christian or jew or muslim, if he didn't believe in different narratives! The very story of Christ is a myth. It's part of the christian mythology, if we apply such a system of terminology.

Every religious person carries at least some sort of narratives with him through which he "sees" the meaning of the sacred. That's mythology in action in a religion.

Now... maybe there are such for whom there are no narratives, but they definitely are not - could not be! - part of any official churches in the world!

All in all - again - show me a religious person for whom there are no narratives - in other words myths.

Til then your arguements claiming that the article is wrong are simply NOT valid.

-- Androg.

 * Uh-huh... And if you water down the word "myth" to mean only "any narrative that supports a belief structure", then by that token, it would be equally valid to say that the Big Bang, Evolution, and the Documentary Hypothesis are all "myths" as well... Because they are all just hypotheses and origin-explanations believed by a limited number of people, that have never been, and could never be, conclusively proven... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone can find understanding, meaning or how to live one's life in the theory of Big Bang, then yes - for him that is a myth indeed. Notice that I use the myth strictly as something which helps a person to develop his life, as something on which one relies in his developments in the life.

Not "any theory/idea/whatever which can't be proven to last bit" can be counted as a myth in this sense. Big bang, or Darwin's theory are not myths in this sense. I don't think I know anyone who finds "personal life development" through those...

Basicly, for those not dealing with mythologies actively in their lives I suggest watching a nice interview-documentary "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth". Although strongly based on his own personal views, Campbell there nicely explains how myths "work" even in today's everyday life.

(Ok, made myself an account now.) -- Androg 00:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Ok, because of no further counter-arguements I have removed the tags questioning the neutrality of the article. If you disagree with this decision then discuss the subject HERE! Androg 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Need more sections
This article is woefully incomplete. How can you discuss "Religion and mythology" without having a section explaining the etymology of "myth" as it is used Biblically to mean fable, and without clarifying that that dictionary definition is still the popular usage of the world, as opposed to the academic? This article takes only the definition it likes, and ignores the other, precisely the reason why the academic usage is problematic. Codex Sinaiticus 18:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Addressing "myth" as it is used Biblically should be covered in the Religous views section. (now done) The addressing the religious and academic view is NPOV. It doesn't ignore any view, but put the terminology in context. I'm removing the tag. JDR 18:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I also put in the "This is a popular usage in the world." JDR 18:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Would you take some time to include those balancing factors, so that the disputed tag can be removed as soon as possible, Codex? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll try when I get a chance, but in the meantime if I don't get to it, by all means, start without me! Codex Sinaiticus 18:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh for crying out loud... this Codex guy spent ages trying to redefine myth to meet his Biblical understanding of the word (and specificually that it never, ever could be applied to anything in his religion)... the last thing we need is him pushing his POV here any more than he already has, as his attempt to modify the definition on the myth and mythology articles failed spectacularly because people who understood the definition were there to stop him. DreamGuy 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The above is a perfect example of the sort of ad hominem argument / personal attack that wikipedia could really do without. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mystery religion" POV
To describe Christianity as a Mystery religion immediately conjures connections with the POV that Christianity is a form of Gnosticism, or that it is the product of the same stream of mythos as that from which Gnosticism arises. This highly speculative and contrarian view is very emphatically not the way that Christianity views itself; and it is also not a sustainable perspective on Judaism or even Islam at all, in my opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The term is bolded in the Mystery religion article. Mabey that should be changed. I did rv it here and made an open wlnk to revealed religions. JDR 18:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

French revolution and academics
The statement "There may actually be ample precedent and justification for such a view. For example, a similar statement was made by the 'academics' at the time of the French Revolution, fostering a climate in France where even speaking of the Bible as anything but a myth came to be viewed as treasonable." sounds right, but it needs a citation. I'll look around for one. JDR 05:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Evangelists?
Reddi, why do you feel that evangelists need to be picked out as being of particular interest? All that an evangelist is, is someone who explains religious beliefs to others. The evangelist represents the larger group of "religious people", the people who, like him, hold those beliefs. It makes the sentence read strangely to have "evangelists" positioned as the typical group represented, when all that person is a typical representative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, an evangelists is a particular example. Add others if possible. An evangelist conducts preaching and/or proselytizing of Christian Gospel. Why do you feel that evangelists need be removed as a particular example? JDR 16:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It just sounds funny to my Christian ear, to have "evangelists" picked out this way. They are not the source of these beliefs, but the communicators of it.  They are not even usually in a position of articulating the belief in a scholarly sense, over against those who oppose - that is an apologist.
 * Also, the word has specific, exclusive reference to Christians; whereas the paragraph represents more than Christian religious belief. When you say "such as", to pick out the most representative example, and your choice directs you to "evangelists", it indicates that you are speaking generally but thinking specifically.  Again, it sounds funny and slightly confused. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Putting in the wlnk to denote an example of any individual conduction any form of preaching or proselytizing of religous nature. The word, by extension from the specific reference to Christians, has other connotations (a reason for a wlnk to the article; eg., any form of recruitment or spreading-the-word for a group or movement seen as ideological or committed). I am not sure if non-Abrahamic religions have a similar form of proselytizier (and if they do if there is a nice short term for them).
 * The phrase "such as" picks out an example, that's it (a list of other examples could be good). I'll see if I can find more to add to the types of people.
 * I would say that the apologist wlnk was a good addition. JDR

 * 'Evangelist' to my ears refers to 'Evangel', another name for the Gospels, ie the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that tell of Christ's life, and the Gospel he preached. So an 'Evangelist' is someone who specifically teaches from these four books, right?  Codex Sinaiticus 23:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That also is a proper use of the word. John the Evangelist, is the writer of the Gospel of John. Here though, Reddi is trying to give examples of the sort of people who might raise the objections mentioned.  He lists "evangelist" because it suggests that the reason these people might object, is because they have an interest in promoting exclusive belief in their religion.  The choice he's made stumbles though, over issues of typical use.  If a (evangelical) Christian were to make a list of those who might object, he would not (typically) put evangelists in that list.  Apologists, pastors, priests, spiritual guides, rabbis, seminary professors, writers, any of these would work better than "evangelist" - because, contrary apparently to Reddi's perceptions, within evangelical culture evangelists do not have this typifying function of defending against perceived attack (except where "evangelist" is just another name for one of those others, as in Restoration Movement traditions). Of course, any evangelist might have to do the work of an apologist - but apologist is specifically the term he is looking for.
 * Except, apparently, what Reddi wants is a "wink" that implies that the main reason somebody would want to object, is to win others over by claiming the uniqueness of their religious belief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am trying to give examples of the sort of people who might raise the objections mentioned. Apologists is already cited. Mabey pastors, priests, rabbis, seminary professors, spiritual guides, and some religous writers. Also, non-Abrahamic examples need to be sought out (like figures in the Native American population ... mabey Shaman?). (I'll put in some of these into the article.)
 * What I would like included are examples of religous individuals that would object (other than the "main defender" [eg., apologists]). Some evangelists, especially the televangelists (a sub-category of evangelists), do defend against perceived attacks and would take such use of terminology as an attack on thier religion (as I have heard them say). As to the reason why somebody would want to object to such use, I am not sure. Your proposition that win others over by claiming the uniqueness of their religious belief is possible.
 * BTW, "WLNK" is shorthand for "wikilink" (wlnk). [I think that you tooks that as 'wink']
 * Sincerely, JDR 17:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * PS., If the terminology of the Abrahamic mythologies are changed ... the same should be done to the Native American mythologies.

