Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

WOTD: Cosmogony?

While looking into this still further, I came across one source that stated "cosmogony" was a perfectly acceptable synonym for "creation myth" to scholars. In addition to it being a perfectly acceptable synonym, it would seem that "cosmogony" has the additional advantage of not using any terminology known to be considered pejorative to any significant group of people. Food for thought. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to find a mutually acceptable synonym is creditable, Til, but our definition of “cosmogony” at Cosmogony does not seem like an apt descriptor for Genesis. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfair Accusation of Spamming?

Moved from my talk page Hello

I feel that my addition of external links to the Wikipedia pages "Genesis creation narrative," "Ibbur," and "Gilgul" have been unfairly flagged for inappropriate activity. The external links added are primary source texts directly related to the Wikipedia page subject . They are not commercial or ideological. Please advise.

Thank you Jeangohile

I removed them because they linked to a blog and blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, if you feel they are a special case you could discuss on the article talk pages. This link may be helpful links normally to be avoided All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand and thanks for responding. I still feel my external links provide important primary source texts that are not available online. Yes they are presented on a blog but there is no writing of my own presented. Please reconsider. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeangophile (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If the texts are not available online they do not need to be sourced to the internet. Just cite them to the book. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I misunderstood what was going on. The link is spam. Blogs are not acceptable sources or external links, and the post you are linking to doesn't appear to be relevant to an understanding of the article anyways. I don't understand why this needs a RfC. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

2 sources that appear to be vital but aren't in the article

Norman Cohn's Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, Yale University Press 1996, and J David Pleins' When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood OUP 2009. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Those two books are about Noah's flood, and this article is about the Creation story - have you got the right article?PiCo (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, although the first has a lot to say about creation stories! And why isn't 'Noah's Flood' a redirect, and why doesn't Book of Genesis show up on Google when you type Genesis? Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Noah's Flood is a redirect, and the term "Genesis" is pretty generic term, theres LOTS of things that use that term that isn't referring too the biblical book. But when I google it I get "Book of Genesis" as result #3... so... — raekyt 12:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Myth" replaced with "Account"

The word "Myth" in the first paragraph should be replaced with "account". Myth implies that it is a false story, but account implies neither. If you claim to be neutral, then change the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.145.130 (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The response to this is always the same: Look up the words myth and account in a dictionary rather than thinking you know what these words mean.

Here's one definition of myth: "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". Sounds perfect to me.

Here's one definition of account: "a report or description of an event or experience". Sounds POV to me.

If you still think account is a more neutral word, then you're using a different dictionary from everyone else - perhaps Browns? GDallimore (Talk) 23:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

They have a specialized definition of "neutral point of view", as I explain on my user page. They don't care if most readers are going to keep complaining about this forever, and they could care less about the website's reputation with readers. They know better than the readers, and at all costs must tell them what "truths" they're allowed to believe, end of story! Welcome to wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to respond, put your response under mind instead of removing it next time, thanks Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that "account" would imply a record of actual events. I think we should not give readers that false impression. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not usually, for example there is no problem talking about Hesiod's account of Pandora, etc. The word "account" does not imply anything in particular so it can be used in any case as a neutral term. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a source for the description of Genesis creation as myth (source is David Leeming's encyclopedia of world creation myths) PiCo (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC) (Just as a personal note, to believe that the events described in Genesis 1-2 actually happened would require a very high degree of eccentricity).PiCo (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Til doesn't like our NPOV policy which is clear from his hatred of the fact we have a guideline for WP:Fringe. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic or literal

Given that a large percentage (nearly half) of at least one major country (U.S.) takes the Genesis creation narrative literally, are we still correct in calling it a creation myth?

Perhaps a more neutral way to describe it (in the intro) is to indicate what proportion of people (or "Western people" or "Americans") take the account literally. Or if not in the intro, how about a section further down? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We correctly call it a creation myth no matter how many people take it literally. Perhaps we could include some statistics about belief in Genesis in a subsection, though they seem too tangential for the lede in my opinion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that no matter how many people take it literally, it is actually symbolic. Am I hearing you correctly? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say that in academia, the made-up term "creation myth" can be applied simultaneously to something that is both symbolic and literal. I'm not sure if that means "literally symbolic" or "symbolically literal". Ἀλήθεια 14:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Uncle Ed, there's a section in the article on genre. Neither "literal" nor "symbolic" are recognised genres. Those who read Genesis 1 literally are actually reading it as history - without realising that history as we know it today is both quite recent and continually subject to change. Genesis 1 certainly wasn't intended as history in the modern sense by its authors - it couldn't be, as our idea of history hadn't been invented. It is history-like, in that it deals with the past as a continuous narrative. But that isn't enough to distinguish it as history - Star Wars also deals with the past in a continuous narrative. It isn't symbolic, either - I can't see anything in it that's a symbol (a representation of something else). Really, you need to read the sources referenced in the section. PiCo (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Genesis is like Star Wars obviously intended as fiction or entertainment? I see no evidence that view is even widely supported by very many scholars. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No that's NOT what I'm saying! I'm saying that writing about the past in a narrative manner is not evidence of an intention to write history. PiCo (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been nearly a week, and Robin Lionheart has not answered my question. Continued silence on his part can only lead me to assume that his answer is "yes". But I don't think his opinion should trump that of Bible experts - or of religious people who believe in the Bible.

If the word "symbolic" means that the narrative is not taken literally by anybody and yet there are people who take the narrative literally (e.g., Young Earth Creationists), then Wikipedia must not simply sum it up it as a creation myth. It simply does not fit the definition:

• Creation myths explain in metaphorical terms our sense of who we are in the context of the world

At least, we would have to mention in the intro that some people take these "myths" literally - rather than as metaphor or symbol. (Assuming that a large percentage of at least one major country takes the Genesis creation narrative literally.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of answering your question for you. Yes, it's completely irrelevant how many people take these myths literally. That's an argumentum ad populum, a common logical fallacy. As for "Bible experts", the only ones reliable for a scholarly topic like this are qualified scholars with degrees from REAL universities publishing in REAL scholarly publications, especially those who represent the consensus in the relevant scholarly field. The opinions of the general public, the make-believe "scholarly" community, and the tiny minority of the REAL scholarly community don't carry much weight, if any at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Insert comment here -> I want to take issue with what appears to be yet another instance of anti-religion bias. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should I read your assertion regarding reliable sources to mean "REAL" = "non-religious"? If that's the case, then I think you are totally off-base. If you simply mean that scholarly sources are acceptable if they are written by people with advanced degrees from accredited seminaries and theological schools whose books are put out by well-established established publishers or whose papers are published in peer-reviewed journals, then you aren't saying anything new. I fear this is not the case however. And, for what it's worth, yes this article should mention somewhere the extent to which the populace (American or otherwise) hold these accounts to be literally true. Ἀλήθεια 18:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As requested, I will correct you. I never wrote anything that implies in the slightest that "REAL" = "non-religious", and I can't understand how you could arrive at such a conclusion. Your second guess is correct, though. Of course I'm not saying anything new. It's all in our sourcing policies. Your "fear" was ungrounded. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is at all. An argumentum ad populum fallacy would be structured as "many people believe the story is true, therefore this makes the story more likely to be true." This is rather a statement that is logical and relevant to the question of determining what point of views are significant: "Many people believe this story is true, therefore that makes this meet the definition of a a significant point of view." See the difference? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And that's called a non sequitur. For our purposes, the significance of a point of view has absolutely nothing to do with the opinions or beliefs of the general populace, who have no expertise on the matter. We're only interested in the opinions of qualified experts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you doing, making this up as you go? The theological viewpoints of Christians and Jews have always been Significant Points of View for all Biblical theology articles, those of Muslims to Quranic and Islamic articles, Hindus for Vedic, etc. etc. This point has already been stressed enough I had thought. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Stress away, but what you are saying has absolutely no backing in WP policy. The vast majority of Christians, Hindus, Muslims etc. have at best a sketchy knowledge of their own religion. Would you rely on a random, say, Catholic in the street for information about Catholicism? I hope not. And neither should we at WP. We rely on qualified experts for the information we present. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean wikipedia should present the only views of scribes and scholars, without also mentioning other widespread theological views as even being worthy of significance, you are the one who is inserting your bias into the policy. It's like saying a small number of outsiders can dictate to the faithful how they are to interpret their own scriptures in selected instances, like some kind of one-sided shadowpuppet show, but that never has been and should not be the norm for any religion article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean what I wrote. You obviously misread it, because your answer has nothing to do with what I wrote, or with the present discussion at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Also nobody wants to cite anything to the Catholic in the street, but the views of Church leadership including Popes should speak for themselves as well any any "expert", I should think. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And you would be thinking wrong. Another non-sequitur. There's a good reason why we require reliable INDEPENDENT sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it is self-obvious and crucial. There is no one school of thought that possesses a monopoly on scriptural interpretation, so we have to cover all the major views, period. It sound like you want to be the one to pick and choose which are acceptable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is self-obvious nonsense and irrelevant. As is the rest of your answer. Please read our policies again. And read the discussion over again. Your comments have all been way off topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me irrelevant, but I thought it was perfectly relevant, you can't expect everyone to follow your bias because you say so. NPOV policy on theological / religion articles calls for all the various denominations, sects on every article to be represented, including cites to their own leadership or doctrinal statements. Your argument that this article is in essence an exception for some reason, seems kind of partial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)(redacted because you didn't call me irrelevant, according to my talkpage)

The last section of the article deals with the question of genre. It says this about those who read Genesis in a literal way: Bruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading, the "woodenly literal" approach which leads to "creation science" and such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial of evolution.[81] Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, sums up the same thought in these words: "A literalist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."[82] If you want to say that 47% of Americans interpret Genesis 1-2 literally, the obvious place would be immediately before this. (I have a source for the 47% figure if you want it).PiCo (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And once again that mention only of Americans says nothing at all about Eastern Christians, some of whom even enjoy governmental support for their doctrines in certain countries. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are we calling a historical event a "myth". Is World War Two a myth? --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I object to the fact that this article states creation as a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuBBLeSGiRL209 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you object, then explain why. The bottom line is that this story comes from a religion (Judaism) and every culture has some creation myth involving various gods. Who gets to decide which one is the real story? The non-believer will call it a myth. The believer will call it real. As for Daniel the duck, how many people do you know who think world war 2 is a myth? Vmelkon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume Daniel meant to refer to Holocaust denial, which is a thing in the world, though still not remotely comparable to claiming that a talking snake coaxing a rib woman to eat a fruit from a magic tree was not an actual historical event. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Um... where's the science here?

Although there is a section titled: "Genre (Genesis 1-2 as myth, history and science)" that's not science, because genesis wasn't written using the scientific method and it only analyses it using textual analysis. That can only find internal inconsistencies within a text, or point out different interpretations you could make, but the consistency we're usually most interested in is whether it's consistent with the real world.

There's certainly many people that think that it is, that's it's literally real. Well, they're welcome to their opinions, and it's certainly fair enough to point that out in the article.

However, I think it's fair to say that real-world scientific findings (genetics, cosmology, geology, paleontology etc.) are completely inconsistent with genesis.

Where's those scientific findings in this article?

In their absence the article is unbalanced, it's slanted away from science, as if science was just another opinion rather than based on actual hard evidence. There's one or more sections, numerous references, and wikilinks that just aren't present. GliderMaven (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about a creation myth, a religous text. The relevant scholary fields would be mainly litterature, theology and history. The aspects you mention belong in articles like Creationism, Young Earth Creationism, Creation Science and Intelligent Design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The scope of this article is this narrative, and everything notable about it. As an encyclopedia article it has to summarise everything notable on this topic. The fact that there is scientific evidence that (scientists generally consider) proves that it is apocryphal is very notable.GliderMaven (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilder, to use the word "prove" is short-sighted at best, because many topics in history and science are not proven. Everything in "the real world" (as you mentioned) is theoretical... right down to Einstein's theory of relativity. Theory being defined as "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct,"...but this does not mean that everything in theory can be "proven". It is by consensus of the scientific community of tested experiments for a hypothesis to even become theory. If humans don't debate E=mc2, then we are as good as being in the Dark Ages considering a Flat Earth, instead of concepts like String theory.

Now when you are dealing with millennia old text such as the Torah, nothing can be proven, not even its exact date of authorship, and neither the author(s) with it. This article contains a section: Genesis creation narrative#Science vs. literalism. If you feel that this section is scant, please expound upon it. Rather than ranting with the statement: "Where's those scientific findings in this article?" Please help to improve the article. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I see you copied sections for Genesis creation narrative#Science vs. literalism, then it was removed. You could make a new section called Biblical criticism and provide proper sources that give a critical analysis of the Genesis narrative. Otherwise, scientific debates could go on the articles Sång mentioned. Thanks   — Jason Sosa 21:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The term 'theory' has a specific meaning in science and it is not the lay-persons meaning as 'hypothesis'. A scientific theory is a factually supported set of explanations of how the world works. For example the theory of gravity is a theory that is also a fact. Other theories include when and how the Earth formed, and these are also scientific facts. Although in rare cases scientific facts can change; consilience, where multiple lines of independent physical evidence point to the same conclusion make that very unlikely for the age of the Earth as well as the scientific theory of gravity.GliderMaven (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally Adam and Eve are part of the genesis accounts, and the evidence is very, very heavily against there being a historical Adam and Eve. This is already discussed in the Adam and Eve article. We cannot as an encyclopedia not mention them being ahistorical here (although it's conversely perfectly fine to mention that some people are creationists, and that's already done I think.)GliderMaven (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would we mention them being ahistorical here? I know of no Encyclopedia that does or would.

I must also point out while the opportunity is present that when recently added material is removed (the addition reverted), it is proper behavior to start a discussion on the talk page about it, and come to an agreement with other editors BEFORE re-adding anything.Farsight001 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The existence of gravity is fact, just as the existence of humans. The Theory of gravity, its dynamics, can just as much be debated (Theory of gravity#Anomalies and discrepancies) as the theories of how humans were first created, formed, evolved, etc...

Farsight had the right to undo your copy/pasted material, Glider. Reverting an undo constitutes as an edit war. Any problems with an undo should immediately be taken to talk to reach consensus.

Addressing Farsight, though not enforced, it is courteous to add a reason in the edit summary as to why you undid Glider.

Addressing the article. I must agree that there are problems with it. It is not balanced in some areas and needs addressing. I do, however, oppose the content that Glider pasted because it is not sourced with Biblical criticism of the narrative itself. It is random content trying to prove points in a non neutral manner. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 22:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but where does this article say it is to only contain purely textual analysis???

It doesn't, and it isn't.

Under Wikipedia's rules, the topic is currently everything about biblical genesis, and the article is incomplete.

It seems to me that if it is only textual criticism then we're currently lying to the reader about what the article is about in the introduction, and the article name should probably be changed to something like 'textual criticism of the genesis creation narrative' and a new top-level article that really does cover the genesis creation narrative topic is then needed.GliderMaven (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The title and subject of this article is about a Narrative. Subsequently, all narratives are subject to Literary criticism, in this case Biblical criticism. Interpretations of the Creation narrative (which is just a text for textual criticism) is a primary foundation for a belief in Creationism. Your argument to include a Relationship between religion and science on this article is out of wp:scope, because that is not a critique of the narrative... It is a critique of an interpreted belief. Please refer to Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk · contribs)'s suggestions on where to place your argument. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So if I've understood you correctly, you're saying that genesis is a narrative, and hence can only be subjected to textual criticism. Narratives in Wikipedia can only be subject to textual criticism.

