Talk:Euhemerus
|
|
Neutrality
User: Wetman has largely rewritten this article, originally from the 1911 Britannica. Judging from the changes, the problem with the original is that it didn't sneer at Euhemerus and his followers enough. The article is now a rather POV history of euhemerism, with excessive emphasis on the bleeding obvious: that Euhemerus's book was fiction, euhemerism is only a theory, and the shocking idea that the early Christians were hostile to paganism.
I was particularly taken aback by the following statement:
Thus few students of comparative religion would now agree with the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that "all theories of religion which give prominence to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead are to a certain extent Euhemeristic."
Which is something of a misrepresentation of the original article:
All theories of religion which give prominence to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead are to a certain extent Euhemeristic. But as the sole explanation of the origin of the idea of gods it is not accepted by students of comparative religion.
144.138.194.37 14:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- "Sneering"? Why? We don't even have any text of Euhemerus to sneer at? Euhemerism is a reductive explication of myth. An axiom derived from the definition of "euhemerist." I do disapprove of "it" without a clear antecedent, as in the anonymous example above. Wetman 17:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand this dispute. Nor do I understand the "Thus few students of comparative religion would now agree with the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica" statement. The "thus" seems a non sequitur to me. isn't "theories of religion which give prominence to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead" pretty much synonymous to "Euhemerism"? dab (ᛏ) 14:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. "Thus" is not required. Can you reword my clumsy phrasing to show what— we all agree— "Euhemerism" means? --Wetman 16:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To Dbachmann: What don't you understand about the dispute? It was Wetman who rewrote the passage you quote to disagree with the statement, "theories of religion which give prominence...", which you find a reasonable definition of euhemerism (and now he apparently agrees with you). In my opinion he did this to justify his rewriting the article in line with his own bias, which he admits to above: I do disapprove of "it". He also removed the dispute message from the article without justifying it. 144.138.194.63 13:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just fix the text to satisfy your own standards won't you. We'd fence with you, but we're out of toothpicks. And log in.--Wetman 18:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)