Talk:Dying-and-rising god

Self published citation

"Since the 1990s, Smith's scholarly rejection of the category has been widely embraced by Christian apologists wishing to defend the historicity of Jesus, while scholarly defenses of the concept (or its applicability to mystery religion) have been embraced by the new atheism movement wishing to argue the Christ myth theory"

The citation goes to https://www.amazon.com/This-Sun-Zeitgeist-Religion-Comparative/dp/110533967X

The author of this work seems to be a nobody who writes self published Christian apologetics. I'm not going to buy the book to check the source, but it's also unlikely that a Christian apologist would imply that apologists hang their hat on Smith while Christ Myth theorists appeal to "scholarly" works. This sentence seems to be editorializing Smith's work by giving an example of an apologist who cites him, but it's passing itself off as though it were a more comprehensive scholarly review of an article's impact. 65.128.172.37 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed that text. I have no doubt that it's true—just look at the archives of this talk page, and you'll see examples of defenders and opponents of Christianity citing the scholarly works that seem to support their positions. But you're right that it needs a better source. My perennial lament is that scholars rarely address how their works are misused by laymen for polemical arguments, so Wikipedia can rarely outright say that such things happen even though they obviously do. If a better source is found, this text, or something similar, can be restored. A. Parrot (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hahahaha omg thank you for pointing this out. I fully support scouring the citations of this article overall for further devious influence, though I have not the time or particular knowledge on this subject to do so. LesbianTiamat (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the popular culture section necessary?

There are only two short references mentioned, both fairly niche, they don't really seem to add any value to the article. 195.226.14.2 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. They are both direct examples of the topic of the article, and the topic of the article is a major part of both works.

Both Homestuck and Ace Combat are highly notable, with enormous amounts of culture surrounding them - music (including by professional orchestras), large quantities of fan works, numerous published articles about them, and extensive documentation on Wikipedia.

Just because they are modern stories in modern formats does not make them less important.

"Popular culture" means exactly that, culture that is currently popular. Everything cultural was "popular culture" at one point.

This is a significant article and could use some restructuring to have greater breadth. Something that could be cut down is the section on scholarly criticism, which is way too long and detailed for Wikipedia. LesbianTiamat (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I could expand the entries if their short length is an issue. LesbianTiamat (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Quadrantal (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Dying-and-rising deity → Dying-and-rising god – Common name. This was original name of article before it was moved to be 'gender neutral' but the motif is much more often named dying-and-rising god in scholarly literature. PikaSamus (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Completely misplaced gender neutrality concerns. Killuminator (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per Killuminator. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support speedily. I don't think a discussion should be needed over correcting such a major, careless, unilateral, and nonsensically wrongheaded move[1] that contradicts the article's cited contents. There is no gender concept here, and "god" is inclusive or neutral. Also, WP:COMMON. — Smuckola(talk) 08:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death-Rebirth/Resurrection deity

Pinging due to involvement in the above discussion: [@PikaSamus, @Killuminator, @Srnec, @Smuckola]

The above move discussion focused on the term in the title (dying-and-rising god), so I have updated the lead in accordance. I do not, however, have access to the sources mentioned in the discussion, so I have not updated references in the article to "Death-Rebirth"/"Resurrection" deities (most notably in the infobox). Are these terms also usually used with "God" instead of "Deity"?

(Before the previous page move, the infobox had an entirely different title) Quadrantal (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen they do use deity for those alternate terms, though it's life–death–rebirth deity and not just death–rebirth deity. Dying-and-rising god (also without hyphens as dying and rising god) is a much more common name for the motif though. PikaSamus (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)