So you're saying that whether or not they are based on facts, all books, all films, all plays are only subject to textual criticism in Wikipedia.

But; no. That's not true. But you're trying to pretend it is.

I repeat, as currently defined, this article is scoped so that appropriate science is on-topic, as with every other article. Sticking 'narrative' in the title does not make it true.GliderMaven (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You may seek WP:CONTENTDISPUTE to gain community input on the article content. Please be advised that two editors (me included) reverted your copy/paste and a third editor disputed against it. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would not be adverse to a section on scientific views. I don't buy the position that because Genesis is a narrative it can only be studied through textual analysis...unless it was also the case that Genesis were presented as fiction, since fiction obviously cannot be studied empirically. But if Genesis is going to be presented as a narrative of something that, literally or not, may have happened, or as something that people believe may have happened, then so long as there are sources on the matter that specifically address the subject WP:N requires them to be summarized.

For a counter example, some years ago I argued that there should be a religious views section in Big bang theory, not because I thought the religious views were valid criticisms, but because notable religious sources had written on the subject and WP:N requires that all views be summarized in proportion to their prominence. As such, the religious section would have remained small since it was a much smaller piece of the source pie, while on this article the scientific side is likely a much smaller piece of the source pie. N^oformation ^Talk 02:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, good sources that discuss the scientific relevance of GCN can of course be interesting to summarize in this article. But I would suggest that even more interesting would be a section about the "Acceptance" of this creation myth, popular/scientific, historical/present day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance by whom? Remember that this is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

People/countries/organisations considered christian and jewish (in the religous sense), I guess. It´s their creation myth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To Noformation (talk · contribs) and GliderMaven (talk · contribs):In the example of where Noformation "argued that there should be a religious views section in Big bang theory" is notable, and would definitely apply in reverse to have a scientific view section on a religious views based article. Religious views based articles are articles on doctrine, such as the Christian doctrines: Fall of man, Original sin, Creationism, etc. This would also include the doctrine of Adam and Eve being the first humans (who have their own separate pages for text analysis as well).

Because the main article in dispute, the Genesis creation narrative is not a docrine based article, where it's counterpart is Creationism... the critique has to be of the text and not the doctrine. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have a scientific analysis or critique of the text's concept of creation specific to Genesis, exuding critiques that are all inclusive of other mythologies or religious view interpretations on creation (considered "-ism"). Thanks   — Jason Sosa 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I typed up a response much like Noformation's yesterday, but I decided wading into this issue probably wouldn't be a benefit to my life so I deleted it. This article is not "just about the text". It's also about the acceptance, interpretation, and significance of the text. It's also about the text's content. It talks about the documentary hypothesis, and the Greek influence, and modern Christian theology. There's no reason that direct commentary on the topic from a scientific perspective should be excluded, unless we're aiming to create a POV fork. The distinction between doctrine and text is strained; we already discuss doctrine which stems from the text. Noformation is correct, of course, that the scientific literature should be a small part of this topic, and so should be assigned less space.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It does actually seem to be a real POV fork of Book of Genesis; there's such huge overlap. The two articles don't reference each other directly other than as 'see also', and they cover the same topic in different ways, and there's a group of editors on the talk page that are trying to exclude material from at least one of them.

These are classic POV fork things.

The main ways out of this is to do a subarticle, this one would be a subarticle of the other, or merge them back together.

There's also NPOV issues with the very prominent Creationism banner down the side, but a refusal to countenance any scientific criticism.GliderMaven (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move Dec 2013

See Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 21

Is the article topic about narrative or myth?

The current version of Genesis creation narrative uses myth-words three times more frequently than narrative-words. The frequency list data for narrative, myth, and their "Related terms" in Wiktionary are:

• narrative 22
• narrator 4
• narrate, narration 0
• myth 56
• mythology 16
• mythic 3
• mythological 3
• mythical 1
• mythicize, mythologem, mythopoeia, mythopoeic, mythopoesis, mythos, pseudomyth 0

Hoping to help refocus this long-standing WP controversy, Keahapana (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Terms such as "myth" and "narrative" are completely superfluous to the adequate identification of the subject of this article. Preferable titles for this article include "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, since the academic sources all identify it as a creation myth, your whining about "preferable titles" is simply an excuse for not paying attention to reliable sources. jps (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—it doesn't seem to me that you are making a sharp enough distinction between an article title and the text in a body of an article. You are arguing for terminology in a title that need not be there. We have available to us titles such as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" that adequately identify the subject of this article. Can you please tell me why you want to add more material to the title? Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on the creation myth of every religion should be titled using the same format. Bus stop's proposal is not going to achieve that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

According to you, Wikipedia should not distinguish between living religions and dead ones, because they're all the same from YOUR point of view? Man, that's CRAZY!!! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you. Yes, it is my opinion. I have a lot of opinions based on fairness and equity. I find it a very logical and non-biased position to be in. No chance of personal religious beliefs or systemic bias getting in the way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What other encyclopedia has ever treated living religions as if they were already dead? (Never mind the Marxist Encyclopedia or Soviet one!) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

At no point have I spoken of describing any religion as dead or alive. Please stop misrepresenting me. It's often a strategy of those with weak arguments, and you don't want yours to seem that way, do you? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's no strategy, it's common knowledge what the specific major religions widely practised in the world today are, in the field of Comparative Religion - ever heard of it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't see what that has to do with anything. A dead religion, whatever definition you give it, has to be given equal treatment in Wikipedia to your preferred one. We cannot even hint here that any one religion has more or less credibility than any other. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And again I ask, who has ever taken this bizarre approach before? Especially in the way of reputable encyclopedias? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I often have radical ideas. Tell us what's wrong with it, not that it hasn't been done before. That won't convince me I'm wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the burden is on me to refute someone's radical idea or it becomes enacted by default! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 is right from the standpoint that there is no way to verify when a religion is dead or not. A classic example is neopaganism. Clearly not a dead religion, but if we were having this discussion 100 years ago, you'd probably claim otherwise. We have no way of knowing what the full panoply of beliefs are. Declaring some to be "dead" and others to be extant is simply beyond our remit. jps (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are both quite wrong, there is no controversy about what religions exist today and this is perfectly well known in the field of comparative religion, which neither of you seem to have studied or have much of anything other than contempt for religions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no global census that can determine which religious beliefs are extinct and which are not. That's simply not possible. We simply don't know what every person's private beliefs are. jps (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that "creation myth" is the most common term in academic writing, and certainly not in common discourse. Google scholar provides 5,960 for "genesis+"creation myth"", but "genesis+"creation story"" returns twice as many (13,200). Even "genesis+"creation narrative"" returns 3,140 hits, while "genesis+"creation account"" returns 5,930 hits. "genesis+"cosmology"" returns 36,800 hits. There is no doubt that the term myth is used, and of course google hits can be misleading. But it seems that there is no consensus in reliable sources to use the term myth. TFD (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a classic example of our systemic bias at work. See how hard it is to avoid? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There definitely is systemic bias in reliable sources, but it is not our role to correct it, merely to explain various views in proportion to their acceptance. TFD (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance by whom? HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Their acceptance in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's circular. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it circular? TFD (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I really don't have the time nor energy to help you learn debating terms. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I will rephrase what I said. The relevant policy is in the "Use commonly recognizable names" section of "Wikipedia:Article titles": "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." "Genesis creation myth" is not "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)." Whether or not there is a systemic bias in reliable sources is irrelevant to the naming policy. There is nothing circular about that. (I assume by circular you mean tautological.) TFD (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that the #Sources which deal with this subject all indicate that it is most plainly and clearly identified as a creation myth. WP:SOURCECOUNTING is a problematic way of trying to figure out which is more popular. You need to read the sources to decide which are reliable and who is actually dealing with the subject as we deal with it in the article. jps (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop WP:SOURCECOUNTING please. Read the #Sources and see what they say. jps (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what you are doing, except you are counting only three sources. There is no question that reliable sources use the terms myth, narrative, account, story, cosmology and others. The best way to determine which is most commonly used is to find a rs that says something like, "The term most commonly used is...." Failing that, the best way is to see which terms are more frequently used through counting. How else do we resolve WP:COMMONNAME? TFD (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to actually read the sources and try to figure out what their content is. You are trying to count how many WP:GHITS you're getting when you use a search engine on some database. There is a big difference between bibliometry and actual competent scholarship. jps (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The personal attacks on Opponents of the move requesters need to stop now. You are not more intelligent than anyone else here and you need to realize that there is a place for truly neutral language, as opposed to the popularity contest of which word shows up more often in Google (or any other source). Story/narrative/myth/legend/teaching, whatever word you want to use, the reality here is that creation stories - across all cultures, not just those of the Abrahamic religions - are significant and important; they often contain deeper "truths" about who a people are and what matters to them than can any cold recitation of scientific facts. Thus the language used to describe these traditions is equally important. In English, the word "myth" generally carries the connotation of "stories that are not true." It is one thing to call the stories of ancient societies such as ancient Greece or Rome a "mythology," as these are "Dead" sultures we study from a distance, but to call stories of living cultures a "myth" is, in various degrees, insulting. Articles about the Japanese, the Hopi, or anyone else where there are living adherents of these cultural traditions should ALL be renamed more neutrally as a narrative/story/tradition rather than the perjorative "myth." It is not fundamentalist lunacy to say that one can simultaneously believe in the "truth" of hard science and the metaphorical/spiritual/philosophical "truth" of theology. So let's show respect for real people by using truly neutral language. As was said by one more eloquent than I: "..But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Thomas Jefferson) Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And who are you to say the Greeks had it wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Um - because virtually no one today says Apollo and Mercury are real entities. Next are you going to be arguing on behalf of Flat-Earthism? What people think today as opposed to yesterday does matter to an encyclopedia, and you are saying it doesn't, which would be weird and possibly even dystopic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia policy at all. You're just making up what you want to be the rules. jps (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's nonsense to suggest that non-scientific belief's today should be given more credibility than beliefs of another time. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I know scientists in different countries have various hypotheses, but you seem to represent the more intolerant face of science, the one that says everyone suddenly loses their right to believe anything else or have their beliefs described in an impartial encyclopedia... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And there you go again. Making up words that you claim represent my view. I've mentioned before what misrepresentation says about your argument. Just stick with what I've actually written, and discuss that, not something else. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The quality level of "debate" here isn't even worth it! "How can we tell if a religion exists or not? Hmmm, suppose there's really no way to tell if a religion exists or not? Hmm, what then?" Can't argue with a clown act! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So now you've moved to describing me as "a clown act". Well done. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't help it if you haven't been competent enough to do the due diligence of actually reading the #Sources, investigating whether the term creation myth is in any way pejorative or in any way detracts from possible "significant and important" "truths'. In fact, it seems to me that you simply refuse to look at the reliable sources. You just don't want to deal with the subject in a way more than using your own personal prejudice. And, as HiLo rightly points out, we don't discriminate on the basis of dead or living beliefs at Wikipedia. WP:RNPOV is the relevant policy. jps (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And there is ANOTHER personal attack. My point is showing respect for people who are living right here, right now. If you sincerely wanted to reword things "Ancient Greek religious creation narratives" I would not argue against it (or for it for that matter). And you don't know what my own religious views are, so make no assumptions. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is the relevant statement about your "showing respect". There is no requirement anywhere in Wikipedia policy that we show respect for people's sensibilities about their mistaken belief about what an academic term means. Otherwise we would rename the Big Bang to satisfy those who are offended by its sexual overtones. jps (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—information related to this story being a "creation myth" properly belongs in article text, not in the title of the article. "Creation myth", as in "Genesis creation myth", constitutes gratuitous information injected into the title. The two possible titles of "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" adequately identify the subject of the article without containing additional information. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep saying it's "gratuitous", but your explanation as to why it is was based entirely on your own personal prejudice against the word "myth" even though we are using an academic definition of a compound term, creation myth. You are claiming the information is gratuitous. Fine. Show me the policy on Wikipedia where it says we must "avoid titling articles with words that Bus Stop finds gratuitous". Maybe it's in the policy WP:FATUOUSARGUMENTATION? jps (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is arguing from "personal prejudice against the word myth". They are arguing that the word "myth" is popularly understood in a way different from the "academic definition". We have an entire article (Evolution as fact and theory) to deal with the different meanings, popular and academic, of "theory".

This Ngram shows that the word "narrative" has overtaken "myth" in connexion to Genesis in the past couple decades. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That Ngram is very poor small number statistics, as far as I can tell. Additionally, when I say, "personal prejudice", I mean that people are associating the wrong meaning with a word out of personal prejudice towards that meaning. Compare to someone misinterpreting the term Big Bang as an orgy. While we might insist that a creation myth says nothing about the truth-value of the story it describes, this doesn't satisfy the personal prejudice of those who think myth necessarily connotes falsehood. Similarly, if I insist that the Big Bang is the term used in academia to describe the origin of the universe, this does not satisfy the prude who insists that there the words conjure images of particular kinds of sexual deviance. jps (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Admin note: I realize this is a heated subject, but please comment on content and strength of argument, not on other contributors. Blocks will likely follow soon if people keep insulting each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Because I don't even know where to begin commenting in this thread, I'll just stick this at the bottom. First, I would like to comment how silly I think it is for jps to write an essay and then cite it 8 times in this page, as if that somehow brings greater credibility to his point. Of course we have to count sources. If we had 100 sources, and 90 of them referred to it as a "Duck", and 10 of them referred to it as a "Pochard", the article would be titled "Duck" because (A) that's how most people refer to it and (B) that's how it's referred to in the majority of reliable sources. Since we have no such clear majority in our sources, we are left with the option of describing the subject in a way that is recognizable, unambiguous and neutral. The current title meets these requirements. In this particular comment section, an editor tried to count the number of times a term is used within the article to determine the correct term. This is an interesting approach, but ignores all the synonyms for the word "narrative", such as "account" (7), "story" (16), and the most generic "text" (18). It's still not how we come up with titles for articles. Ἀλήθεια 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you won't take the time to do actual research; to read the #sources provided, then you wouldn't have to do absurd bibliometry. If you have a source which explains how this tale is not a creation myth, please provide it. jps (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—I am trying to understand why you favor the title "Genesis creation myth". Do you feel that there are any shortcomings at all to the titles "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis" as possible titles for this article? Obviously the two titles I suggest do not contain the term creation myth. But why is that important? Do the two titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" adequately identify the subject of this article? What, in your opinion, are the shortcomings, vis-a-vis your suggested title of "Genesis creation myth", of the two titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis"? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not creation in Genesis. The article is about the creation myth in Genesis. "Creation in Genesis" would be an article about anything that was created in Genesis... it's an ambiguous title. "Creation according to Genesis" is a bit worse. It is treating Genesis as an actor rather than a compendium. Genesis doesn't profess or explain, it is just a compilation of myths and sacred histories. We are trying to identify the subject of the article which is the creation myth in the Book of Genesis. As I said above, I think creation myth in Genesis would work too, but this is a simpler title. jps (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I question that, I think this is about inserting the word "myth" into a title to prove a WP:POINT. JMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you WP:AGF, I am insisting because we are describing a creation myth, which is the proper academic term for the story. The term is not "creation narrative" nor "creation story" (though I have no doubt less serious sources -- less reliable ones -- might use all kinds of imprecise labels for what this particular tale actually is). If you just step back from your personal prejudice about the word "myth" and consider that the academics who use the term are NOT being disparaging nor trying to malign believers, I think you might understand where I am coming from. jps (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@jps. To assert the article is about the creation myth in a discussion which is an attempt to identify what the article title should be is a bit of circular reasoning. Genesis is rich in specific, written language that would identify the genesis story as sacred literature, a sacred story, and this fact of written story should head or title the article. What that literature is based on, which would include myth could then constitute the article. This is an inclusive approach. Using myth in the title is exclusive to content and sources that approach the genesis story from other angles and opens the door for exclusion of content later on. It is imperative that the title of this article be named in a comprehensive way so that legitimate reliable sources per their weight in the mainstream cannot be excluded at some later date because we implied exclusion in the title now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC))