 * I was being cute about wlnk. It was a bad joke, implying bad faith on your part.
 * A number of us have agreed with your point about other articles categorized as mythology; however, as you have pointed out, the word does not always have the negative connotations that it has based on the New Testament definition. We don't want to force our scheme on a community, as though we know better how your narratives should be categorized in a neutral fashion.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Article quality
This article seems to suffer from a distinct lack of organisation, as well as some questionably relevant stuff. I've removed some of the wrong definitions, but we seem to have sectiosn that go into Norse myth, and then ends up discussing the similarities of Christian rituals with the rituals of other organisations of the time, without really explaining what this has to do with mythology. Needs a big tidy. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Distinct lack of organisation? I would think that this is a 'work in progress' ... being a relatively new article.
 * 2) Questionably relevant stuff? Please specify.
 * 3) Wrong definitions? How so ... have you looked up the defintions? That is what they state.
 * 4) Section crossover? They are distinct sections ... The discussion of the the similarities of rituals in ancient mythologies and current mythologies should be seen as different topic (and this is why there is another header) from the prior general discussion of "Religion and mythology".
 * 5) Explain what this has to do with mythology? The ancient religious orders and modern religous orders share common features. Both type of mythologies have common rituals and/or beliefs; and, there are differences between ancient orders and modern ones.
 * 6) Needs a big tidy? Please state the exact conerns. I'd be willing to discuss it and put it in. JDR 17:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (PS., the Buddhist view and the Native American views [ie., non-Abrahamic views] should be included in this article.)

 * I would agree with the idea this article needs some work, particular areas that I was confused by enough that I couldn't decide what the article was trying to say include:

 * 'From this perspective, Story (Myth), figures prominently in most religions and belief systems, and specific mythologies are tied to at least one religion.'
 * 'Simplification of cultures and time periods by eliminating detailed data remain vulnerably delicate or flimsy in this area of research.'
 * 'Duplication being done by Christians and Pagan bidirectionally, coincidentally or directly outright.'

 * The similarities bulleted list seems to be making an assumption that I missed - it talks about both, for example, without specifically mentioning two items - is it supposed to be referring to Abrahamic religions and Paganism again? If so this impression is lost as one of the points higher in the list refer to Hinduism, seeming to broaden the dialogue into a more general comparision.

 * Of course that also has a problem because it mentions a Hindu practise, but doesn't specifically match the practise to another religion. The same is true of Baptism on the next line, I know from common knowledge baptism is used in Christianity, but it doesn't specify what other religions also perform similar rituals (I seem to remember some Indian's practised something similar in the Ganges from a documentary I saw a long time back, but would have to confirm what religion that was, it could even been a localisation of christian beliefs for all I remember).

 * In general what is the particular reason for talking about Similarities and Contrasts of religions between each other (sometimes specifically Abrahamic and Pagan religions) in this article when it is supposed to be about Religion and mythology? Shouldn't this sections expand on how the terms religion and mythology either overlap (in similarities), or in contrasts were they are different from each other?

 * Some of the other areas of the article seem to be fairly solid, but these two sections particularly seemed to be a bit off the point and hard to read. I don't really know enough about this to want to step in particularly on a contested article, so will leave it to someone else who has the time to be bold. Sfnhltb 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
A myth, according to Webster, is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon: parable, allegory." The rest of the definition also implies a certain unverifiable or imaginery nature.

While your discourse on the 'academic' nature of the topic is well-written, we must remember that most readers of this article will still, primarily, read the word "myth" to mean what was noted above. With this in mind, there should, perhaps, be two brief mentions: the first, being the difference acknowledged within a religion between canon and myth (that which is scriptural, and those stories that have grown outside of scripture); the second, a specification that since academically 'myth' as a term applies to the nature of the story and the meaning thereof, meaning that, in some cases, the same event can be both factual and mythical. For example, the trials and sentencing of five of the Apostles are retold in the Talmud and other documents, making portions of Acts factual by most current conventions. We could go so far as to mention the references to Jesus, but as these are under such heavy dispute, I think it would be better left out.

Will this calm all the critics? No..nothing will. I do, however, believe they are warranted for such a broad-view discourse on the topic. I welcome your response.

Peace! User:Deleted_user_jj1 22:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was this article created?
Having read the article, I'm left wondering why the original author created it. What point was he/she trying to make, what information needed to be conveyed? Because I can't honestly see how anything can be written here that can't be written in quite separate artciles called religion and mythology. What's the point in drawing them together like this? PiCo 12:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, considering the people involved and the content, looks to me that the article was created to push a certain viewpoint. I really see no point to this article either as it currently stands. DreamGuy 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is to explain how these topics compare, how they differ, and how they relate to one another.Goldenrowley 05:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS REFERENCES!!!
I looked through this article, and I saw almost zero endnotes. A good article should have endnotes scattered thickly throughout the text. Could anyone add them? --Phatius McBluff 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. I want you to know I really like the way you rewrote the paragraph that I found controversial in a new way. In case you want to participate, there is a lively and active discussion about the topic of this article on the talk pages of Wikiproject Mythology and Wikiproject Religion. Goldenrowley 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DISPUTE
I would like to dispute this entire article, if I may be so privleged. It is one sided, extremely patronizing, and meets every definition of the word "POV Pushing", making one wonder why it exists at all. It seems only one side of the coin is welcome here, although much more could be said than was recently excised on the subject of historical abuse of the term mythology. Please be patient and allow for due process without playing judge jury and executioner for one in your life and dismissing these objections out of hand. 70.105.50.115 13:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be more precise. To what, specifically, do you object? What changes do you propose? This is not a dispute, this is a blanket attack of the article with no reasons given. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, for one example it cites as one of the supporting definitions of classicist Robert Graves the opinion that 'myths' are "whatever religious or heroic legends are so foreign to a student's experience that he cannot believe them to be true." This would seem to lend support to the later statement 'The relationship between religion and myth depends on what definition of "myth" one uses.'  With definitions such as Graves', the subjective nature of the term rings out loud and strong.  But this is seemingly ignored in the following unique commentary and analysis, and instead we are told "Significantly, none of the above definitions imply that myths are false."  Who thinks up this stuff? Til Eulenspiegel 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Good grief, Til, was that you editing anonymously, or someone else?
 * Ok, that one is clearly a contradiction within the article, which is an accuracy not a POV issue. Perhaps the sentence was placed before the Graves definition; I'm not going to dig through history to find out, lets just fix it. The statement is inaccurate, or at least very arguably inaccurate (the argument could be made that many true things are very hard to believe, but that doesn't make them less true.) I have removed the sentence pending outcome of this discussion, as it does not damage the flow of the rest of the paragraph. We can leave it out, or rework it.
 * Thoughts? Feedback? Objections? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * KillerChihuahua, thanks for correcting my not-so-little error there. I wrote the "relationship between" section, and I also added the Graves quote. I'll have to be more careful later. However, in defense of the article as it currently stands, I agree with KillerChihuahua that that error (now corrected) doesn't affect the actual point being made: nowadays the scholarly use of the word "myth" usually isn't derogatory. (I'd argue this even in the case of Graves's definition: he isn't a Greek pagan, so of course he doesn't believe Greek myths are true; that doesn't mean he's trying to insult Greek paganism by calling its stories "myths".)

 * As for the recent removal of much of the text in the "Opposition to categorizing all sacred stories as myths" subsection, I did most of the removal. I'm sorry if this makes the "Religious views" section seem unbalanced, but we can't put up unreferenced material to achieve balance. All claims on this or any other article should be referenced, as most of that stuff wasn't. Also, much of what I removed didn't explain its own relevance to the issue being discussed. I mean, yes, the Soviet Union did persecute religions, but what does that have to do with religious individuals opposing the word "myth"?