IMHO, jps is being way more logical here. Sacred stories/ literature are, by definition, myths. As he pointed out, the academic term for a story/narrative/piece of literature used to describe the creation of the world by supernatural figures is "creation myth". Therefore, the only logical way to title an article about the way Genesis describes the creation of the world by supernatural figures is "Genesis creation myth" or some variant. Rwenonah (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—you are assuming there is "personal prejudice" against the term creation myth when in fact the term is simply not necessary for the formation of a totally unambiguous title. The two titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" adequately identify the subject of this article. They are not ambiguous. You say "Well, it's not creation in Genesis. The article is about the creation myth in Genesis. 'Creation in Genesis' would be an article about anything that was created in Genesis... it's an ambiguous title." It is not an ambiguous title. No reader would find the title "Creation in Genesis" ambiguous. It would never occur to a reader that this "would be an article about anything that was created in Genesis". The reference in the title is obviously to the important components of the world that come into existence as events unfold in the story of Genesis. Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to make an Ockham's Razor case for article titling, but I don't think you're doing a very good job. "No reader would find the title 'creation in Genesis' misleading." you state. But that's not the issue. The issue is that the title is properly about something else. It's not an issue of understandability, it's an issue of specificity. When Lot's wife was changed into a pillar of salt, that pillar of salt was created by God. In a proper article on the subject of creation in Genesis, there is no reason to exclude such creative events, though perhaps these events would be better placed in an article about miracles in Genesis). This article, in contrast, is about the creation myth in Genesis, which is much more specific and clear as to the subject matter. We don't title articles on the basis of whether people would be likely to correctly guess what the subject of the article is about. We title articles on the basis of the policy I outline above and for which you have not provided a convincing counter-read. jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your preferred titles may not be ambiguous, but they are definitely non-neutral, because they treat the Genesis myth differently from other creation myths. That's virtually the definition of non-neutrality. All religions MUST be treated the same before you can claim neutrality. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48—the entity under discussion need not be characterized in any way whatsoever. It can be referenced without characterization. Where these titles not available to us—"Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis"—we would probably resort to using a title that characterized the entity in one way or another. The entity might be characterized as a "narration" (as it is presently), or as a "story", or as a "creation myth". But we have available to us the possible titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". Therefore insertion of the term "creation myth" in the title would be completely superfluous. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a radical idea (by your own admission) that is previously unheard of, that you are demanding for virtually non-existent beliefs (eg flat earth) to be considered equally the same with belief systems that are known to have major significant followings nowadays (eg the Greek Orthodox). It will never work and there is no obligation upon wikipedia to implement such nonsense no matter how many times you angrily stamp your foot. Then you try to fudge around the debate by seriously pretending that it isn't known whether religions have followings today. Um because we have sources in the real world that we can read to tell us they have followings. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Wikipedia be as neutral towards the believers in a flat earth as the believers in the correctness of the Greek Orthodox Church? Is it purely a numbers game? jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Per several comments above: No, actually literature is not by definition myth, and we aren't dealing with religion here. We are dealing with a text used by some religions, considered by some sources to be sacred, by others to have literary characteristics, among other characteristics/definitions. To treat the genesis story differently from other creation myths we have first to determine if the genesis story per the sources is a myth at all. and only a myth. That's what this discussion is, in part, about. You are assuming a fact, when this discussion is about whether that so-called fact, is a fact, per the sources, at all. Do you see how circular this argument is?(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC))

No one said "literature is by definition myth". We said this article is about a creation myth. It is also literature. I don't see any arguments that actually dispute this (they actually only say that others might dispute this), and our article explicitly states that the subject of the article is a creation myth. jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is very easy. Just treat all religions the same. Only those wanting one, or a handful, treated differently have a problem. I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You want religions that are widely adhered to today to be treated like the ones that are generally discarded. This is the epitome of "pov pushing" and it seems to belie a distinct hostility to religion, perhaps because in your mind they should all be discarded, and you cannot understand why all other editors would not share your vantagepoint. Otherwise I cannot understand how you can expect wikipedia founded on NPOV to engage in this polemic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. That's ridiculous. Asking for all religions to be treated the same is not be POV pushing? It's precisely the opposite. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you are asking living religions to be treated just as if they were already dead. This is indeed a radical approach and you are demanding this project support your activism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that implying that some religions are more likely to be true than others is much more a form of activism and a non-neutral POV. We MUST treat them all the same. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's okay, I am confident that as long as this is an open-source project that can be accessed by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc. from all over the world, your vision of treating them identical to a bunch of defunct creeds will never gain acceptance. Unless you could succeed at restricting all Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. editors from the project since you have already determined for them that their beliefs are false! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about "a bunch of defunct creeds". Some creeds died because peoples were invaded. Does that make their religion false and less worthy? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't presume to say what religions are false or worthy, but if there's no evidence of a sizeable number around to speak for a belief, we generally don't treat it as a "significant point of view"... this is not just the case in religion, but in any topic. We might mention that it was a past belief and point out that the belief is no longer represented today, for whatever reason. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That still suggests that we give more credibility to religions with more current adherents. Anyway, that was never relevant to my point. It was you who brought up dead religions, not me. Are you suggesting that we have to be nicer to religions with the greatest number of adherents? That seems ridiculous to me. Religion is religion. They must all be treated the same. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that shifts my argument into a strawman. I never suggested any grading scale of one living religion against another. Religions (the ones practised today) have always been treated as a category in their own right. All of the religions practised today should be treated impartially. Think of it as BLP but for peoples' ideas and philosophies and belief-systems. Religions NOT practised today have never been put in the same category with the living ones, though. You essentially want them all put in the dead category which imo may reflect a bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If anything's a straw man, that is. You're not discussing my main point. I didn't think you would, but it's always fun trying. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Til is essentially arguing for religious favoritism toward "living" religions. He has not specified a metric, but presumably we're meant to determine if a religion is "living" by headcount. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You are arguing that ideas that have no one living today to speak for them be given equal weight. That just shows how hare brained your argument is getting because no tertiary source or public encyclopedia has ever before attempted such a radical experiment. Once again, I must question the education of those who express doubt as to what religions exist, since this was the first thing I learned in Comparative Religion class. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Religious favoritism"? I have a novel idea—why not focus on arriving at an appropriate title for this article? The subject matter of the article is unambiguously identified by titles such as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". Characterizing the subject matter as a "story", a "narrative", or a "creation myth" should be considered a drawback to titles using that naming convention. Furthermore I think it is a waste of time to try to make this article's title conform to what are argued to be the naming conventions found at ostensibly comparable articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So clearly you don't believe in treating all religions equally. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for treating religions or belief-systems that exist now equally. Treating them like religions that don't exist, defies all logic and renders the purpose of an encyclopedia worthless. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Do you have a source for that? Do you have a list of "living religions"? How does one qualify? HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to quantify how many adherents makes a religion meet your "living" standard for differential treatment. Is a cult with 42 members a "living religion"? If 41 of them commit suicide, leaving one to carry on their message, does just one adherent qualify as "living"? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the metric you use to determine when a religion does not exist. Evidence of absence as in that instance is a very difficult task. jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

These questions have little bearing for us on this talkpage because there is no dispute that the biblical religions are alive and well and not only living but widespread. However, I can try to indulge your query, I thought you understood "significant point of view" for project purposes. A cult with only one believer is hardly widespread and will not be significant for most purposes on most articles, unless maybe worthy of note on the dedicated article in question, eg "Heaven's Gate (religious group)". An example with slightly more adherents is the Nuwaubian Nation, estimated at around 500 faithful, who believe the Nuwaubian Scripture, written in 1996. Their opinions will probably not merit much of a mention on most articles, however on the article "Nuwaubian Nation" we do take note of their teachings, as impartially as possible per policy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If and when Wikipedia:Significant Point of View becomes a guideline or policy, I'll be willing to entertain such an argument. However, there is no such policy or guideline and so I think it unwise to be making any determination for Wikipedia on such a basis. jps (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to gratuitous commentary in a title. We are talking about a case in which material that belongs in the body of an article does not belong in the title of an article. In this case the characterization of this entity as a "creation myth" is entirely superfluous to the minimal amount of information necessary in a title to unambiguously identify the subject of the article. We know exactly what this article is about when we encounter its title as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". There is no ambiguity there. You are arguing to add "extra" information to the title. As another editor pointed out, that is WP:POINTY. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Responded to above. "Creation in Genesis" does not adequately identify the subject of the article, which is the creation myth in Genesis. jps (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Other articles about creation myths invariably use "creation myth" in the title (e.g. Japanese creation myth, Anishinaabeg creation stories, Cherokee creation myth,Choctaw creation myth,Creek creation myth,Korean creation myth, Chinese creation myth . Why, then, are we treating this article differently?Rwenonah (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah—There is no need for a title that contains a contrived element ("creation myth") favored by some. The term has its origins in academia which is a setting not always coincident with for instance a religious setting. There are also artistic settings such as literature and visual art which also may draw upon this subject. We need not characterize the subject of this article at all as such characterization is avoidable and I would argue preferable. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Invariably"? As of today's count, there are 106 pages in Category:Creation myths. Aside from the main article on creation myths, and the list of creation myths, there are only 10 other articles that are titled using the pattern of "XX creation myth". That means that more than 90% of articles that deal with "a symbolic narrative of how the world began" are titled some other way. Like this one. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I find it absolutely hysterical that in a vain attempt to bolster the claim of supposed "consistency" among similar article titles, Rwenonah was required to pipe 5 out of the 7 examples - [[Japanese creation myth]], [[Anishinaabe#History|Anishinaabeg creation stories]], [[Cherokee mythology#Creation myth|Cherokee creation myth]],[[Choctaw mythology#Choctaw creation|Choctaw creation myth]],[[Creek mythology#Creation|Creek creation myth]],[[Hwanung#Creation myth|Korean creation myth]], [[Chinese creation myth]] - and among these one doesn't even contain the word "myth" in the article! Further evidence that no such consistency exists. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah's question has been answered straightforwardly so many times ad nauseam that I just know that there is a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on with regard to people putting the blinders on and literally not hearing or comprehending anything that doesn't support their view. Another reason to treat those religions differently is that nobody takes their creation narratives seriously and there is no literature arguing "these are not myths" -- they are different cases, like different individuals, and in the cases where there IS such a literature, it means there are multiple contrasting points of view regarding the mythological status of that particular case. Saying "we should treat all these cases the same even though they are different", when viewed through the discipline of logic, is a form of putting the blinders on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

How is a religion where "no one takes their creation myths seriously" different from one where its creation myth is taken seriously? (and for that matter, lots of people don't take Genesis seriously either). No one has yet successfully offered a reason to treat the Genesis creation myth differently from other religions. Rwenonah (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC) And what is a "creation myth"? It is defined in the corresponding article as "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and people first came to inhabit it." What is the article's topic? The narrative in Genesis of how the world began and people first came to inhabit it. The only logical title is "Genesis creation myth" (the creation myth in Genesis). Creation narrative redirects to creation myth. Rwenonah (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to speak to this point and go on record as saying that I am NOT opposed to this move on the basis of whether or not this is "taken seriously". I think that line of argumentation is totally off point. However, I would suggest there have been several reasons offered that demonstrate why the Genesis text should be treated differently. First, it should be treated differently because reliable sources treat it differently. There is no one way that the text is universally referred to. It is called (among other things) a story, an account, a narrative, a record. Second, the reason that reliable sources treat the Genesis text differently is because it is fundamentally different. I'm not aware of any other cultures, people groups, or religions that have a story about the world's origins in this format - a single, complete, canonical narrative text that has existed essentially unaltered for thousands of years. Where there are close comparisons, such as in the Enûma Eliš, the article is not titled a "creation myth", but rather is described as such. Third (and I think maybe this is the point being made by those advocating for "living" religions being treated differently), the reason that there is such a diversity of opinion in reliable sources is that there is such an abundance of scholarship on this text as compared with others that are less well known. This is most certainly related to the number of modern adherents, but it's not the number of adherents that should cause us to treat this subject differently. Perhaps you might even consider that it's actually quite the other way around! The mere fact of just how remarkably different this text is could be part of the reason there are so many modern adherents. It's worth at least considering. Ἀλήθεια 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't as unique as you make it out to be. Many religions have extensive writings (Babylonian religion, Hinduism and Buddhism, to name a few) which have existed since long before the BIble. While, as you've pointed out, the parallels aren't exact, the creation myths in those articles (where they exist) are explicitly referred to in the titles as "creation myths. Then again, those religions don't even have creation myth articles, which bears out your point about the abundance of scholarship (and enthusiasm) on this topic. Rwenonah (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

True, there are extensive writings from other traditions, but are can you point to any culture, people group, or religion that has a single, complete, canonical text such as we have in the Genesis narrative? Or are they (as would be expected from a creation myth) a collection of oral traditions with multiple variations? Hinduism has not one creation myth, but rather at least three. Buddhism, on the other hand, has no accepted creation myth, as questions on the origins of life are moot according to that tradition. Interestingly, for the world's second largest religion, Wikipedia refers to the "Islamic creation narrative". Ἀλήθεια 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How about the Mayans and their Popol Vuh? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Once again, the point being made relates more to comparative mythology than anything else. In the case of the Bible, I believe that there are variations of various books that serve as a testimony to the fact that the canonization process itself was contentious, with one priest caste/class/family winning out over another in establishing the canonical version.

The same is true with respect to the Japanese creation myth, also the story is more complicated because there were two canonical versions with respective orientations to different audiences; i.e., one domestic, and the other international/continental. In later years other version of the myths surfaced in different contexts.

Accordingly, aside from the fact that I don't see RS differentiating literary genre on the base of "canonical" status, it is not unreasonable to state that the case of the Bible is not unique in that respect.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hindu texts definitely do not take the form of "an oral tradition with multiple variations", since there are multiple complete, canonical texts which lay out the creation of the world and predate the bible by several thousand years. The only major difference is the fact that there are variations (and its really no surprise that variations came to exist in the three thousand years by which these texts predated Genesis). As I said, the parallels aren't exact, but Genesis isn't unique enough to justify not titling this article "Genesis creation myth" on the basis of it being the only "single, complete, canonical text" of its type. Rwenonah (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break II: All myths are narratives. Stories. If it isn't a story narrative, it isn't a myth. The creation narrative in Genesis is, by definition, a particular kind of narrative known as a creation myth. Creation myths are a genre. And this is an encyclopedia where readers deserve quality content, not pretend content or content reshaped via special pleading to satisfy niche interest groups or "insiders" accustomed to their own manner of defining things. There's no need to drill it into readers heads by repeating the term "creation myth" ad nauseum. Story works, narrative, "account" - there are lots of perfectly valid words to use to avoid overly redundant usage or awkward sentence construction. But it needs to be identified as a creation myth, in the lead, and just as overuse isn't justified, neither is undue under-use as with awkward euphemisms or otherwise tiptoeing gingerly around the fact. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose a simple poll

Not helpful. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

OK folks, all of the above is generating more heat than light. The combination of threats and baiting is not helping anyone. Everyone is getting a little too heated and snarky, and it's time to cut the endless dialog and discuss the move request itself - NO ONE is going to change their mind, I suspect. Somewhere along the line, if this keeps up, someone is going to go to one of the drama boards for relief (admins are already being called upon), then when that drama has filled up a couple of thmb drives worth of text, then someone will open an ArbCom case, and if history is any indication, several people are going to get sanctioned along the way. It's going to be Chelsea Manning or Climate Change or "T/teh" Beatles all over again. So, instead of going through all that (though perhaps that could be the goal of some participants, I don't know), let's just cut to the chase:
Here is the bottom line: This move proposal takes a relatively stable, neutrally phrased article title that might annoy a few people but harms no one, and proposes to replace it with a title that, should the move request succeed, will unquestionably inflame a significant number of readers, who will complain even louder than this current group of editors, and that will undoubtably set off yet another round of this debate. Though Til's rhetoric is a little too hot, that is, I think, the point he was trying to make. On the other hand, those supporting the move may have dug up a lot of useful evidence, but it is being presented in a way that will win them no friends or allies. All I'm seeing is a lot of terribly tendentious argumentation that are at best WP:SOUP, possibly constitute some rather nasty WikiLawyering, and at worst are poking the WP:BEAR. So let's end this now and just do a straw poll of those who are following this discussion. If you voted above, it's hard to find in the wall of text, so everyone just please re-state your position as SUPPORT or OPPOSE here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC

---

Polling Votes only here, NO commentary

Those who support move:

Those who oppose move:

1. Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC))

This is a pointless exercise begun in bad faith by someone who didn't even try to conceal their obvious POV. Simple polls are for simple people, and we're not supposed to vote here anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this, although I consider the action to be an attempt to control and own this discussion. Montana was making a good faith attempt to summarize the massive amounts of text in this discussion. Every editor commenting on this page has a point of view, that's what this discussion was for. Further, simplicity, which requires the intelligence to reduce complexity to the most vital points and elegant patterns should not be confused with ignorance or lack of intelligence as is suggested here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC))

I agree that it was a good faith effort by Montana, but it was ill-advised. The personal attacks against Montana for doing this were much worse than ill-advised, unfortunately. The closing admin will be able to see the different lines of reasoning and the !votes. In similar discussions I've seen an editor do the closer a favor by listing the !votes in a separate section. That would have been a better choice than expecting each editor to return here (many without even being aware of this idea) to re!vote. At this point, I think it would be best to leave it to a wise closing admin to sift through the arguments, personal attacks, !votes, policies, and history here. I also think that it's time to close this, since there is much more heat than light being generated now, in spite of the command to "Let there be Light." First Light (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that this discussion should be closed by an uninvolved editor/admin, and thanks Montana for the attempt to move the discussion beyond, "the arguments, personal attacks, !votes, policies, and history here."(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC))

Sources from scholars who argue "not myth"

Since this has significant bearing on how this article is to be appropriately titled, I thought it wise to create a discussion section to gather sources from books written by notable scholars and from peer-reviewed academic journals. The purpose of this is not to try to preclude the article from stating the current scholarly consensus that the narrative found in Genesis 1-2 is classified as a "creation myth", but rather to demonstrate from reliable sources that it is also classified in other ways.

• Von Rad, Gerhard (1973). Genesis: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 63. ISBN 0664227457. "In essence it is not myth and not saga, but Priestly doctrine, i.e., ancient, sacred knowledge, preserved and handed on by many generations of priests, repeatedly pondered, taught, reformed and expanded most carefully and compactly by new reflections and experiences of faith."
• Greene-McCreight, Kathryn (1999). "Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the "Plain Sense" of Genesis 1-3". Issues in Systematic Theology. 5 (5): 185. "Here, then, is the significance of Barth's classifying the biblical creation narratives as saga and not myth."
• McCartney, Dan (2002). Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible. Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company. p. 213. ISBN 0875525164. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "...biblical history is not myth, but a true story, told with theological purpose and vantage point. It may use the images and linguistic forms of its environment, but slipping in the term myth by redefinition really results in a reduction of the uniqueness of the biblical history."
• Kissling, Paul J. (2004). Genesis, Volume 1. College Press. p. 96. ISBN 0899008755. "Secondly, this view forgets that Genesis one is antimythological polemic, not myth."
• Rogerson, John W. (2005). Davies, Philip R. (ed.). The Old Testament World. Continuum. ISBN 0567084884. "...there is nothing comparable here to what we find in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Greek myths..."
• Waltke, Bruce K. (2011). An Old Testament Theology. Zondervan. ISBN 0310863325. "I will argue below that Genesis 1 is an ancient Near Eastern cosmogony, but let me emphasize here that its content is essentially historical, not mythological."

Respectfully submitted, Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, most of the sources above seem to have a Christian (or at least monotheistic) theological orientation. While adherents to a monotheistic religion might try to strictly differentiate between monotheistic mythology and polytheistic theology by calling the former "saga" instead of myth, scholarly consensus considers all creation stories to belong to the genre of myth.

Simply posting a quote from a source that states told with theological purpose and vantage point reveals the theological bias.

Further attempts to differentiate between types of myth belong to a second order pursuit. "Uniqueness" is a characterization that seems to imply a comparison with polytheistic religions and their myths (haven't read the source), and to evaluate Genesis as an evolutionary (irony) step theologically. The problem is that this article is not about comparative mythology or comparative theology, it is about the specific version of a creation myth found in Genesis.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble sharing your perspective that sources for "monotheistic" or "theological" viewpoints are a priori illegitimate and should have no place in articles about monotheistic or theological viewpoints. This seems to be a presumed given behind much of your words, but perhaps if you could explain it a little to me too so I could understand the presumed given. We aren't saying these sources aren't biased. As with any article, they are evidence of a point of view and all we have to do is report on them impartially, not rebut the sources ourselves and declare them incorrect and their opponents correct because that's what some editors here think. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What the article is about is determined by the sources, and I agree that what we have to do is report what those RS say per their weight in the mainstream. The multiple view[points including that Genesis is myth can be sourced. What we can't do is determine which of those sources is the "right" one and use that determination to title the article. The title should be inclusive per weight of all the content and their supporting RS. Seems to me talk of adherents and religions is a sidetrack to this which I'd favour bypassing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

The mystery of the origin of this document is one of the greatest debates that has raged for many centuries and it is no less a controversy now, in the big picture. There are at least three or four conflicting schools of thought that don't mind promoting themselves as the "mainstream" - but it is in fact controversial, and dishonest not to report it as controversial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, which is why the article must contain per weight those controversies not per how the controversy portrays itself but per the overarching sense of all the sources. And is is because there are controversies that we cannot as editors choose any one, as right, or accurate, or fact, but must in the title of the article use words that can include the multiple schools of thought on the subject. We must use a neutral title.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

People who believe Genesis is literal history do not get a say per WP:FRINGE. People who think that myths cannot contradict other myths have to show why this is so (and that is not done in either of the sources that do so above). The only thing left is "saga" which is plainly a euphemism. We are told to avoid euphemisms explicitly in the policy about titles of articles. In short, there is no controversy to teach. jps (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Til I don't consider the sources or the pov to be "illegitimate", but a minority pov in academia. If you look at my earlier posts, I've referred to a relatively less "supernatural" dimension to the Genesis creation myth; accordingly, I can appreciate the pov of the "Plain Sense", and even go so far as to acknowledge that there may be scholars that genuinely assign a theological import to that "Plain Sense".

However, I find that to be a pov of a secondary order with respect to what could strictly be characterized as one of the qualities of the myth, per se. accordingly, I find that to be a pov that appropriately should be addressed in the body of the article, and not necessarily have bearing on the title.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so the first two sources argue for Genesis creation saga. I cannot tell from the the context of the third source whether the author thinks that the creation myth in Genesis is history, but the last source definitely claims that. That has to be a WP:FRINGE position (our article doesn't even touch that claim with a ten foot pole), so arguing for Genesis creation history is more-or-less a non-starter. The other two argue for Genesis creation antimythological polemic, but that's really more of a comparative mythology point rather than anything else. To claim that something cannot be a myth when it takes issue with other myths is a simple fallacy and cannot be the basis for making decisions. So, I'm at a loss. The strongest case you have is Genesis creation saga, but I note that there is nothing that says sagas cannot be myths and the Karl Barth argument is one that is geared specifically towards modernization of theological argumentation -- easing the religious into an acceptance of mainstream scholarship through euphemisms. It's rather good this didn't catch on because Evangelicals today would probably think that "saga" had the same characteristics of "false" as myth currently carries.

In short, I appreciate the attempt, but don't think it compares to #Sources. These are not serious rejoinders.

jps (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@jps - You are totally missing the point. There are reliable sources that argue for myth, and reliable sources that argue against myth. The object then is to find the title that is neutral - that (almost) no one argues against. Can anyone find any sources that disagree that the passage under consideration is a "narrative"? To date I haven't seen one. And you are completely wrong in stating that Genesis as history is a fringe position. It is far from the majority view, but it is a very significant minority view. In fact, we specifically deal with this in the genre section (not, as you claim, refusing to "...touch that claim with a ten foot pole") - It can also be regarded as ancient history, "part of a broader spectrum of originally anonymous, history-like ancient Near Eastern narratives." In your preferred sources above, you might note that only one actually uses the term "Genesis creation myth". All the others are actually quite agnostic toward what this article should be titled, and merely speak to content issues, which have long been settled. Other titles suggested or implied (but not mandated) in your list of sources (which by the way is far from ideal in terms of scholarship and WP:DUE) include Creation biblical narrative, Genesis creation story, Creation in Genesis, and Creation in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Ἀλήθεια 14:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the sources which "argue against myth" are either not reliable (in that they are promoting WP:FRINGE viewpoints such as a literal Genesis account of history) or are claiming euphemistic balance (e.g. "saga") which is not a valid reason for renaming the academic term creation myth. In short, no reliable sources have been presented which argue convincingly why this article is not about a creation myth found in Genesis and #Sources strongly argues otherwise. jps (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If we had one set of articles titled "creation narrative" and another set titled "creation story," would there be all this drama over one set being treated differently than the other? I doubt it. It's the word myth that is causing the problem and that is because it is such a loaded word. Some sources use and it some don’t. The U.S. Library of Congress has 695 listings under the subject ‘’Bible, Genesis,’’ many of them have being subcategories with dozens of titles themselves, including ‘’Bible. Genesis--Commentaries’’ 429, and ‘’Bible. Genesis--Criticism, interpretation, etc.,’’ 400. And that’s only books. There are thousands of scholarly articles on the subject as well. Picking and choosing a handful of sources can prove nothing, and surveying them all, even if feasible, would be OR. The obvious solution is to use a neutral word like narrative in the title or no descriptive noun at all. If people feel that leaves other religions slighted, then make those titles neutral too.—agr (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note - jps formerly Science Apologist was indefbanned once for his misuses of applying FRINGE policy and apparently allowed to edit again with a promise to stay away from this. I had no involvement with this and do not know the details. But he has again used the pejorative term FRINGE in application to the positions of the Nicene Creed, which were decided by a consensus that is still adhered to by the Nicene Churches. It is my fear that jps intends to have Wikipedia officially endorse his perception that all of the Nicene Churches are FRINGE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion above, its Ἀλήθεια who misses the point; jps said that calling the creation myth in Genesis real history is a fringe position. I hope no one disagrees ; that is simple common sense, and the article rightfully ignores that position. In my opinion, the sources saying not myth don't compare to these #Sources, especially as they contradict each other and all offer different opinions on what Genesis is. Rwenonah (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is complete hogwash and smacks of anti-Christian bias. Plenty of people disagree. That's the whole point of the multiple (at one count, more than 10 books written by prominent PhD-level scholars and some half-dozen peer-reviewed academic journal articles) reliable sources that have been offered, demonstrating that the article can't ignore that position. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You hope that no one disagrees that is a FRINGE position? Sorry, I for one disagree. This is the position of Nicene Christianity and you are saying jps' view is "mainstream" and everything disagreeing with jps is FRINGE. If this continues it may need to be arbitrated again. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that the creation myth in Genesis is real history (e.g. creation actually happened exactly as described in Genesis, and this position is a valid interpretation of history)? Or that that position is not fringe? Rwenonah (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah, that's what all these sources are saying. There are differing, competing views of history. Not everyone thinks the same as you do and there's no reason to falsely portray that everyone thinks the same as you do. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the idea that creation happened literally as described in Genesis is fringe, since it totally discards all of history that occurred before the existence of humans, including evolution. Are you saying Young Earth Creationism is not fringe? There is a scientific consensus that evolution happened and the earth is 4.54 billion years old. Rwenonah (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember that there is a significant amount of ambiguity in the text itself, and almost nothing that describes how creation happened. The narrative never claims to be a scientific textbook. Plus, you are assuming that historical narrative always reads exactly as it does in this modern era. The point is, there is no need to saddle this article with the overly specific label of "creation myth" when there is a perfectly acceptable alternate title. Ἀλήθεια 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you agree that Young Earth creationists are fringe, then? Even putting aside the ambiguous parts, Bible literalists are still fringe, especially if they apply their beliefs to history and science. While Genesis doesn't claim to be a scientific textbook, plenty of people use it and its positions as one - and they are fringe. The article even says this. Rwenonah (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no instances of mainstream academic historians identifying this myth as a historical narrative. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think you're advocating a WP:FRINGE idea here that this myth is history. There are myths which are history (Troy comes to mind) but this isn't one of them. jps (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"A myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form." That definition fits creation in Genesis to a t. Since it's about creation, calling it a "creation myth" is the logical next step. The guidelines for titles are :"the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Creation myth resembles other articles of the type better than does "creation narrative". Narrative is vague, and not at all precise ; myth is more precise, since it implies historical and religious significance. Both titles are short, natural, and easily recognizable, but on the whole, myth better fits the guidelines and is supported by the sources. Rwenonah (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: Do you admit that by insisting that "narrative" is not sufficient, this is indeed what you are seeking to signify by "myth", your perspective viewing Nicene Christianity as "FRINGE"? I thought "myth" was being dressed up as an innocuous term devoid of making any sort of judgement calls (which is obvious nonsense), but still somehow just "better" than "narrative" - well not only better, but somehow "essential". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