 * If I'm completely missing the point of this charge against the article, please let me know. --Phatius McBluff 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur completely on that section; I removed it entirely. The Soviet Union addition had nothing to do with myths, as you accurately note. The French bit did, but "for a time speaking of the Bible as anything except a myth came to be viewed by authorities as treasonable." was fact tagged since February, with no sources being offered. If it is to be in the article, it needs a source.
 * It seems the accuracy about definitions has been resolved, are there other objections or problems with the article? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KillerChihuahua. Also, I'm anticipating an objection to what I just posted above, so I'll make a preemptive defense now.
 * One might say, "Yes, Graves didn't exactly mean to insult Greek paganism by calling it "myth". But by using that term, as he had defined it, he clearly did imply that he didn't personally believe in Greek paganism. Thus, anyone who calls (say) Christian stories "myths", and uses Graves's definition, is claiming that he doesn't believe in Christianity. That's a perfectly legitimate personal belief, but it becomes POV when we build it into an article. Hence, entitling an article Christian mythology implies that it's common knowledge that Christianity is false. That's an insult to Christianity."
 * This objection works only if we've accepted Graves's definition as the official definition on Wikipedia. We have not done so. Right now, unless specificity calls for a different definition (see Legend for an example), Wikipedians pretty consistently use "myth" to mean "traditional story" or "sacred story" -- not "false traditional story" or "false sacred story". I realize that there are some exceptions (some of the most inexcusable are in the Christian mythology article). However, we users had better get our act together and start using "myth" without the implication of falsehood if we're going to have articles like Christian mythology at all. --Phatius McBluff 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To discuss the last point I mentioned above, please see 2 discussions on the talk page for Wikipedia's "mythology project":
 * --Phatius McBluff 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It still doesn't seem accurate or to blatantly ignore the pejorative history of the term, or pretend it never had one and is now in 2007 suddenly "innocent" of all innuendo. There are many sources throughout history that can be shown of people using it in a pejorative manner in a definition that matches Graves' definition; and there are also sources that can be found quoting those who have objected to this.  All it takes is a little looking.  The fact that it is still used as a pejorative today every bit as much as it was in the French Revolution, or at any other time is truly alarming, and we should not pretend it has gone unnoticed here; for example, just search out all the instances of 'myth' 'mythology' on this internet discussion of less than a month old, that are obviously, in the context, nothing other than pejorative: Professor compares Bible to Mein Kampf. That kind of talk is certainly a POV, but should probably be described as such neutrally rather than what sometimes seems like overt sympathy from the 'establishment' of this project, that tends not to be exactly user friendly. 70.105.50.115 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I realize that the term still has pejorative connotations. And that's why a consistent use of non-pejorative definitions on Wikipedia (with the unavoidable result that Christian, Muslim, etc. stories will end up being categorized as "myths") is so necessary. We must educate the public about the scholarly use of terms, precisely to avoid disputes like this one when the public reads "real" (non-Wikipedia) scholarly writings. For instance, Wikipedia articles on science don't use the word "theory" in its popular sense of "guess" or "mere hypothesis"; they use it as it is used by the scientific community: to mean a hypothesis that has been empirically verified. --Phatius McBluff 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, that's why some users have been working on this info box

 * which we hope will calm the critics. --Phatius McBluff 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Graves' definition is the only one that makes sense. One person's "mythology" is another person's way of life and firm belief. A students views of what not to believe depends on his experience.  Given that his quote alone is good evidence of the subjectiveness of the label 'mythology', it does not make sense to use it where there is any significant disagreeing pov, only in those cases where there is no disagreeing pov, eg. Norse myths - even the thousand or so practitioners of Norse religion today apparently do not claim the Eddas are sacred or true, so there is no objection in that case. On the other hand, many religions like Bon (Tibet) are significant enough to warrant escaping having their texts and firm beliefs labelled "Bon mythology".  When "myth" is thus in the 'eye of the beholder' anyway as Graves suggests (thus explaining why there are so many conflicting definitions for it) it's just better to reserve it for those cases where there is no serious objection from a large living group or organization. Til Eulenspiegel 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * First: Actually, yes, Asatru people do think the Norse myths are sacred and true. They believe that "that the Eddas, Myths and Norse Sagas are the divinely inspired wisdom of [their] religion".

 * Second: Isn't that slightly circular reasoning? Graves's definition is the only one that makes sense if you start out by defining a myth as a story which the speaker does not regard as true (= Graves's definition). Words are just words. They mean what their users define them to mean. If the professional folklorists define a myth as a sacred story about the creation of the world, then that's what the word "myth" means when used by folklorists; it makes no sense to say that that isn't what the word "really" means because others use it differently.

 * Of course, for reasons addressed in the "Opposition to categorizing all sacred stories as myths" section, members of certain religions (particularly Christianity) may feel offense at the use of the word "myth", even when it's carefully defined. But this isn't the same thing as saying that the word "myth" is offensive because it necessarily means such-and-such. The word "myth" doesn't necessarily mean anything.

 * Frankly, I think we're getting nowhere here. I'm starting to feel that we should remove or rename the Christian mythology article if it's going to cause so much trouble. Do the same for articles on the sacred stories of other "living" religions if you want to. (I'd point out that Hindus don't have a problem with classes on "Hindu mythology" being taught at UC Berkeley.) If it's just a PC matter of avoiding the stigma surrounding the word "myth", then I guess I'm not going to argue against it; I'm just not passionate enough about this (frankly exhausting) argument.

 * However, whatever we end up doing with the religion articles, please remember one thing: If we do end up removing references to "mythology" from articles on "living religions", then we must not do it because of claims about what mythology "really" is. There's absolutely no scholarly consensus on the proper use of the word "myth"; it doesn't "really" mean anything.

 * To see what I mean, consider the word "bitch". That originally meant "female dog". However, it now has less pleasant connotations. Hence, an encyclopedia article on dogs might avoid using the word "bitch" because its mere use might offend people even if the writers strictly define how they're using it. But the reason can't be some argument about what bitch "really" means.
 * --Phatius McBluff 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The Graves quote is jarring, but I was not going to say anything till you braught it up. It should be acknowleged but it's not the only definition. Now I cant beleive today's idea to entirely scrap "christian mythology" article. I'll go over and see if I can find the sentence on that page and fix it right now. This is a public forum its not easy to keep all articles coherent, but that does not mean its run by Stalinists or an elite people. Goldenrowley 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I think each of the mythology definition quotes Graves should be dated, because at Wiktionary I learned that its important to date each definition, the meanings of words change over time, sometimes radically sometimes more organically. I think this will help if we put them in date order. Goldenrowley 08:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another accuracy / neutrality dispute

 * The definition given supposedly given as that of the 1830 Westminster Review is innacurate. I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume somebody got confused in his or her research.  The definition we see there, "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." is a recent definition written within the past 15 years by the OED. It isn't even the original definition the earlier editions of the OED gave with that quote.  The actual words of the 1830 Westminster Review cited there in tell a far different story about its earliest cited usage, one which makes the context clear as being a synonym for "a story derived from a fable".  So let's "bust" this "myth".
 * By the way, the so-called "popular" definition of "myth" as equivalent "B.S." is becoming more and more widespread in today's media as a buzzword. Did anyone catch just in yesterday's news, where a woman was claiming to be hassled at a security checkpoint at Reagan National Airport over a sippy cup.  The airport actually responded by making a webpage showing the actual security footage of the incident, entitling the webpage, as it happens, "Mythbusters", with a detailed explanation of how they were "busting myths" by refuting the woman's claim that the security guards were out of line or unprofessional.  Given what myth means in 2007 English, I would once again call for careful considerations of all the ambiguities of this scholarly term and think about all NPOV implications of labelling sacred texts of living religions as "myth".  This is exactly why "sacred texts of living religions" and "myth" have always (at least in pre-wikipedia days) been conventionally considered as two completely distinct subjects in neutral discussions. Til Eulenspiegel 13:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel:

As I said above, I personally am not going to throw a tantrum if someone decides to redirect Christian mythology and Islamic mythology to "Christian traditional narrative" and "Islamic traditional narrative". And I'm painfully aware of the wide variety of scholarly definitions used in the discussion of myth.