All religious creation tales must be treated equally. Myth, narrative, whatever. But Wikipedia must not imply that some have credence and some don't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, how does "narrative" imply any credence? If it did your whole argument might make some sense, but it doesn't... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How does "myth" imply less credence? If it doesn't, please stop objecting to it. The point of my post was the one you have argued most strongly against, treating all such tales equally. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Several scholars have stated openly that "myth" implies less credence, and it's not like this is something that hasn't been discussed - the debate by scholars on this could literally fill several bookshelves. This is controversial. ANd you are still dressing it up as some majestic, noble "fight for equality" because you want to treat living religions "equal" to dead ones (just because in YOUR mind, they are) and I find it a disgusting tactic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. A little logic here. If "myth" implies less credence, then "narrative" implies more credence. Therefore, by wanting us to use "narrative" you are asking us to give more, even some, credence to some religions. Uh, uh. Not on. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As for logic, that sounds like a false premise, because it isn't so: "If myth implies less credence, then narrative implies more credence" Eh? You haven't demonstrated that false conclusion. It isn't so, because a word can also be neutral, and "narrative" happens to be neutral by most accounts, there is no body of literature complaining that word is not neutral, there's only a few wikipedians raising a completely unfounded and unsourced, original complaint that the word "narrative" is not neutral. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Come off the grass. If one of two words carries less credence, the other carries more credence. To argue otherwise is to argue nonsensically. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me you've never studied formal logical thought, as you ought to recognize that as a false dichotomy, one of the most basic of fallacies. It isn't all black or white. There is neutral ground. "Narrative" is clearly in that neutral ground - according to all sources except for a few angry wikipedians. Again, thanks for calling me nonsensical and other entertainment. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm tempted to call you abusive and/or incompetent because of the number of times you have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented what I've said. I did not call you nonsensical, and such a claim makes the rest of what you say here appear even more so. You are the one failing to understand logic. You are mixing up two concepts. You are adding nothing constructive to this discussion at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I have formally studied logic, You are the one who is arguing that if term a connotes "less credence" therefore term b must connote "more credence" (when in fact it doesn't, because it is neutral) and conflating that with using the terms "more" and "less" to describe the two terms relative to each other. And you are the one calling that "logical". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That post is utter nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. Formal studies don't make you right. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen you say the least little logical thing in this debate YET, HiLo48... You say if term A ("myth") means "less credence", therefore term B must mean "more credence". Hmm, let's try it out with a few term B's... Term b = pineapple. Therefore, "pineapple" implies "more credence" and is not a neutral word, because after all, it does have more credence relative to "myth". Hmm, why don't we just say then the principle is that ANY and ALL English words that imply "more credence" relative to "myth" are therefore NOT NEUTRAL? After all it just worked for "narrative"..! What's next, Captain Logic? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. You said you studied formal logic theory. You didn't say you passed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure I did, not that that changes the nature of logic one whit. Logic stands on its own without my help. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In your view, there is no difference between a living religion and a dead one, because in your view, they are all "dead" and should all be treated equally dead. But what's really amazing to me is that you expect the rest of wikipedia to share your prejudice. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not there's a living or dead religion associated with the myth is irrelevant to the issue. The "living/dead" aspect is completely irrelevant. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has been able to explain to me why it's irrelevant, when in any area other than religion, it makes a difference if a viewpoint is widespread and current, or something obsolete that was believed centuries ago but not believed by anyone today. And I would love to see a convincing explanation why this should be irrelevant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the logic doesn't apply. The Whig party is dead, the Republican party isn't, yet one is as accurately defined as political party as the other. Mithraism is dead, Catholicism isn't, yet both are still accurately defined as religions. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Til... You are the one pushing the live vs dead religion thing. Nobody else. I think it's up to you to demonstrate how and why it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It has always mattered because if something is widely believed today, we say "this is widely believed today" whereas if something is not believed today, we say as precisely as possible when and where it was believed. The is the type of information encyclopedias provide, have always provided, and will always continue to provide. There's no precedent for lumping living religions into the category for dead ones in any categorization scheme, and I'm skeptical that would really be a good experiment. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You were doing fine up until the final sentence there. It was not a logical extension of the earlier ones. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the distinction is irrelevant. Creation myths aren't a categorization reserved for stories from dead religions so it's a specious line of argument. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The hazard of this discussion is that Til believes the distinction is meaningful. However, I agree with you that it isn't. There are no policies or guidelines on Wikipedia which would have us distinguish between living and dead religions. Til suggests, "Significant Point of View" which I think he wishes were policy, but it isn't. jps (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Up is down, impartiality is "prejudice", and partiality is "neutrality". What's more amazing to me is that you expect the rest of us to accept your topsy-turvy framing, Til. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to resort to the old tactic of trying to single me out as if I were the only person in the world who feels Genesis isn't a "myth". That tired old lie won't fool anyone, there are possibly billions of us everywhere you look and that is the whole point that all of these sources are trying to get through to you as well. If you are going to have a bullshit encyclopedia that tells the public "Your beliefs are false because we are smarter than you" while allowing access to that bullshit encyclopedia to the public, I can promise you that far from settling this, that is a recipe for all out war. Is that what you want? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Religions are religions. There are no policies or guidelines which recommend treating living religions different from dead ones. Additionally, "dead" religions often come back ; Hellenism (religion), for example. The simple fact exists that creation as described by Genesis is an example of a creation myth, whether you think Genesis is true or not. No one is telling anyone their "beliefs are false". That is your misrepresentation. As for "all out war", wikipedia is not censored based on whether or not people will be offended by something. See the Muhammad article's guidelines on the use of images, for example.

Moreover, I am not calling Nicene Christianity fringe. What I am calling fringe is people who take Genesis's description of creation and history literally (e.g. evolution never happened, one man and woman gave birth to the entire human race, etc.). I'm hopeful you'll agree with me on that. Rwenonah (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath too long hoping that I am obligated out of "peer pressure" (or worse, fear of retribution for "heresy") to accept your view of the world. I do not. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "obligating you to accept my view of the world". Calm down. I was just hoping you'd agree Bible literalists were fringe, so that the discussion could progress. Evidently not going to happen. Rwenonah (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - if you do not stop asserting that this current and vastly widespread doctrine is covered by FRINGE I am going to take this complaint higher. FRINGE doesn't mean whatever you disagree with and therefore whatever you think, shared by a tiny minority in selected ivory towers, the "mainstream". This is pure abuse of the term FRINGE and "Mainstream" for purposes of PUSHING A POLEMIC POINT OF VIEW AGAINST THE ARTICLE TOPIC and none other. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down. Why not take a quick break and have a cup of tea or something? I'm not saying "whatever I disagree with" is fringe. Young Earth creationism is fringe, however, especially if applied to science and evolution. You may complain if you wish ; I am perfectly willing to defend my actions. I have abused nothing, I am not pushing a polemic point of view. I am simply trying to improve the article (you're welcome). I understand you may be passionate about this topic, but please try to stay calm, it makes the discussion much easier and your comments less disruptive. Using fewer Caps-locks and pejoratives would be a an excellent start.

Ironic note- ivory tower originally had a biblical meaning : noble purity. So if we took the Bible literally, you would be calling me and the tiny minority you speak of "noble and pure" by Judeo-Christian standards. Rwenonah (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That is typical of how you make totally false statements, relying on wikipedia articles as your authority. The wikipedia article states that ivory tower originally had a biblical meaning, noble purity. It does not follow from that the literal interpretation of "ivory tower" in Song of Solomon has anything whatsoever to do with me calling you anything. It's as if any assertion you attempt to make regarding the Bible is almost guaranteed to be illogical. The ivory tower is more like Gilgamesh and Enki in a ziggurat, expressing their contempt and fear of the multitudinous denizens of the KUR. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's simply a possible misinterpretation that I found entertaining. Rwenonah (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Earlier statements by Til imply he might not agree that the Sun came before the Earth. I don't think it's safe to assume any acceptance of elementary science from him. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem. I'm here to point out that there are abundant SOURCES representing the WIDESPREAD view that Genesis is not a myth. Whatever I may believe or not believe myself is of no consequence to you or anyone else here. Why is this so hard for some editors to "get" and not others? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, in context that was not an ad hominem. Someone who "formally studied logic" ought to understand why. Your arguments fail on their own lack of merit, not on anything else you may believe. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to be able to come up with a rational rejoinder beyond making bald assertions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to explain to you why it was not an ad hominem? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What sources? The ones above? They contradict each other and offer far worse possible titles. Myth better fits the guidelines and is supported by better sources. Rwenonah (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not distort the argument, the purpose these sources are being used for is to demonstrate that the term myth is controversial in application to this narrative. These sources are only scratching the surface, for the more you look, the more you will see that scholarship is NOT a bunch of "experts" all sitting around agreeing with each other that this is a myth as you falsely pretend (for whose benefit - those who have read nothing?) There is TONS of debate about SPECIFICALLY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A MYTH (and what that is supposed to MEAN anyway) by theologians and scholars, and it could fill several pages this size. For you to ignore it and pretend that it's all been settled now, go home, we won and only OUR books count now, is sheerly stupendous. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The only sources offered have now been impeached by both myself and Prof. Marginalia below. I don't think you have made a strong case. jps (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, as usual it is wikipedia editors arguing their own expertise and pov versus the published viewpoints by theologians, and declaring themselves competent to "impeach" them and unilaterally declare these viewpoints (shared by at least hundreds of millions), and entire schools of thought you don't like, unworthy of any consideration. Not that anyone might call that tactic "arrogance", of course... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I didn't get that PM "impeached" the sources. I got that he actually read them, and discovered that scholars indeed are ambivalent about whether or not this qualifies as a "myth" and that there has been plenty of unresolved debate on this. I actually "thanked" him for his review which I rarely do, because I thought his suggestion to also expand the article with some of this information, was excellent. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me you're looking at people in the wrong field of study. We should be more interested in the views of mythologists, not theologians. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"More interested"? So you are saying we should be partial rather than neutral? The mythologists who choose to study this as mythology, are more valid than the theologians who study this as theology? People who look to theologians and Bible interpreters and commentators should just stop because you think they are deluded, and should just realize that the mythologists' take on this is more "interesting"? Same old circular arguments for purpose of pushing your polemic point of view rather than actual neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Myth is a form of literature, theology is the study of religious beliefs, which can be expressed in any of various forms, one of which is myth. Studying texts is something that both mythologists and theologians do, but categorizing a text as belonging to the genre of myth is more likely a task that falls within the specialized competence of mythologists.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Numerous scholars have challenged this particular classification for many reasons and it is intellectually dishonest to turn a blind eye to this widespread point of view and claim the authority to overrule them, this is forcing wikipedia to engage in your polemic which is why I think more editors don't buy into it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When more scholarly statements from RS describe a matter in a certain way than others that manner of characterization carries more WP:WEIGHT, and is the prevailing view. That's not polemical.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's basically an "appeal to authority" that your favored scholars are right, and the ones you don't like are wrong. Not that anything's been resolved, proved, or settled. We just pretend there is no controversy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - those who are attempting to dismiss academic sources as not reliable simply because they come from a viewpoint that is not majority (or as it might seem at times, simply not your own) are completely misapplying WP:RS. In fact, the policy specifically states that reliable sources do not have to be neutral. Nor should they be so. The point of the policy is that reliable sources come from journals that are peer-reviewed and books that are published by companies with editorial oversight. It gives additional weight to sources that are cited by others. All of these apply to a vast number of sources that argue against characterizing the Genesis text as myth. I still haven't seen any reliable sources argue against characterizing the Genesis text as narrative. And please stop arguing about living vs. dead. It's not a helpful argument. HokieRNB 17:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All of these apply to a vast number of sources that argue against characterizing the Genesis text as myth. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on sources listed above:

Von Rad explicitly describes the Yahwist creation story (Genesis 2) as creation myth on page 98.

Barth employs unorthodox definitions of "saga" and "myth" to help elucidate his own neoorthodox, Cristocentric reading of the OT. He would differentiate between how one is to interpret an account of a divine, non-historical, non-literalistic supra-literal, intuitive, imagistically/poetically rendered creation event (saga, to Barth, qualifies while myth does not) and how to interpret one describing a divine, non-historical, non-literalistic, intuitive, symbolically rendered creation event (which he'd allow as myth). This seems like a clear diversion into Dante's Nine Circles of Exegetical Esoterica. The search term "Genesis Creation Saga" delivered ~~81 hits~~. Next.

McCartney-haven't read it. Except where the text speaks specifically to the Genesis creation account it isn't sufficient here.

Kissling-again, speaks of priestly account only, consciously withholding the statement from the yahwist account.

Rogerson-abbreviated passage here has been deceptively cherry-picked. Reading the text surrounding it, if this was an inadvertent mistake, it certainly wasn't easily come by.

Waltke-deceptively cherry-picked again. Like the prev. cite, passage spoke to priestly, not yahwist, sections and Waltke earlier distinguished between myth in its academic sense (which he thought Gen 1-11 qualified) and myth in its informal, disparaging sense (which he did not think applied).

IMO, none of these sources adequately satisfy the objections posed. There is justification for a subsection to discuss how the priestly account departs from the mythic style and form in the creation myths of its near eastern forbearers. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Some more opinions from scholars and academics for wikipedian self-styled authorities to originally rebut

• "Through these texts [Gen. 1-2] we see what is the immediate source of the sacredness of marriage, love and fruitfulness. It is not a mythological archetype, as the neighbouring pagan peoples imagined. It is the creative word of Yahweh which gives expression to his enduring will." -- P. Grelot, Le Couple humain dans l'Ecriture, 1964, as translated in Creation Theology, Jose Morales, 2001, p. 161

• "Its purpose is clearly to point to the creative power of Jahwe. Therefore to speak of mythological "elements' in the Old Testament is very confusing at best. There are no "mythological sections" that are "analyzable" as such. There is only a deliberate utilizing of a number of non-Jewish figures and images. All of this demonstrates the anti-mythological tenor of the Jahwe cult as well as the vital power of absorption in the Jahwist faith." -- Studies in Dogmatics: Sin, G. C. Berkouwer, 1971, p. 83.

• "...The biblical narrative treats events of Israel's past as history, not mythology, for what happened to Abraham onward, and even prior to Abraham all the way back to creation, took place in a time-space continuum. Its world and people are the world and people we know today. Ancient mythology, while holding a great deal in common with the world of today, deals primarily with creatures and events of a different order. The nearest analogy in the biblical narrative is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, though even there the LORD God is carefully described in non-mythological terms... " -- conservative religion scholar Carl Amerding, The Old Testament and Criticism, 1983, p. 11.

• "...How to define "myth" is another matter altogether. While most, if not all biblical scholars would agree that the word myth may denote what produces myths, or may mean the understanding of the world that is contained in them, agreement would end as soon as these generalizations were made more specific. Some would argue that myths are produced by a pre-scientific outlook and that the world-view contained in myths must retreat as science advances. Others would regard myths as the product of a way of knowing different from science, expressing truths independently of the knowledge, or lack of it, of scientific causes." -- J.W. Rogerson, "Slippery Words:Myth" in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth by Aland Dundes, 1984, p. 63

• "In using the terms myth and mythical in relation to Genesis, we encounter greater misgivings. Not only do the terms have unsavory connotations in popular usage, but an impressive array of biblical scholars have argued that both myth and mythical modes of thought are absent from the Bible. Myths are what the Egyptians and Babylonians believed. 'The God of Israel has no mythology,' declared G. Ernest Wright. 'The religion of Israel suddenly appears in history, breaking radically from the mythopoeic approach to reality.' This position follows the earlier lead of Hermann Gunkel who had argued that myths are "stories about the gods", and since a myth requires at least two gods to make a story, the Old Testament contains no myths, though some mythical materials are alluded to... Obviously if one restricts the term myth to polytheistic materials, biblical materials are not only not mythical but anti-mythical..." -- The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, 1984, p. 99. [NOTE: This author does go on to argue that in his view, this idea of myth "may be" too restrictive to be useful for his purposes; but at least he acknowledges that other significant schools of thought actually do exist -- like any serious scholar does.]