However it is simply not true that "sacred texts of living religions" and "myth" have always been conventionally considered as "completely distinct" in scholarly discussions. Some examples of cases where they're not considered "completely distinct": Of course, you can say all these are examples of "non-neutral" discussions, but that would hardly be a constructive move. Can't we just say that there have been some genuinely neutral, non-derogatory contexts in which "myth" has been applied to living religions?
 * My Egyptology professor at UC Berkeley said that "myth" (sacred narrative) and "ritual" (sacred ceremony) are two major elements in religion in general.
 * Robert Segal, the Professor of Theories of Religion at the University of Lancaster, freely applies the term "myth" to the stories of living religions in Myth: A Very Short Introduction.
 * Mircea Eliade, a former Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago, uses the word "myth" when writing of Christian narratives (although he notes the "ambiguity" that, for many Christians, surrounds the term).
 * UC Berkeley teaches classes on "Hindu Mythology".
 * I myself have "facilitated" a student-facilitated course on "Mythical Thought", in which some of the readings being discussed were Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, African, and Australian Aboriginal religious stories. I can assure you that I didn't mean to insult any of those stories when I included them in the course reader.
 * Wiccans, Asatru, and other Neopagans (who are clearly "living" religions) freely -- even conventionally -- call their own sacred stories "myths".

I realize that, no matter how we define "myth", there will always be readers who will be offended by the word "myth", because of some of its other uses. I freely admit that some of these negative uses occur even in scholarly contexts. However, that does not change the fact that there are numerous professional, scholarly contexts in which "myth" is defined in a way that has nothing to do with truth or falsehood; a prime example is the conventional use of the term "myth" among professional folklorists: "a sacred story about the origins of the world and natural phenomena".

So, Til Eulenspiegel, I'm just asking ... Can't we at least agree that there are many scholars who apply the term "myth" to living religions without any intent to insult, and even without any insensitivity? (Whether these scholars should continue using the word "myth" this way, if they were fully aware of the full consequences, is a separate question.) If we can just agree on this point -- that there are some cases of genuinely well-meaning, not-intentionally-biased dialogues within academia in which "myth" is applied to living religions -- then I'll be satisfied. --Phatius McBluff 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Phatius, of course there are, no one is intentionally biased and I at least assume good faith. Good points about this article: it now presents pro and cons. I consider that non-biased dialog where both sides are developed and clarified and allowed to be presented. What you added recently on CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien is right on topic. Look at the number of their books sold, and the movies made based on their theories, the way they change our idea of myth and religion and it passes the test of word use notability (by far). Several ideas: (1) the article does not mention New Age as a religion. I wonder if we can add it and mention George Lucas and his mythopoeia (sp?) of Star Wars and "the force" (2) The thoughts of pro-Jewish writers seem a little weak now(as I dont know the notability of the two guys quoted) (3) As mentioned by Til E. Something about Google Hits can be added, but needs to be well written and needs to be about using the word in the context of religion...not on the topic of sippy cups. Goldenrowley 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Goldenrowley: (1) I'm totally in favor of adding info on New Age. Star Wars is a trickier matter. I know for a fact that Lucas called his movies an attempt to recreate mythological themes, etc.; however, I don't have at hand a source to cite for that claim. If you're going to write on Star Wars, be sure to find a source where Lucas himself explicitly states that his goal was to create a mythology. (I think you can find such a quote in an interview Lucas had with Bill Moyers. I'll see if I can find it on YouTube...) (2) I know those Jewish scholars I cited aren't well-known, but I think we should keep them until we find something better for Judaism. The whole discussion tends to be somewhat Christo-centric, and it's nice to mention views from a variety of religions. (3) Had you been discussing Google hit counts for "myth"? I guess I missed that part of the discussion. Anyway, I agree with you and Til E about adding something on Google hits. I think it's very pertinent. ... The only problem is, how are we going to document the Google hit count? --Phatius McBluff 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I just remembered an article I found that's relevant to the "Star Wars mythology" concept. I don't think it's a sufficient reference for our main purpose of classifying Star Wars as modern "mythopoeia". But you might like to take a look at it.

 * I don't remember saying anything about Google Hits. How would anyone ever know how many thousand hits use a search term in a given sense? Google is fairly useless for such things...

 * The misattribution of the recent OED quote to 1830 is still a glaring misnomer / inaccuracy, but nobody commented on that. I guess I will go ahead and try to figure out the best way to fix it for accuracy. Til Eulenspiegel 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry; I wasn't the one who put up the Westminster Review quote; that's why I didn't comment on it. (Actually, I hadn't heard of the Westminster Review till it was quoted in this article.) Anyway, back to Star Wars: for a good source, see this article, which provides a quote where Lucas says, "With 'Star Wars' I consciously set about to re-create myths and the classic mythological motifs..." The article itself is also an excellent example of the criticism that some have leveled against Lucas's (admittedly pompous) claims of mythopoeic inspiration. --Phatius McBluff 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Til E. I'd be fine with a correction to Wesminister. In fact, I'd be fine to replace it with any reuputable current dictionary source if Westminster was too obscure to find a copy. OED is reputable. Phatius - Thanks for the link on George Lucas! I wonder if he's serious about the religious aspect, it might be worth bringing up here otherwise maybe the quote belongs on the mythopoeia page(s).Goldenrowley 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you also read the 2nd article I mentioned, which disputed Lucas's claims of mythological inspiration? I think the vacuousness of some of Lucas's claims deserve mention too. ... Also, you might be interested in this article. It discusses Star Wars' "mythological" aspects from a somewhat conservative Christian perspective -- and, on the whole, approves. I found it fascinating.
 * Sorry if it feels like I'm just dumping a lot of info on you for you to sort out. ... I just don't know the best way to integrate this info into Wikipedia. I was a bit surprised when you mentioned Star Wars on the Religion and mythology talk page; I also thought this was more a topic for Mythopoeic literature. --Phatius McBluff 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * NO need to apologize I incorporated your found references on Mythopoeic literature and it made a good addition there.Goldenrowley 06:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC) ...
 * I realize I may have confused artificial religion with real. O hope we resolved the POV dispute with all the recent hard work. Goldenrowley 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Source(s)
Here is a potential good looking source article: "Myth and Religion: The Same or Different? Evaluating the Good and the Bad" By William Doty, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at the University of Alabama and editor of Mythosphere. Goldenrowley 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed a passage
''Sociologists and historians of religion are not primarily interested in these stories for their historical value. They analyze religions in terms of the role which their stories and histories play, within the religious system. Histories and imaginative stories alike are treated as a body of myths, when they are regarded by a people as expressing profound truths. Describing the essential and traditional stories accepted as mysteries and historical narratives considered true is consequently just a tool for theological studies and study of the systems of common experience in general. Without necessarily speaking to the veracity of the faith's tenets or claims about its history, these mythological elements are studied for their mythic value.'' Sorry; I couldn't leave this passage in. It seems redundant: that is, it seems to be saying stuff that's already repeatedly covered nearby in the article (with a rather odd and unsupported emphasis on "sociologists and historians of religion"). Or if it isn't redundant, then I'm clearly not understanding it. Either way, it's unreferenced and worded confusingly. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Current Example of Religion and Mythology
A current case of religion and mythology is found at the Father Damien article and discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Focusing on the Catholic standards for approving posthumous miracles. Myth Florida (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Please add any material you feel is relevant. Please keep in mind, though, that mythology is not the same as theology, ritual, etc. Material on Father Damien should focus on the stories of his miracles. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If Religion is a branch of Mythology then the article is Biased
As the title says. Apotetios (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion is not a branch of mythology. Rather, mythology is a part of religion. Each religion has its own narratives that describe such things as the origin of the world and the source of evil. These stories give the society that believes in them a way of integrating themselves into the world and making sense of it. I don't know how many times it can be stated that myth is not an insult and does not necessarily mean false. Modern Christians look at the religious tales of ancient Greece and call them myths, many even look at the religious tales of modern non-Christians and call them myths simply because they don't believe them. However, these same people are unable to accept the idea that from an outsider's perspective THEIR OWN religious narratives are indistinguishable in nature from myths. That is what NEUTRAL point of view is all about, seeing things from the perspective of a total outsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

i honestly dont see a big difference,jsut one sounds more ''serious' then the other,dependign on how its taken it can be eithor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.140.226 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

doesn't the article need to "Mythology and mythology"?
Religion is what believers of a mythology call their mythology. ex. Greek mythology must of been refered differently by their believers thousands of years ago as a religion. No one believes it now because they think it's false thus they refer to it as mythology. that's bias, because they call their mythology a religion because it is widely believed, but it doesn't make it necessarily true. ex. people believed the world was flat, the world was at the center of the universe, the planets and sun revolved around the earth, sponteneaus generation, and much more, does that make it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordomono (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. The distinctions made in this article between religion and mythology are convenient, but meaningless. Mythologies have existed in every civilization, but if it's your mythology, you call it religion. The myths are central to the rituals, practices, etc. Rituals don't arise from nothing... myths arise from nothing, and the rituals arise from the myths. NicolasOliva (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Rfc on ambiguous words in religious articles
I would like to invite all contributing editors on this page to take part in the discussion at Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles, which has a bearing on this article.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

100% Right!!!
Ancient and modern Religions, Mythology, etc, has ONE thing in commmon. Everyone that is followed, everyone that follows and everyone that seeks truth is 100% right from their own point of reference, experience and their own framework that they built their OWN world on. Everything can be argued, negotiated and changed as time goes on and we learn more. Keep you morals in check, respect what you don't understand yet and understand that if you were born on a different part of the planet your outlook on life, religion, etc. would have been to opposite of what you are privileged to base today's aruguments on.

Arno Le Roux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.31.201.116 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
This article has been whittled down into a discussion about whether religious stories can be classified as myths. This is neither the place for this nor is it required. I want to read about mythology from different religions, from different points of view by people who know what they're talking about. I don't want to read inane dribble about whether or not myth is an appropriate term or the etymology of the word. That doesn't even need to be mentioned, yet this article has it as a running theme. Wikipedia isn't here to preserve the feelings of every group of people in the world; it is about openly exchanging ideas and knowledge and some of the more immature people will be upset by opposing views; pandering to this stifles discussion and learning. I am offended by this attitude but that isn't the reason I want it to stop, it is about integrity and honour which should be beyond reproach in this kind of endeavour. I removed a couple of paragraphs but I really think this needs more deleted and much, much more added. If you're offended by my desire for information then this isn't the place for you. I will return and if there has been no discussion I will go to work on this article, calling for mediation where I think appropriate. 86.162.37.228 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of article
Has there been any discussion about expanding the scope of this article to describe how specific myths influenced other myths? I.e., create different sections within the article that highlights similar themes within disparate mythologies (like the flood myth, etc.).Jasonnewyork (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolution of Conflict
This problem of one people's Religion being another's Mythology is very serious, and requires a staple of most, if not all, modern Religions: the Golden Rule. Not only can a Religion seemingly pass entirely into Mythology, but a body of entirely novel Myth may become a Religion, and there really need be only one basic rule: a Religion has living, willing, and active adherents, while a Mythology simply does not. If there is someone to be offended, do not go out of your way to offend them. Science has its own logical premises, upheld by mere mortals. Have a care. TheLastWordSword (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Religion and mythology


text:
Portal:Astronomy/Picture/1 September 2005

Maat Mons is the highest volcano on the planet Venus, with its summit lying 8km above the mean planetary radius. Evidence from some Venus landers such as the Pioneer Venus probes has suggested that it may still be an active volcano. This image is derived from radar data taken by the Magellan probe.


text:
Sigi Schwab

Siegfried "Sigi" Schwab (5 August 1940 – 11 January 2024) was a German guitar player and teacher, having performed on more than 15,000 recordings for film, television, and as an accompanist to various artists. He played in a wide variety of styles, including baroque and jazz. Schwab played in German groups like Et Cetera (German band), Embryo, and with Ramesh Shotham. In 1980 Schwab played with Chris Hinze at the 5th North Sea Jazz Festival. Born in Ludwigshafen on 5 August 1940, Schwab died on 11 January 2024, at the age of 83.

Bands

 * Et Cetera with Wolfgang Dauner (p), Eberhard Weber(b), Fred Braceful, Roland Wittig (dr)
 * Embryo with Christian Burchard (dr-perc), Mal Waldron (p), Dave King (b)
 * Diabelli Trio with Willy Freivogel (fl), Enrique Santiago (vla)
 * Guitarissimo with Peter Horton (g)
 * Percussion Academia with Freddie Santiago and Guillermo Marchena (dr-perc)
 * Percussion Project with Ramesh Shotham and Andreas Keller (dr-perc)
 * Mandala duo with Ramesh Shotham

Discography

 * Fabulous Guitar (Philips, 1967)
 * Remember Django Reinhardt (Metronome, 1968)
 * Sound Music Album 8 (Golden Ring, 1975)
 * Frei Wie Ein Vogel im Wind (Abakus, 1976)
 * Sound Music Album 14 (Golden Ring, 1977)
 * Sound Service 1 (Abakus, 1978)
 * Guitarissimo with Peter Horton (Nature, 1978)
 * Wide and Blue with Chris Hinze (Musicians, 1978)
 * Capriccios, Divertimenti, Miniaturen (Melosmusik, 1978)
 * Guitar Special 12 Landler (Melosmusik, 1978)
 * Meditation (Melosmusik, 1979)
 * Siegfried Schwab's Little Flowers (Hor Zu/EMI, 1979)
 * Sound Music Album 22 (Golden Ring, 1979)
 * Guitarissimo/Confianca with Peter Horton (Nature, 1980)
 * It's Ragtime (Jupiter, 1980)
 * Plays Paul Simon (Global, 1980)
 * Guitaristics (Melosmusik, 1981)
 * Hofkonzert (Metronome, 1982)
 * Musique de Cour en Allemagne (Ades, 1982)
 * Total Musik (Keytone, 1982)
 * Solo's, Duo's and Trio's (Keytone, 1982)
 * Backstage with Chris Hinze (Keytone, 1983)
 * Meditation Vol. 2 (Melosmusik, 1986)
 * Anna (Teldec, 1987)
 * Sound Music Album 56 Gitarre (Golden Ring, 1988)
 * Amazonas (Melosmusik, 1992)
 * Clara (EastWest, 1993)
 * Guitarissimo XL with Peter Horton (Solo Musica, 2014)

title: Sigi Schwab


text:
User:JHCC/Christian mythology template proposal and vote sandbox

NOTE This is my sandbox for a template proposal that I am working on. Please do not edit it; all changes will be reverted. JHCC (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Prologue
The use of the Christian mythology category has created controversy. "Mythology" is an extremely useful term to categorize stories that convey religious meaning or belief. However, in contemporary English usage, "Myth" often denotes something that is not true. Some have therefore found the use of these terms offensive, as they can be understood as implying that these stories (both biblical and not) and/or their own religious beliefs are not true.