• "Perhaps the most important thing that can be said about the creation days - which are not the same as sun days - is that there is nothing particularly mythological about them. The world that comes into appearance and comes to appear progressively distinct is a world which is plainly perceptible to all humans as humans, believers and non-believers alike. The creation account addresses the world as we know it, as humans have always known it and will continue to know it... Yet just as the creation account is not a mythological cosmogony, so it is not a scientific explanation. Rather, it addresses my pre-understanding (Vorverstehen) of the theatre of existence prior to any explanation, mythical or scientific." -- "The Phenomenology of Symbol: Genesis I and II" by Frank Flinn, in Phenomenology in Practice and Theory: Essays for Herbert Spiegelberg, William S. Hamrick, 1985 p. 235

• "Genesis' story is not a myth, for it does not in fact tell us anything about what things were like when there were no things. Its tohu webohu is not an antecedent nothingness-actuality like the Great Slime dismembered by the Babylonian Marduk, nor yet an eternal egg or womb or pure potentiality of primal matter..." -- Systematic Theology, Robert Jenson, 1997, p. 11

• "Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible Genesis 1-11 is presented as 'history', not 'myth' or 'fiction'." -- Richard E Averbeck, "Sumer, The Bible and Comparative Method" in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Evaluations, 2003, p. 109

Can I just ask, are you reading and comprehending these sources (or at least the quotes)? Or are you simply quote mining Google Books for phrases like "not myth" and copying and pasting? I haven't got the time to consider all of what you've copied and pasted (perhaps some others can look at a source or two too), but in this last example the author seems to be talking about the authors' intended presentation of the material. That's it -- it does not in any way refute the fact that this article is about a creation myth. Please stop cluttering this page with seemingly robotic copying and pasting. Ben (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a really lame attempt to wave off what these scholars are saying, that's the best you got? Actually there are plenty more relevant RSS I could copy and paste here if these aren't sufficient. I mean every time it goes in the same cycle: Myth proponents demand sources saying Genesis isn't a myth, I provide sources saying Genesis isn't a myth, they respond that these are disqualified because they say Genesis isn't a myth and repeat the demand for sources saying Genesis isn't a myth. So my task then is to find sources that say Genesis isn't a myth, only they can't say Genesis isn't a myth or they are disqualified. What a clever way to send me on a fool's errand - there is no way to do it! Not with such an unreasonable litmus test as "a source is only reliable if it supports our pov". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE - This has gone around the bush so many times that at one point I asked Jimmy Wales's opinion on these quotes. His response was something like (pardon me for paraphrasing but I dont remember the exact quote) "What's the big deal? You guys asked him if he could find any academic sources saying Genesis is not a myth, and he found several. Now you guys have shot yourselves in the foot." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and on top of everything else, Genesis creation narrative has been indisputably been shown to be the COMMONNAME in academic literature even, and GCM one of the least common. Why are we even arguing this yet again? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is the title of this thread supposed to mean, and how does one fit a meaningful Edit summary after it so it can be clearly seen in an Article history? And how many non-Christians are among those scholars? HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since wikipedia by policy does not stigmatize any particular religion, it does not matter. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You are paranoid, aren't you? I'm not suggesting Wikipedia take a discriminatory approach. Quite the opposite in fact. I'll rephrase. How many of the scholars and academics are presenting views completely untainted by their religious beliefs? HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What would be the difference between "tainted" and "stigmatized"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm asking the questions here! We need impartial sources. Are they? HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, per WP:RS sources don't need to be impartial when they are for the purpose of representing a viewpoint or demonstrating that it exists, just like on any article, you should know that... You are attempting to stigmatize the sources on the presumption that they would be illegitimate if they could be shown to be speaking for a religion you wish to stigmatize, though this is prohibited by NPOV. (And actually I don't think all are Christian, some may be Jewish, agnostic or what have you, it isn't supposed to matter or be the Spanish Inquisition, mr "I'm asking the questions" bossman...) This is an article about the Bible, and you are saying for this one article we cannot use any Bible scholars, we must use only "mythologists". What a load of crap. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If all you have as sources from which to derive rebuttal quotes is scholars whose views are driven by their religious faith then you have nothing. No, we cannot use such sources! I don't think you have any idea how to create objective content. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your pov / opinion is rather meaningless, since NPOV policy forbids us from stigmatizing any particular religion and not others. We are allowed to consider Bible scholars on every single Bible article. Even this one. And once again, your attempt to brush the sources under the carpet because they MIGHT follow a faith you deem illegitimate is an epic fail because these are peer reviewed scholars and even mythologists, and I don't think they are entirely Christian either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with whatever I deem legitimate or illegitimate. This is not about stigmatising one religion. It's about treating it just like any other. You know, I'd love to see Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules applied to religious articles. Christian opinion should not influence the content of articles on Christianity. Buddhist opinion should not influence articles on Buddhism. Etc, etc, etc. What do you think? HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And Scientists opinion should not influence content on articles on Science (or perhaps just limit the views of quantum physicists to articles outside of their POV). Mathematics experts opinions on math articles, plant scientists on plant articles, Literature specialists on articles about literature. Then we could just put our own opinions in articles. More seriously, most of the people who qualify as experts and reliable sources are currently from the West and English speaking world, which is predominantly Christian and Jewish. It does add some systemic bias to religion articles, but we can't throw out expert reliable sources because we don't like the religion they were born into and/or practice. Reliable Sources on history have a similar systemic bias from the Western POV. That said, I don't think that even a diverse gathering of religion and humanities experts would definitively define all of their foundational texts as "myths." First Light (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where a numerical superiority of RS from Christian theological seminaries and the like have been demonstrated over and against the rest of academia.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I'd love to see User:HiLo48 come down off his high horse, because you don't just get to enact ridiculous policies off the cuff because you think they'd accomplish your bigoted goal of removing Christianity's voice from wikipedia. So Christian sources cannot be used on Christianity articles now because of COI? Then I guess it can't be used anywhere. So I guess you win, you eliminated Christianity from wikipedia. Dupe, Christianity is one of the largest or possibly the largest religion on the planet (even I know that and you ASSume I am Christian myself) We are not talking about a fraction of a percent of the populace here, we are talking about a vast proportion. And you despise it, that is clear. You are so desperate to utterly remove your enemy, Christianity, from wikipedia that you will propose any blatant foolishness just to try to eliminate it and declare it "FRINGE" and make it inadmissible on any article about Christianity. Sorry, but the reasons we have never done that are so frigging obvious they defy belaboring. We have ALWAYS considered Buddhist opinions relevant to Buddhist topics, Jewish opinions relevant to Jewish articles, Muslim opinions relevant to Muslim articles, Bahai opinions relevant to Bahai articles, and we aren't going to stop no matter what kind of bigoted whistle you blow to tell people to stop. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Til writes "your bigoted goal of removing Christianity's voice from wikipedia", "you eliminated Christianity from wikipedia", "you are so desperate to utterly remove your enemy, Christianity, from wikipedia". Get a grip, Til. We weren't even discussing deleting anything. This whole discussion has been about changing one word in an article title. That's it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The clever arguments presented above include the one that sources representing the views of Biblical scholars and theologians should be a priori discredited from consideration for a particular Bible article just because they *MAY* be "tainted" by religion. This is the most extremely polemical attitude I have ever encountered and I do not think my response was wrong. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Til's approach to debate is to take something an opponent says that he doesn't like and apparently cannot fairly refute, then completely misrepresent it in an attempt to make it look foolish and bigoted. In doing so he paints a perfect picture of himself. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

＠First Light All experts are highly encouraged to participate. There is WP:BIASED, but such bias is not necessarily against NPOV and often in accord with WP:YESPOV. This is not a simple or straightforward question because there are historical junctures at issue. One such juncture would appear to be the influence of Greek thought on the Hebrews, perhaps contributing to a more rational (less supernatural phenomenon) rendition of creation myth. At any rate, for the sake of the structure of the article and consistency in the treatment of other such stories regarded as sacred in other traditions, I think that the title needs changing. I find "narrative" to be too close to implying an actual historical sequence of events that serve as the basis of the story, and that indirectly supports Creationism, which I find problematic for an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, "story" might be a compromise, but myth in the formal sense seems to carry more weight with respect to the sacred in academic discourse. The problem with that is that there is a historical background of Christian disparagement of (polytheistic) myth (again, see Christian myth) in conjunction with promotion of the more rational monotheistic "stories" of the Bible. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I argued heavily for 'myth' in the last discussion on this topic, at this point I think story may be an even better option. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would find "story" preferable to "narrative".Rwenonah (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What about simply "Creation in Genesis"? Why do we need a descriptive noun?--agr (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's vague. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I too would find "story" less biased and more natural sounding than "narrative". But though "story" doesn't give undue credence, we'd still have an issue of not being consistent with "creation myth" in other article titles. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How many times do various editors need to point out that none of the other currently widespread religions use "creation myth" in their titles, the only precedent is with cases where there is no dispute that it is a myth. Reminder once again, it's a faulty analogy because here it is established there is a dispute. And when "consistency" is made an overriding reason it often covers a slippery slope - otherstuff that was edited by other editors where you were not part of the decision process became a fait accomplis, so its easier just to transfer that decision over here by insisting on "consistency" as the overriding concern, than it would be to explain how it could be logical to do the same here in a totally different case with different editors. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop favouring modern, widespread religions over older ones. There is no reason to treat them and their creation myths differently, as has been explained to you many times. Moreover, many modern religious articles use "creation myth", see Japanese creation myth. Also, no one is insisting on consistency as the "overriding concern", simply a factor to take into account. DO you have any objection to "story"?Rwenonah (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

IMNSHO, attempts by partisans to twist the definition of "creation myth" to exclude monotheistic creation myths like Genesis are frivolous and smack of special pleading. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that you ask, no, I have no objection to "story", other than that "Genesis creation narrative" has been shown to be by far the COMMONNAME in academia. I don't see how we could possibly hope to get more neutral and impartial words than either "narrative" or "story" other than the suggestion to avoid labels altogether with a simple title like "Creation in Genesis". All those titles would make sense because they do not involve any gratuitous judgement calls about the genre of the text, which is in truth hotly disputed in academia as demonstrated. But since the current proposal does not involve any of these other titles, I suppose that would take another move request.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's OK to make "gratuitous judgement calls" about religions that aren't yours? Your bias and POV pushing is blatant. It's OK to have a bias. We're all biased in some way or other. But some of recognise our biases and work hard to put them aside in discussions like this. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not agree that it's OK to make gratuitous judgement calls about religions that aren't mine. I am not sure I follow what your point is with that accusation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure. I'm sure that you cannot think logically on this matter. I guess that's to be expected when it comes to religious adherence. But not here! HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly are you trying to say here? I'm afraid you've totally lost me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought so. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So I don't suppose you will enlighten me as to what the heck you are attempting to communicate will you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried. In response you've made so many posts of the sort "So your'e saying that...", and got it completely wrong, I see little point into trying to educate you further. I think I write reasonably good English, and to encounter someone who repeatedly claims I'm saying something different from the words I actually write, suggests either incompetence or deliberate misrepresentation. It doesn't strengthen your case. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So do you have any actual point to make here, or just taking the opportunity to wax magisterial? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I've made my point already, several times. You have failed to or refused to comprehend it, or perhaps comprehended it and refused to accept it. I won't go on. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You suggested that I think it's "OK to make gratuitous judgement calls about religions" that aren't mine. But you refused to explain how you could think I would ever think this. So this just is not really going to be a very productive exchange, since I don't understand what you meant by this, and you won't tell me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks

yes, slip of the mouse.. Thanks for fixing it. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems with organizational structure, "argument", esp sections Judeo-Christian reinterpretations and Genre

Given the effort spent on this talk page generally leans more heavily towards the "heat" side of the equation than the "light" side, the article itself reads like it's randomly constructed from scattered bits scavenged from an assortment of dead libraries. That's because too often what ends up on the mainspace is deliberately sought out to serve as a so there! blow for or against some faction of backoffice turf warriors, ie we---we're making a mess of what should be a reasonably easy article to put together, given it's probably one of the most comprehensively examined topics - academically examined - of all time.

It's considerably improved from where it was when I initially came to it, but it's deteriorated - deteriorating - from superior versions between then and now. "Judeo-Christian reinterpretations"? That's US culture-war-creep speak, probably inspired on this talk page because it isn't in the sources cited. The sources speak of diverse streams of "reinterpretation" in Jewish and Christian from two thousand years ago. And what's starkly revealed as odd in the article by this labeling is our inexplicably overlooking of what we're referring to about "interpretation", Judeo, Christian or any other.

We plunge ahead in the Judeo-Christian reinterpretations whooey by pronouncing "Genesis 1 was not originally concerned with establishing God as creator of the world (that was taken as given)", seemingly oblivious we have, ourselves, asserted to readers in the intro that the account was a critique of the earlier Mesopotamian polytheistic versions of an otherwise like narrative. We then take readers by the hand straight into huh?land. "The opening words of Genesis 1 sum up the authors' view of how the cosmos originated: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'; Yahweh, the god of Israel, was solely responsible for creation and had no rivals.[71] Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit had shared in the creative act." Huh? Is "concluded" the right word here? Is "Yahweh, the god of Israel" the "concluded that God's Wisdom etc" god? What did Yahweh look like then prior to the Greek influence attributing to God Wisdom, Word, Spirit? Why is that conflated with ex nihilo? (One source, a casually airy toss to "central to Islam, Judaism, Christianity"?? srsly?) Then, without warning and largely without any identifiable explanation or context whatsoever we push readers noses into an obscure debate between two equally today alien and extinct conceptions of how the universe is put together.?

Genre.../deep breath/.  ?? . There are so many problems therein. I think if I were to attempt to best reduce it, it's the presumptive "right way" adopted by the "voice" in that section--that there's a "right/wrong" interpretation of Genesis and that genre is the gate to getting it "right". The voice in that section is not encyclopedic At All. It's too much sermon, at the expense of description. This is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. And genre is significant when interpreting a text, but lots of other things are significant as well. The article impotently flails about in the "interpreting" territories because its structure results more from the emergent psychosis of these backpages than it otherwise should.

I know the article's a battlefield. But congratulations, combatants, while you're so busy tracking your own personal scores the article grows increasingly nonsensical to readers who come here to look stuff up for the best of reasons. Get over yourselves. Professor marginalia (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The incisive analysis and improvements are most welcome and much appreciated, no doubt, but it is still somewhat unclear whether you have took a stand with respect to the title of the article. I don't mean to say that I find your position to be unclear given the foregoing comments you've made in this discussion, but the question of genre is important, and that does throw something of a monkey wrench into your previously staked out oppositions to sources, etc. :Maybe the investigative process of examining the material you appear to be engaged in has yet to arrive at a destination, but at some point, without trying to take sides in a factionalized content dispute, we need to definitively state our positions regarding something as fundamental to the organizational structure of an article as the title.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article title's cycled through about twenty different variations. Two years ago I pulled together 3 megabytes of arguments posted in the perpetual battles over the title.p1p2 If brought current, there'd probably be another 3MB of futility to archive. I think it should follow WP:UCN-ngram tool but I harbor no illusions that my opinion will scooch this any closer to a resolution. I'm convinced it's a pointless exercise talking about it any more. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I too some significant reliable-sourced support for "Genesis creation story" as the title. And there is some editor support for "story." But I think there are enough battleground editors on either side who will forever refuse to budge from "myth" and "narrative". First Light (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Professor marginalia, could you please try to say that again, but more clearly? I might also point out that the two sections are sourced almost on a sentence by sentence basis, so that what you're criticising is the opinions of professional biblical scholars, not of Wikipedia authors - if you think the sources are wrong, please explain why.PiCo (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I will try to show what concerns me with detailed examples, but my time is short today. I attribute the problems to the pages back here because I recognize editors are so absorbed in securing their own pet notions prime real estate on the mainspace, many of them hotly battled over on these back pages, and it's become freakishly difficult to deal with even the simplest improvements needed so the article is coherent and useful to uninitiated readers. (Recent example: my accurate, constructive, unremarkable, 100% non-controversial gnome edits as reverted for opening a "can of worms".) Like, the article doesn't say that where it originated or what language it was written in; we seem to presume the readers will know or gather as much by reading between the lines. In one section, we say the story is a "critique" of the polytheistic Mesopotamian myths, affirming the one God and establishing his primacy over all of nature. In another, we say the Gen 1. authors were "not originally concerned with establishing God as creator of the world (that was taken as given)" and identify that idea as "the result of later interpretation". The claims contradict each other. We also imply that the first drafts of the story originated in the 7th-6th century BC in the lead, but later around 500 BC leaving the reader to guess why both are offered here.