After much debate, no alternative term has been found that adequately combines the two aspects of "Story" and "Belief". At the same time, Wikipedia cannot have a categorization system that implies (whether deliberately or not) either truth or falsehood of religious beliefs or the historical veracity of their related stories and narratives. Such a system would be a serious violation of the NPOV policy.

The following proposal by JHCC preserves the useful sense of "Myth" as "a story that embodies a belief" while avoiding the negative and potentially offensive sense of "something that is not true."

PROPOSED POLICY
The category Christian mythology is be retained, but with a disclaimer. This disclaimer is to make clear that, for the purposes of Wikipedia categorization, "Myth" and "Mythology" are to be understood only in the sense of "Story conveying belief" and not in the inappropriate sense of "untrue story."

A template ( — see below for text) is to be provided for the convenience of editors wishing to add the disclaimer where appropriate. This template is to be added:
 * 1) at the end of every article in the Christian mythology category,
 * 2) at the top of the discussion pages of those articles, and
 * 3) in the category description, along with the instruction "If you add any article to this category, please add this disclaimer at the very end of the article and at the top of its discussion page, by inserting  at the appropriate point."

PROPOSED TEMPLATE
NOTE: This template is currently located at User:JHCC/Proposed Christian mythology template. If approved, JHCC will move it to Template:Christian mythology.

VOTE
Please add your signature and any remarks to one of the following:

YES
The proposed policy should be adopted, and the disclaimer and its template should be formatted and used as described above.

NO
The proposed policy should be NOT adopted, and the disclaimer and its template should NOT be formatted and used as described above.

NOT YET
Further discussion is needed before a vote can be held.

ABSTAIN
I prefer not to vote on this issue.

Final note
If this policy is approved, we should paste a notice to that effect in the various discussions where this has been an issue. Our work may be helpful to more than us. Thanks to all for a most interesting and constructive debate. JHCC (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


text: User:Merovingian/Images

title: User:Merovingian/Images


text:
File:Le Big Bang.jpg

Summary
Le Big Bang 1987 film by Picha, movie poster.

Fair use rationale for The Big Bang (1987 film)

 * 1) For an article about a film, the original poster is arguably one of the most important images that could be included.
 * 2) No free or public domain images have been located for this film.
 * 3) The image is of lower resolution than the original poster (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
 * 4) The poster is to suggest something of the film's genre and style.
 * 5) The poster is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original film in any way.
 * 6) The poster is used on various websites, and its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is.
 * 7) The poster's use on Wikipedia is entirely encyclopedic in nature.

title: File:Le Big Bang.jpg


text:
Talk:St. Anno

Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics/ Paul 17:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:St. Anno


text:
Astrotech Corporation

Astrotech Corporation, formerly Spacehab Inc., is a technology incubator headquartered in Austin, Texas. Astrotech uses technology sourced internally and from research institutions, government laboratories, and universities to fund, manage and sell start-up companies.

Astrotech Corporation's subsidiaries provide commercial products and services to NASA, the U.S. Department of Defense, national space agencies, and global commercial customers.

Astrotech Corporation
Astrotech Corporation was established in 1984. Prior to 2009, it was known as SPACEHAB, Inc., a company that provided space habitat microgravity experimentation equipment and services to NASA during the Space Shuttle era. As the Shuttle program came to an end, the company put more focus on its spacecraft processing business, Astrotech Space Operations, Inc. (ASO), its mass spectrometer instrumentation business, 1st Detect, Inc. and its microgravity vaccine development company, Astrogenetix, Inc. In August 2014, the company sold Astrotech Space Operations. In February 2015, the company acquired defect correction software and Astral Images Corp. was created to commercialize government funded satellite imagery processing technology and research into automated image correction and enhancement.

Spacehab
Spacehab was founded in 1984 by Bob Citron with the help and support of CSP Associates from Cambridge, Massachusetts. The team from CSP Associates included founder David W. Lippy along with his partners Brad Meslin and Marc Oderman. It was one of CSP's consultants, Dr. David Williamson who conceived of the idea to increase the cargo space on the Shuttles as the primary focus of the Spacehab mission. Early venture capital was supplied by Al Zesiger of BEA Associates in New York City as well as Dr. Shelley Harrison also from New York. CSP Associates and its venture contacts were responsible for raising most of the early seed monies to get the company off the ground and funded. Throughout its more than 20-year history, Spacehab has contracted over $1 billion dollars in total sales.

Spacehab hardware for Space Shuttle missions
Spacehab hardware consists of:
 * Integrated Cargo Carrier (ICC), unpressurized
 * External Stowage Platform (ESP-2 and ESP-3), an ICC variant
 * Logistics Single Module (LSM) and Logistics Double Module (LDM)
 * Single Module (SM) and Research Double Module (RDM), pressurized

The Spacehab hardware was designed to be nestled inside the cargo bay of the Space Shuttles and flew on 22 Space Shuttle missions, including seven to the Russian space station Mir and eight to the International Space Station (ISS). The Single Module flew on seven missions, and the Research Double Module flew only on the ill-fated Columbia STS-107 mission, in which it was destroyed.

The inaugural flight of Spacehab's research double module, which launched January 2003 on STS-107, ended when the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up during re-entry. In February 2003 Spacehab received $17.7 million from its commercial insurance policy. In January 2004, Spacehab filed a formal claim against NASA for the amount of $87.7 million for the loss caused by the Columbia disaster and in October 2004 NASA paid the company $8.2 million. In February 2007, Spacehab dropped all litigation against NASA.

Spacehab's ICC hardware was further developed into the External Stowage Platform (ESP-2 and ESP-1), which are permanently deployed on the ISS. The ESP-2 is attached to the International Space Station's airlock, providing the only permanent, commercial "spare parts" facility for the ISS crew. ESP-3 was deployed during Space Shuttle mission STS-118, on August 8, 2007.

Flights
Legend:
 * ESP - External Stowage Platform
 * ICC - Integrated Cargo Carrier
 * LDM - Logistics Double Module
 * LSM - Logistics Single Module
 * SM - Single Module
 * RDM - Research Double Module

Astrotech Space Operations (ASO)
The Company changed its name to Astrotech Corporation in 2009 to align the corporate name with the company's core business offering, Astrotech Space Operation. ASO provides all support necessary for government and commercial customers to successfully process their satellite hardware for launch–including planning; construction and use of unique equipment and facilities; and spacecraft checkout, encapsulation, fueling, and transport.

Astrotech Corporation management sold ASO, its state-of-the-art satellite servicing operations, to Lockheed Martin in August 2014.