We say, "nor does the Eden story ever say that the serpent in the Garden is the Devil" which is extremely odd...the serpent doesn't figure anywhere else in the article, period! Pretend the reader doesn't know these Bible stories already. The serpent doesn't appear in the creation stories. It makes the same sense to that reader if we were to say, "Genesis never said the zombies couldn't eat of the tree". This may be a Big Deal to those engaging in a irl debate over interpretations about the Devil in theology; but there is no context for it provided anywhere in the article. That's it for now. I'll come back to this when I have more time. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• Genesis 1 "affirm(s) the one God and establishing his primacy over all of nature". Yes, it establishes him as the creator of the world, but not in the modern sense - he's seen as the single supreme god without equals who gives order to primeval matter and makes it habitable, but he doesn't create matter itself (a controversial topic, by the way - this is the current majority view, but not without counter-arguments). So we can say that the authors of Genesis 1 were "not originally concerned with establishing God as creator of the world (that was taken as given)" - meaning that there are no arguments in Genesis 1 trying to establish YHWH as creator, it was simply a given. The two statements aren't contradictory, provided you understand that our concept of creation wasn't theirs.
• "We imply that the first drafts of the story originated in the 7th-6th century BC in the lead, but later around 500 BC leaving the reader to guess why both are offered here." No, that's not what's said - first drafts around 7th/6th centuries, final form around 500 BCE. Actually I think the article is pretty clear on that.
• "nor does the Eden story ever say that the serpent in the Garden is the Devil" which is extremely odd...the serpent doesn't figure anywhere else in the article". I think anyone reading that section of the article will understand what's being said. "Pretend the reader doesn't know these Bible stories already." That's a very big assumption - maybe in the deepest valleys of the Himalayas, or deep in the Amazon rainforest, you might find such a person, but not in our world. PiCo (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Finding someone who doesn't know the Adam and Eve myth already isn't as hard as you think. There's one born every minute. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

PiCo, have you been to India or China recently? You comment about the Himalayas is apt. Very few Christians or Jews anywhere near there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Pico, obviously my comments got your back up and AFAIC you're exempt from my missive. It's my fault that my concerns about the text (which are valid, imo, but I don't mean to overstate the problems) were confusingly entangled with my concern about how they persist and worsen as they do despite the hyper-vigilance to the article evident on the talk page (a serious problem, imo). In fact I credit you for most, if not all, the good content and the clarity there now, a monumental task given the editing climate was such it was virtually impossible to make any progress on the cleanup. And your time is spent improving content, not "scoring points for the team" on the backpage. The culture wargame atmosphere creates an environment where even basic, common sense editing concerns become factionalized and this toxic subtext gets imparted to everything, not just the "hot button" bits. Again, the uneasiness towards my repairing missing/broken references was the direct result of all the heat generated back here on the completely unrelated battle over renaming the article.

So to return to the issues I raised. I'm not asking for a defense of the claims themselves. I'm asking we consider we're supposed to remember the reader's perspective. Compositionally, the connective tissue isn't there! The claims in the article have to cohere. The article should be written such that the arguments, or purpose, for making the claims are made evident in narrative, without the expectation the reader must "understand" or share in a given, veiled, back story. The text is not that clear as a standalone. These points aren't that clear in the text itself. Look again at my point about the Devil/Serpent. I don't think your "everybody knows" it is a good defense of it. The same "everybody knows" probably would know the creation stories too, yet we don't assume they do here--we assume it's our task to describe them. We don't give the reader any reason why we're talking about the Devil/Serpent in this article - the context is invisible (and arguably more relevant than is the value of its brief mention as an example of reinterpretation.) Take the whole clause there: "nor does the Eden story ever say that the serpent in the Garden is the Devil, or that Eden is a heavenly garden where the righteous will live eternally, or even that this is the story of the Fall of man." This is a debate rebuttal in an article that's so far omitted the affirmative! Letting the unsaid "youknowIknowyouknowIknow" serve as substrata is valid to eliminate pedantry when writing to an audience of "insiders", but that's not our audience. Our audience is not our talk page "contestants" either. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I have to give up ownership of this article. The nature of Wikipedia is that articles get revised and re-revised ad infinitum. Thanks for the kind words though. :) PiCo (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ownership? Is that meant to be a joke? HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ownership is an attitude - "as if I owned". That's what I need to give up. PiCo (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative

This thread is serving little purpose, and is unlikely to generate new consensus. The ANI thread is still open if anyone wants to contribute there. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thought someone ought to mention that this debate is being talked about at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative. Also it seems like some there find my participation in the discussion to dangerous and formidable an obstacle to their agenda and would seek to remove opposing voices from the equation in order to achieve a semblance of "consensus" using that method. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your possible misconduct is being discussed in reference to other articles, by editors uninvolved in this discussion. BTW, it's rude to refer to editors as having their "heads up their ass"es. Just because someone disagrees with you is nor reason to discard basic civility. 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand why people are still arguing over "narrative v. myth". Both terms are unacceptable, as I pointed out in the requested move I closed over a year ago. Move it to "Creation in Genesis", problem solved. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand either, unless it's because both sides like the intellectual stimulation of discussing it over and over again every six months. Creation in Genesis clearly fulfills neutrality, least surprise, and accurate description. Most of the pro-myth hardliners opposed the last RM to Creation in Genesis, mostly because it didn't say "Myth", even though it was more neutral than the current title. First Light (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Moe Epsilon - Several editors pointed out problems with "Creation in Genesis", so it's pretty silly to say "problem solved". HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: The only criticism of "Creation in Genesis" I see in the previous discussion is from jps: "Well, it's not creation in Genesis. The article is about the creation myth in Genesis." This not a counter-argument to title. The article is still about the creation myth of Genesis. However, the title doesn't need to repeatedly express this. There is no dispute as to what "Creation in Genesis" is: creation, according to Genesis. Take out the word myth or narrative in the title and you've lost everything to argue about. Sorry, if you're going to be intentionally stubborn as to force to the word "myth" into the title or argue for the continued existence of narrative, you're never going to reach a compromise. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If that's the ONLY criticism you saw, then you are an incompetent editor. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And that is about the response I would expect from you, to not provide evidence of why this is a bad title and to question my competence at the same time. You are proving yourself no better than the opposition. Going to be disengaging now, since arguing with you is pointless, considering you won't actually talk about the suggested title and only about me. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly no point you continuing down that path. Your competence is on display for all to see. You clearly don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, HiLo48, there's no point continuing down this path, because you have been incompetent at getting enough people to "understand". In fact, the only way to "understand" your language at all is to adopt the premise "religion is illegitimate and must be combatted polemically." I realize you haven't said those actual words, I'm saying adopting that premise is necessary to even attempt to follow your arguments. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep having to rephrase my words? Do the words I actually use challenge you too much? HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, if every other article about a creation story is named "xxx creation story" or "xxx creation myth" (or some native name), calling this "Creation in Genesis" gives a bad impression, one even worse than the one presently presented by "narrative".Rwenonah (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure any religious person would find the article title "xxx creation story/myth" just as offensive as those who are arguing for the title to stay at "narrative". It's not much of a shock the majority of religious editors on Wikipedia are either Christian or Jewish, thus this "creation myth" being the most popular. What is stopping us from moving other story/myth articles to match "Creation in Genesis", should it be moved there? Seems like "Creation in xxx" or "Creation according to xxx" for all the articles would work. It being a "narrative" or "creation myth" shouldn't have bearing on any of the titles. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that Wikipedia's content is not based on who might be offended? HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• However this is closed, so I suggest we move on. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If there has to be a compromise solution--as appears to be the case, then the use of "story" is probably better than 'narrative'. Maybe either of "Genesis creation story" or "Creation story in Genesis" should be proposed at some point.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps those who feel different religions are being treated unequally might devote some energy to reviewing the use of "myth" in other article titles. Constructions like "Creation in XXXX tradition" might be more neutral and respectful that "XXXX creation myth". Note what our MOS says in WP:LABEL "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." Are we really establishing that in those articles?--agr (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying we change the vast majority of other articles to accommodate Genesis? That would give, if anything, a worse impression of bias. I agree with Ubikwit that a compromise solution would be better - "story" is certainly preferable to narrative.Rwenonah (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting we follow our guidelines. There is no opportunity to "establish the scholarly context" of the word 'myth' in an article title. And I count 11 articles of the form "XXXX creation myth(s)" out of 106 pages in that category. Hardly the vast majority.--agr (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But I have no problem with "myth". It's only the hard core Christians here who seem to. And we don't change the encyclopaedia to satisfy one religion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I said, "xx creation myth", "xx creation story" or some native name. Many are articles that include a section titled "creation myth", but include other mythology. And I count one article with "xx creation narrative" ; this one. But even changing 11 articles to suit one would give the strong impression that we are changing the titles of those articles to accommodate the one ; an entirely illogical action, since this article is no more important than those. Logic would say the opposite ; change the minority article to fit in with the majority. But of course, that has been proven quite impossible above. 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what HiLo48 said, it is not hard core Christians who object to the biased term "myth" being used in the title. I'm Jewish, and I think it's obvious that "myth", whatever its dictionary definition, is commonly understood to mean a fictional story. I understand why certain people want very much to have Wikipedia wave the flag of "the Bible is a bunch of hooey", but that's not what Wikipedia is about. Being deliberately biased and misleading is certainly not what Wikipedia is about.

Back in one of the interminable fights about this, I was the one who suggested and pushed for Genesis creation narrative. This was because advocates of "myth" insisted that Genesis creation story, which is the obvious title, was biased in favor of the story being historical. Which is bizarre, I realize, but at that point, they were pretty much arguing against anything that stood a reasonable chance of replacing Genesis creation myth.

There's a lot of emotion here. Yes, some people don't want the word myth used at all, because the vast majority of English speakers understand it as having a primary meaning of "false narrative", and that offends them. But some of us understand that it has a secondary, scholarly meaning which does not carry a judgment of truth or falsity, and can legitimately be used in the body of the article. Using it in the title, however, is intentionally incendiary. The fact that other articles may use the term in their titles is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is intended to be useful for regular people, and regular people understand the word "myth" as meaning untrue. Which is POV in the extreme. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet more misrepresentation, and the building of a straw man. Nobody here has said they "want very much to have Wikipedia wave the flag of the "Bible is a bunch of hooey"." Why are those against the word "myth" so incapable of having an honest debate? To me, it says an awful lot about them, and about how this should be resolved. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Other articles titles cannot be dismissed as irrelevant; one of the requirements for a good title is consistency with the titles of similar articles. Rwenonah (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It still concerns me that we are leaving this article as the sole exception to our otherwise normal, academic use of the word "myth" in Wikipedia titles even though, as has been noted before, consistency in the titles of articles is an official Wikipedia policy. It has been argued that other articles in the category of creation myths do not use the word "creation myth" in the title, but that isn't really true. That category includes many articles only incidentally related to creation myths, but all the articles dealing primarily with creation myths are titled as such. The article on Book of Genesis, for instance, deals only incidentally with a creation myth and that is the reason it does not include that word in its title. However, to argue that the word "myth" is misleading or biased and therefore should not be used in Wikipedia article titles is an argument no one has used in any article but this one. We haven't been proposing that the article on Japanese mythology be renamed as "Shinto sacred stories". Even the article on Christian mythology is well-established with the word "myth" included in the title and I think that most are not seeking it to be moved to "Christian narratives." It needs to be re-emphasized that this article truly is the only one on Wikipedia where the use of "myth" in the title of an article about myths has somehow become so taboo. My hope is that this issue will be revisited again in the future.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

All of the 11 articles that include the term "creation myth" in their title are of the form "XXXX creation myth" where XXXX is the name of a culture or ethnic group. There is not one title where XXXX is a literary work. Literary works about creation are simply titled by their name. They are never characterized as myth, story, narrative or anything else in their title. This article is unique in focusing on just a portion of a literary work. It is one of a kind, so there is no consistency issue and we can certainly choose to follow WP:LABEL's advice.--agr (talk)

So whether or not a creation story is a literary work changes it from a "myth" to a "narrative"? Seems illogical to me. Rwenonah (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)And untrue : see Sumerian creation myth.Rwenonah (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sumerian creation myth is not an exception. The article discusses several ancient sources, not just a single work.--agr (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sumerian creation myth is about a literary work ( one specific literary work) which describes creation. Where's the difference? And there is no native language name like that used for the majority of other literary works to be used here, so we should try to be consistent with other creation myth articles. Rwenonah (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The intro to Sumerian creation myth talks about four different works. It never says the article is just about one of them, though it only summarizes Eridu Genesis. If it were just about that one work, Eridu Genesis would have to be its title, as that work alone hardly exhausts the current title. --agr (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The RM was closed as No Consensus, and considering the previous history on this issue, it is significantly unlikely that a new consensus will be achieved at this time. That is particularly true given the toxic environment that has developed in this thread. The ANI report has generated little outside interest, so intervention there is also unlikely. I suggest we let this issue drop, at least until enough time has passed that participants feel they can work collaboratively to generate lasting consensus. This thread appears to be devolving rapidly, and will make dispute resolution harder, not easier, the longer it continues. I'm going to close it in the hope of preventing more drama and hostility. If anyone feels compelled to participate in the ANI report (the actual subject of this thread), it is still open.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

FAQ time?

Maybe we need a faq at the top of this page like "Why is it Genesis creation narrative instead of myth?" to spell out really basic facts for the simplest readers like 'there is no body of literature making the case that the term 'narrative' is biased or partial, however there is such a body of literature for the term 'myth'. Many biblical interpreters and other scholars differ as to the correct genre of Genesis, as well as the implications of 'myth'. We therefore have avoided using the demonstrably more controversial of the two terms for the article title, although its status as a myth is discussed within the article itself. In addition, "Genesis creation narrative" is the COMMONNAME used in most contemporary academic literature." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the commoname is "creation story", which is also more in line with other article titles. And if no other articles are named "creation narrative", then calling this one "creation narrative" seems biased or partial, since we're treating it differently from other articles. The term is not ; its use is. Maybe I need an FAQ I can paste in to avoid repeating the same arguments.Rwenonah (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is, of course, already a FAQ: Talk:Genesis creation narrative/FAQ. It certainly needs an answer regarding title, but perhaps that could just say that multiple discussions have been unable to achieve a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought the results of our inquiries showed evidence was that "Genesis creation narrative" was commonname rather than "story"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly not here. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! From that it looks like "G. C. story" is indeed way more common! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that last time it was suggested, the supporters of "myth" claimed that "story" implied a true story. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not anymore, clearly. Rwenonah (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Article Is Not Neutral At All

For example, Moses is thought to have written the Book of Genesis. Various biblical scholars have accepted that Moses was God's first prophet and author of the first five books in the Old Testament.50.157.103.28 (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't meant to be 'neutral', it is meant to reflect a 'neutral point of view' as described at WP:NPOV. And it says that Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, but that isn't the current scholarly view. The article will never actually state that Moses wrote it as a fact. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that it is an established fact that Moses was the first prophet. I live in the Twin Cities, a major breeding ground for secular Christian theologians, and yes, I do know it is an established fact that Moses is accepted as the first prophet by many biblical scholars. Many Christian, Jewish and Muslims scholars identify the five books of Moses' Torah as the first holy books ever written.50.157.103.28 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is a mash-up of biases and questionable opinions. For instance "humanity he creates is not god-like, but is punished for acts which would lead to their becoming god-like" this does not reflect the mainstream opinion of Christianity. The ejection from Eden was to "prevent them from eating of the tree of life and living eternally in their sin" which sin was disobedience not enlightenment.