Chemical detection and analysis
1st Detect, an Astrotech subsidiary, develops, manufactures, and sells mass spectrometers that can be used in explosive and chemical warfare detection for the Department of Homeland Security and the military. 1st Detect's miniature mass spectrometer technology was sourced from Oak Ridge National Laboratory's chemical analyzer research.

The company Astrotech Corporation (NASDAQ: ASTC) announced that its Astrotech Technologies, Inc. subsidiary had entered into an agreement with Sanmina Corporation to manufacture its mass spectrometry products. As part of the relationship, Sanmina will manufacture 1st Detect's TRACER 1000. They also agreed to manufacture AgLAB's AgLAB-1000 and BreathTech's BreathTest-1000 once those products are released.

Film restoration, correction, and enhancement
Astral Images sells conversion of film to digital images, using defect removal and color correction software, and post processing services, providing economically feasible conversion of television and feature 35mm and 16mm films to the new 4K ultra-high definition (UHD), high-dynamic range (HDR) format necessary for the new generation of digital distribution. Astral Images' core technology is sourced from decades of image research from the laboratories of IBM and Kodak combined with classified satellite technology from government laboratories.

Vaccine development
Sourced from NASA's extensive microgravity research, Astrogenetix is applying a fast-track on-orbit discovery platform using the International Space Station to develop vaccines and other therapeutics.

Space operations
Prior to the 2014 Lockheed Martin acquisition, Astrotech provided both the government and commercial space markets with satellite processing services through its Astrotech Space Operations (ASO) subsidiary located in Titusville, Florida, three miles (5 km) from the Kennedy Space Center. It has more than 150000 sqft of clean room processing space, and services payloads, or satellites, for United Launch Alliance’s Atlas and Delta rocket families, Orbital Sciences’ Taurus and Pegasus, and SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicles. Astrotech owned and operated processing facilities located on Vandenberg Space Force Base at the Western Range in California. Also in California, ASO provides payload processing and facilities management support for the ocean-going Sea Launch program at the Home Port Facilities in Long Beach.

ARCTUS
On December 10, 2007, Spacehab released details about its planned Advanced Research and Conventional Technology Utilization Spacecraft designed to deliver cargo to, and return cargo from, the International Space Station. The project was later shelved.

title: Astrotech Corporation


text:
Talk:1982–83 NHL season

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1982–83 NHL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216033716/http://habsinsideout.com/main/3969 to http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/3969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:1982–83 NHL season


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic Nutrition

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Rx StrangeLove 18:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Logic Nutrition
Non notable company. Reads like an ad, it is an ad. Rx StrangeLove 17:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ad policy violation DV8 2XL 18:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Completely unrecoverable spam/ad. Please, let's not contribute to their Google rank by letting this vote run a full 5 days. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  18:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * More from the same anon that brought you the spam at New earth homes. Any objections to my pulling the plug?  Discuss amongst yourselves. :) - Lucky 6.9 20:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * More power to you, Lucky. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:48:57, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

 * Could go with "attempt to communicate". Kappa 21:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pull the Delete plug, Lucky. Tonywalton | Talk 21:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Gone. Still can't find those doggone templates that box the discussion.  Bear with me, all. - Lucky 6.9 23:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page..


text:
Talk:The Fly

Untitled
Hey, I know you really want the remake of the remake of "The Fly" to get made, but since IMDB lists it as a 2006 film, you could have gone with that year instead of 2005.

title: Talk:The Fly


text:
Talk:1983–84 NHL season

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1983–84 NHL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216033716/http://habsinsideout.com/main/3969 to http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/3969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:1983–84 NHL season


text: User talk:86.135.187.237

title: User talk:86.135.187.237


text:
Dick Shearer

Richard Bruce Shearer (September 21, 1940 – September 20, 1997) was an American jazz trombonist.

Career
Shearer was lead trombonist and music director for the Stan Kenton Orchestra. He succeeded Jim Trimble in the late 1960s, led the band during Kenton's illnesses, and produced several of its albums. He remained with the band until Kenton's death in 1979. For the next three years, Shearer was director of jazz bands at Wayne State University in Detroit.

In soft ensemble passages (such as the Dee Barton arrangement of "Here's That Rainy Day"), Shearer plays softly, achieving an orchestral pianissimo; this technique allows the later ensemble climax to seem even more powerful. Shearer also championed what is referred to as the "breath attack", where repeated notes (usually in a ballad) are not tongued, but are given an extra "push" of air.

Mike Vax, lead trumpeter of the Stan Kenton Orchestra, said, "Dick Shearer was the most important person on the band. I think that Stan felt about him like a son...the way Dick played trombone, that was the Kenton sound. Dick's trombone was derivative of all the great Kenton lead players, going all the way back to Kai Winding. But sometimes the person who's the end of a legacy becomes the culmination of the legacy, so I think Dick was the greatest lead trombone player of them all."

As leader

 * Dick Shearer and His Stan Kenton Spirits (Americatone, 1992)

As sideman
With Stan Kenton
 * The World We Know (Capitol, 1967)
 * The Jazz Compositions of Dee Barton (Capitol, 1968)
 * Finian's Rainbow (Capitol, 1968)
 * Hair (Capitol, 1969)
 * Live at Redlands University (Creative World, 1970)
 * Live at Brigham Young University (Creative World, 1971)
 * Live at Butler University (Creative World, 1972)
 * Stan Kenton Today: Recorded Live in London (London, 1972)
 * National Anthems of the World (Creative World, 1972)
 * 7.5 on the Richter Scale (Creative World, 1973)
 * Birthday in Britain (Creative World, 1973)
 * Fire, Fury & Fun (Creative World, 1974)
 * Stan Kenton Plays Chicago (Creative World, 1974)
 * Journey Into Capricorn (Creative World, 1976)
 * Kenton '76 (Creative World, 1976)
 * Live in Europe (Decca, 1977)
 * Street of Dreams (Creative World, 1979)
 * Rhapsody in Blue (Moon, 1989)
 * Artistry in Symphonic Jazz (Tantara, 1991)
 * Live at the Sunset Ridge Country Club 1976 (Magic, 1992)
 * Live at the Sunset Ridge Country Club 1976 Part 2 (Magic, 1992)
 * Cologne 76 Part One (Magic, 1993)
 * Cologne 76 Part Two (Magic, 1993)
 * Live at Carthage College Part One (Magic, 1994)
 * Live at Carthage College Part Two (Magic, 1994)
 * Live at the London Hilton 1973 Vol. 1 (Status, 1994)
 * Live at the London Hilton 1973 Vol. 2 (Status, 1994)
 * At Fountain Street Church Part 2 (Status, 1995)
 * At Fountain Street Church Part I (Status, 1995)
 * At the Pavilion Hemel Hempstead England 1973 (Status, 1996)
 * The British Tour 1973 (Magic, 1998)
 * Live at the Newport Jazz Festival from the Philharmonic Hall Lincoln Centre New York 3 July 1972 (Jazz Band, 1999)
 * Kenton Roars at the Golden Lion (Tantara, 2014)

With others
 * Chad & Jeremy, 3 in the Attic (Sidewalk, 1968))
 * The Four Freshmen with Stan Kenton, Live at Butler University (Creative World, 1972)
 * Denise LaSalle, I'm So Hot (MCA, 1980)
 * Denise LaSalle, Guaranteed (MCA, 1981)
 * Mark Masters, Silver Threads Among the Blues (Sea Breeze, 1986)
 * The Righteous Brothers, Righteous Brothers (Verve, 1966)
 * The Righteous Brothers, Soul & Inspiration (Verve, 1966)

title: Dick Shearer


text:
Ear (botany)

An ear is the grain-bearing tip part of the stem of a cereal plant, such as wheat or maize (corn). It can also refer to "a prominent lobe in some leaves."

The ear is a spike, consisting of a central stem on which tightly packed rows of flowers grow. These develop into fruits containing the edible seeds. In corn (maize), an ear is protected by leaves called husks. Inside an ear of corn is a corncob.

In some species (including wheat), unripe ears contribute significantly to photosynthesis, in addition to the leaves lower down the plant.

A parasite known as Anguina tritici (ear cockle) specifically affects the ears on wheat and rye by destroying the tissues and stems during growth. The parasite has been eradicated in most countries (with the exception of North Africa and West Asia) by using the crop rotation system.

title: Ear (botany)


text:
Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest buildings and structures in Birmingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170325202758/http://www.bcu.ac.uk/student-info/accommodation/university-locks to http://www.bcu.ac.uk/student-info/accommodation/university-locks
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102222520/http://birminghamupdates.com/post/100988489078/cornwall-tower-in-hockley-has-been-demolished to http://birminghamupdates.com/post/100988489078/cornwall-tower-in-hockley-has-been-demolished

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Page size
With 217,522 bytes of markup, this page is now far too big, and needs to be subdivided. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 217,000 Bytes isn't so much, there's no urgency to subdivide the page when there are several pages close to or over 500,000. N1TH Music (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This list is now at 386 KB. I think it's a bit of a problem not only for this list but also the other pages that are this big or larger. This page feels harder to navigate because there's a lot of scrolling to get to the actual lists. In the spirit of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I'd recommend dropping the lists of approved, proposed, emergent, and unbuilt buildings. Likewise, I'd delete prose talking about future buildings or just listing buildings that are also on the actual list. Some of the skyline photos which only have one tall building can also be consolidated into the list or the articles on those buildings. -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Omitted towers
An explanatory footnote says that "the suburban tower blocks located across the region have been omitted from this section". Is that because they are below 35 meters high? If not, that seems rather arbitrary. -- Beland (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:1984–85 NHL season

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1984–85 NHL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913033025/http://www.databasehockey.com/ to http://www.databasehockey.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1984–85 NHL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216033716/http://habsinsideout.com/main/3969 to http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/3969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:1984–85 NHL season


text:
File:FortBendCountySeal.jpg

Summary
Seal of Fort Bend County, Texas.

title: File:FortBendCountySeal.jpg


text:
Talk:Judiciary Act of 1789

Removing Anti-Wiki Slurs!
I doubt the original author included the last line of the first paragraph stating that Wikipedia can't be trusted. Either way, it isn't germane to the article and should either be removed or added as a note at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejm634 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick
wikitikitiki cheeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.136.181 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just made a modification to the text, and my justification is just a little bit too large for the edit summary. Basically, the article contained the following text: "Each district comprised one state, except for the districts of Maine and Kentucky, which at the time were part of Massachusetts and Virginia, respectively." Well, that's not quite true: the districts of Massachusetts and Virginia didn't comprise one state either. So I flipped it around: all of the states except two comprised one district. I then expanded on how Massachusetts and Virginia were divided.

— DLJessup (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Judiciary Act of 1789 never fulfilled its Constitutional needs. Congress was given no responsibilty for legislation affecting the Supreme Court. They could pass legislation that could be ratified by the States and incorporated into the Constitution as an Amendment. They did this with the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments. In addition, there is no vote recorded by the House of Representatives on official documents before it was given to President Washington to sign. Since an act of Congress cannot exceed powers given to it except by Amendment, all decisions rendered by an illegal court must be null and void and a Constitutional Amendment must be pursued regarding the composition of the Supreme Court. The Constitution also states that the Supreme Court shall hear ALL cases involving violation of the Constitution. The Congressional law passed through the efforts of Chief Justice Taft is also null and void for Congress has no power to change any word in the Constitution without use of the Amendment procedure. It is amazing that none of the "experts" regarding Constitutional law ever brought these facts to light. Shel Haas

Sources: The Congressional Record, The Constitution of the United States of America

 * The above post by Shel Haas seems incorrect to me.
 * "The Judiciary Act of 1789 never fulfilled its constitutional needs" - what does this mean?
 * "Congress was given no responsibility ..." but "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"
 * "The Constitution also states that the Supreme Court shall ..." - reference needed.
 * Reverting (removing) the text that seems conjectural, and related to this talk paragraph "It was not what the U.S. Government was looking for and therefore was a need for a second judiciary act."
 * ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

The Picture of the 1st Page
Is this image entirely necessary? I feel that unless a higher resolution can be shown for reading purposes, the use of such an image is lost. Absolute Zerr 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery Whitespace
I've recently introduced a gallery which depicts the original Supreme Court, and despite my best efforts it renders (for me) a bit too much whitespace before the segue into the next section. I encourage any user with technical suggestions on how to reduce this whitespace to do so and/or let me know what the hack is. MinnesotanUser (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jurisdiction
How do U.S. District Courts get their jurisdiction from the "U.S. District" (28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334), when said District is in the Union states and Congress is without authority to legislate there? Essentially, Congress manufactures jurisdiction for a "District" that is outside of Washington, D.C. in order for the "District Courts" to be Constitutional. The Constitution (Judiciary Act 1789 and G. Wash) never had the authority to create a U.S. District in the states. ovA_165443 (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * JohnBlair.jpg

title: Talk:Judiciary Act of 1789


text:
Merry Hill, Wolverhampton

Merry Hill is a suburb of Wolverhampton, West Midlands and a ward of Wolverhampton City Council. It is situated in the south-west of the city, bordering South Staffordshire and the Tettenhall Wightwick, Park, Graiseley and Penn wards. It forms part of the Wolverhampton South West constituency.

Merry Hill is itself is the main focal point of the ward, situated at the junction of five main roads. Because of the layout of the ward boundaries, parts of the suburbs of Bradmore, Castlecroft and Finchfield are covered by Merry Hill ward. The population of the ward taken at the 2011 census was 12,189.

Highfields Secondary school, Uplands Junior school, St Michael's RC Primary school and Springdale Primary school are all situated within the ward.

Merry Hill is served by National Express West Midlands service 4 which operates daily between Spring Hill and the i54 via the city centre.

History
Merry Hill once had a large house with surrounding gardens and an orchard which was named Bellencroft. The house has been demolished for a long while and the gardens no longer exist, instead a street named Bellencroft Gardens is in their location. Where the house once existed are now 2-3 private homes. The orchard of Bellencroft is now a cul-de-sac named Orchard Crescent which leads to Orchard Court. All that remains of Bellencroft is the pillar from the entrance to the driveway and until recently had the original 'Bellencroft' text on one of them. The text began to peel off and has been replaced with a modern plaque also saying 'Bellencroft'.

The house was originally named 'Bhylls House', also being located on the street named 'Bhylls Lane'. The name was changed by the owner to incorporate his daughters' names, 'Bella' and 'Ellen'.

Three multi-storey blocks of flats were erected at Merry Hill, on the edge of the Highfields estate, in 1967. They have dominated the local scene ever since.

There is also a public house called the Merry Hill.

Merry Hill is a ward represented by three councillors. Historically it has been a safe ward for the Conservative Party with Labour candidates regularly getting third place in the 1980s. Nowadays it is considered to be a marginal ward between the Conservative and Labour Parties.

title: Merry Hill, Wolverhampton