I at first thought to sit and correct some of the text of the article and almost immediately gave up realizing it is nearly hopelessly self conflicting and rife with incomplete interpretations and incorrect positioning.

The article does not have a section on secular comparativism which I believe it should definitely contain but I do not have a ready list of sources to create the section. If I were to write it the content would be seen as my opinion without those references.

In the end I looked to the back page and found the horror among editors over the naming of the article (which I read in its current entirety) and truly wanted to slap both dominant sides.

The creation selection from Genesis is a wonderful account as understood from the POV of a technologically and scientifically primitive position. If it was completely accurate, and I mean literally correct, it would still have to be seen through the eyes of mankind 4,000 years ago, if you side with the Moses authorship, or 3000 years ago if you espouse the 700 BC (I refuse to use BCE) authorship.

If the original was 'revealed in the spirit as told to Moses by God' Moses would have no frame of reference to comprehend and relate to others what had happened or how it was accomplished. For that matter he would have no vocabulary to explain the Physical Cosmology. "Let there be light." Pretty much tells you what Moses understood. I have no doubt of Moses' intelligence but the man didn't know about communicable diseases, parasites or the fundamentals of physics, how can you expect his interpretation of the creation to stand up to our current standard of scientific analysis?

If you look at the story as if he is a bright, but barely literate by our standard, man trying to explain it to his contemporaries, things become so much more comprehensible and actually align nicely with current scientific reasoning relative to creation theories. His testimony of creative periods and progression of the Earth from the big bang to coalescence through the creation of life he does a pretty good job of proving the science. The second section, the story of Adam and Eve includes his interpretation of the operative method of bringing about 'flesh of his flesh' and being something more interesting to his life, "Where did i come from" he paid closer attention and can relate the story better albeit in the same simple POV terms of which he was capable.

Good on you Moses. 71.174.4.100 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

how can you expect his interpretation of the creation to stand up to our current standard of scientific analysis? I reckon most of us here don't. Seems like a question better directed at Ken Ham and his ilk. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

INCONSISTENCIES

On the two narratives of the Creation Story (Gen. 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-25), please notice the following inconsistencies: a. In the first narrative, man was created on the sixth day where man the last of God's creation. On the second narrative, notice that man was first to be created. b. In the first narrative, all other creatures (birds, fishes, animals, plants, etc.) created before the creation of man where man created at the same time; both Adam and Eve while in the second narrative, note that Adam was first to be created then followed by the garden in Eden and then by the animal creatures. When none proved to be the suitable partner for man, it was only then that Eve was created where Eve the last to be created. c. In the second narrative, the LORD GOD used the possessive pronoun I ("I will make a suitable partner for man") while in the first narrative, when GOD created man, GOD said "Let US create man..." d. Note that in the first narrative, God created all things using His word (Let there be...) while in the second narrative, Lord God created all creatures including man "out of the (clay of the) ground". e. In the first narrative, everyday of creation was always concluded with the phrase "God saw (his creation) that it was good" while on the second narrative, the Lord God said "IT IS NOT GOOD for man to be alone" considering it is He himself who created the man that is alone. Believe it or not, it is was a mistake. It then brings us to inquiring whether or not the creation of EVE in the original plan when the narrative suggests that had God did not mistakenly created man to be lonely, Eve could not have been created. Note further that the first choice of the Lord God to be the partner of man was animals. Upon notice of man's loneliness, God created different animals (2:19)and the purpose of their creation is to present them to Adam for man to choose which of those animals he may like be his suitable partner. Eve was actually the second choice after Adam rejected animals. Hence the question again, does God know what he was doing? It seems the creation process a matter of TRIAL AND ERROR. And true enough, EVE is a product of ERROR. e. Bible scholars are one in the agreement that the second narrative was written way ahead of the first narrative. Gen 2 (the second story of creation) is therefore the original creation story. But why was it written A POSTERIORI the first narrative. Please consider the same parallel confusion of sequence in the first two books of the New Testament. Mark is an older Gospel than Matthew but chronology seem to follow the same confusion between the two stories of creation in the book of Genesis.

IRREGULARITIES

a. On the first day of creation, God created LIGHT. On the fourth day, God separated the light that guides the day from the light that guides the night and all other stars and heavenly bodies. Question is; when did God created the SUN? Was it on the first or the fourth day. If it's the latter, what light did He create on the first day? b. It is not correct to call the garden Eden. The correct text states (2:8) "LORD GOD planted a garden in Eden". Eden is the place where the garden was planted and not the garden itself. The narrative even mentioned the location of the garden being "East of Eden". c. Note that in the 2:5, it was stated "the Lord God had not sent RAIN upon the earth". Question: when was rain created? d. Please check the absurd narrative of Chapter 6 about the Nephilim. SONS OF GOD marrying daughters of man and producing sons who were the heroes of the past and the popular men?" Huhhh? e. It seems disenchanting to consider God a SUPREME ALL POWERFUL BEING but possesses the human frailty of REGRET; (6:6) And the LORD was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. f. NOTE: GEN 1, the creator was GOD. In GEN 2 and 3, it was the LORD GOD. In 4 to 50, its the LORD.

112.200.2.96 (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We can do something with sourced criticism, but not much with original or unsourced biblical criticism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Under the sun, moon, and stars

Regarding this:

On Day Four God puts "lights" in the firmament, but the Hebrew word ''ma'or'' means literally "lamps", underlining the status of the cosmos as God's temple.{{sfn|Walsh|2001|p=37 (fn.5)}}

We previously had a literal description of the text in most English translations; that on Day Four God puts lights in the firmament. This is cited to a good source. Also, the actual text mentions stars here, which we did not have. Now comes Ccasci who wants to insert a sentence:

In most mainstream versions of the bible, the sun, the moon, and the stars are literally created on this day.

With the claim in an edit summary that it's so obvious that it's not mentioned in any sources. This is problematic in a number of ways, some of which have by now been fixed by ordinary editing. First of all, I have not seen a version of the bible in any language including the Vulgate and the Septuagint which say anything about the moon and the sun. They all say a big light and a little light, which is what our first sentence about day four is talking about. All versions also mention stars explicitly. There was previously no mention of this. The sentence currently reads:

In most versions of the Bible, the sun, the moon, and the stars are created on this day.

It is still uncited to a source. If we're going to say it, I don't think it's out of line to ask for a source, since I can't find a single version of the bible that says that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. It's natural to assume that sun and moon are meant by big light and little light, but without a source it's nevertheless original research. Furthermore, if the sun and the moon are what's meant by lights, what does this sentence add to the sourced sentence that precedes it? Finally, the "most" here is pure speculation without a source. If "most" relies on some editors checking a bunch of versions of the bible it's original research. Thus I propose that we (a) find a source for this claim, (b) delete it, or (c) delete it but add "stars" to the sentence that precedes it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What about replacing "the sun, the moon" with "a 'big light' and a 'little light'" in the sentence? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure that's fine with me, except then what does the sentence add to the sentence that precedes it? Maybe we should just add size of lights and stars to that sentence and then add a sentence about the purpose of the lights, e.g. to separate the day from the night and so forth. I have no problem with more detail. I just have a problem with people making stuff up without sources by reading the text. I also don't think we need a secondary source for what the text says, because the text actually says it. It doesn't say anything about the sun and the moon, so we need a source for that. It's always a mistake to assume that there's an obvious literal meaning for ancient language. It's hard enough with contemporary language.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, or we could leave the first sentence as it is, change the second to include big light and little light, leave stars in there, and add a clause about why there's a big light and a little light. That might flow better.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I removed the sentence. As I said, it's factually false. Second, the part that's not factually false is original research (the "most versions" part). Since everybody's super-busy rehashing the move discussion I thought I'd point out my deletion and ask that, per WP:BURDEN, people who want to add this sentence back either find a source for it or else revise it so that the text itself is a reliable source for what it says, per above discussion. Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. This is actually almost a quote from one of the Bible. If you actually want a quote from one or many versions, consider it done. 3rd party rule is not the only rule. You cannot explain or document anything without saying what it is. This is not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccasci (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Name one version of the bible it's "almost a quote from." Furthermore, it's the "most versions" that's original research. How is it not unless you have a source saying it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see your logic, trying to be difficult, but why is it so controversial? Less controversial articles will not pass this scrutiny - if you know you can make it go right, editors will usually let it be and slightly flexible about it. I don't understand why you say this factually incorrect when you can just lookup most Genesis 1:16. If god created something to rule the day, we must be able to see it, a great light, and common sense tell me that it's the sun, same for the moon. There's no debate about the stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccasci (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, right? Everyone knows what verse we're talking about. It doesn't say sun or moon. It says lights, a big one and a little one. It's like this in the original Hebrew and we have a sourced sentence right before that explaining why that is. It's an essential distinction because no translation I can find chooses to translate ma'or as sun and moon. This is preserved in the Septuagint, which uses "φωστηρας" (lights), in the Vulgata Clementina, which uses "luminaria," and by Luther, who uses "Lichter," not to mention every English version I looked at. Do you think all the scholars who've translated this over the last two millenia didn't have the words "sun" and "moon" in their languages? Also, your tacking that material on at the end of the paragraph makes the paragraph incoherent and repetitive to no advantage. As it stands it talks about the lights, moves on to the command to the earth to bring forth stuff, and then has your bit of original research tacked on. If you're so hell-bent on adding something, why don't you work with people on this page to come up with something that actually adds to the article instead of degrading it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And compare Genesis 15:12: Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him., translated in the Septuagint with "ἡλίου" (helios in an inflected form), in the Vulgate with "sol," and by Luther as "Sonne." It's not like they didn't have a word for sun, you know. Your interpretation is original research and is distorting the meaning of the text, as it explained clearly at the beginning of the paragraph you're editing. Can you explain what you're trying to accomplish here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On to more stuff, evidently

Now that the sun, the moon and the stars is in, why can't we quote Genesis 1:16 while quotes everywhere else? As a separate thought, would it be a reliable source if the author is of a particular faith, studied theology in that faith and wrote only about that faith?Ccasci (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in discussing abstract issues about this article with you given your remarkable lack of cooperation over the last matter. It's not pleasant working with you because you won't talk and you edit-war. And now it's all OK with you because it has the words "sun" and "moon" in it? Good Lord. If you want to edit articles that others are interested in you can't just leave them to try to read your mind.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The article text should follow the Biblical text - Great Light and Lesser Light. I'm not sure what the blind requirement to "Sun" and "Moon" are - why can't we just write what the Bible says...? Ckruschke (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Right? Although as it turns out it made me look more deeply into why the text doesn't say "sun" and "moon" and I think the article's better for it. The explanation surprised me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the systemic bias claim

I wish that those who think that unless we "treat all religions equally" we are incorporating some kind of bias into Wikipedia would address the position, fairly well articulated here: Religion#Social_constructionism, that the very idea of "a religion" is a Western one, and that discussing all spiritual/cultural belief systems under the rubric of religion is itself biased. The basic argument is that "religion" is a category imposed on cultural belief systems by anthropologists who take the Abrahamic religions as normative, and that this leads to basic misunderstandings about what's actually happening in those other cultures. The same kind of thing often happens when people set out to be fair by treating all X the same. The dominant culture's conceptions of X end up being a model, taken as universal but really quite particular, into which all X must be forced.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So, because some critics claim that certain anthropologists apply the Abrahamic view of religion to some other peoples' tradition belief systems, we should apply a rather specific Abrahamic bias to the articles on creation stories by calling the Abrahamic story a narrative (arguing against calling it a myth on the grounds that "people think myths are false") and yet call other such stories "myths"? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "people think myths are false." Anyone using the argument that "people think myths are false" doesn't understand the terms of the discussion and their opinions should be disregarded. It's not some critics, anyway, it's mainstream anthropology. Treating a lived common belief system in a hunter-gatherer society as the same kind of thing as an institutionalized religion with thousands of years of conscious textual construction behind it is biased. There's no bias in calling a narrative (specific text) a narrative and a myth (roughly unitary story communicated in multiple texts-broadly-construed) a myth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, there's massive bias in it. That's evidenced by some of the arguments above where it's obvious that some conservative Christians simply cannot accept that their religion is anything but the absolute truth, and feel they must defend that "reality" (to them) here. YOU may not be seeing it in such a biased way, but many do. And do remember that we are all biased. Some of us try hard to put our biases to one side when we work here. (We may not always succeed.) Some make no effort at all. Some don't even recognise it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually saying that the quality of a conclusion can be judged by the quality of the arguments used in its favor? That's a massive logical fallacy. It might be correct and unbiased to call it a narrative even if many of those who do want it called a narrative have stupid and biased arguments. In fact, that's what's happening. Also, I might add, it might be correct and unbiased to call it a narrative even if many of those who don't want it called a narrative have stupid and biased arguments. In fact, that's what's happening. You're the one who says "treat all religions the same." What do you mean by religion in that statement? If you mean what the Ainu believe and you think that's a belief-system that can usefully be classified as the same kind of thing as Christianity, you're certainly falling prey to the exact kind of bias inherent in seeing Western cultural elements as normative that's discussed in the essay. Do you not see how that's possible?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible that a correct conclusion can be supported by bigots and irrational thinkers. I don't think that's what's happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And...?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we're talking about religions, shamanistic belief-systems, or something else entirely, we shouldn't be calling on a myth and the other a narrative. A narrative is, according to the Oxford Dictionary "A spoken or written account of connected events." Therefore any story, whether it is a legend told orally by a hunter-gatherer culture or a legend written and used as a creed to live by in modern Western culture, is still a narrative. A myth is "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". Clearly, this also applies to both types of stories/myths/legends, and they should be titled the same. Rwenonah (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I really do see your point, but I think you're missing two things. The first is the type–token distinction. A myth is a type and a narrative is a specific token of that type. It's possible that both the myth and a number of different narratives of the myth can all be notable, just as the universal concept of "rock" can be notable and also there can be individual notable rocks. That's one thing that's crucial here. This article is not about the Genesis creation myth, but about the specific textual instantiation of it in Genesis. You can see that in the article, which has lengthy discussions about very specific word choices, which obviously aren't going to come into play when you're talking about the generic myth apart from this textual instantiation of it.

The second is that the difference is not between types of belief systems but the way in which different types of belief systems maintain their sacred texts. When a story is told orally only by its originators, there are likely to be multiple versions and the myth itself is an abstraction from those that's not typically created by the believers themselves but by outsiders studying the believers. It's entirely plausible that a collated anthropological version of the myth would not be recognized by the believers as any more authoritative than their individual spoken versions, and possibly less so, and maybe not at all if the myth has a performative element intrinsic to it.

Again, a myth may be notable (they certainly all are) and various narrative instantiations of it may also be notable, both those created by believers either orally or in written form and by anthropologists in written form. The bias I'm talking about appears when editors here assume that because these belief systems are all called religions, they must all have a universally accepted creation myth and a universally accepted narrative version of it because that's what Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have. In fact that's not generally true, and the assumption that it is is almost certainly an imposition of the categories of our complex Western culture onto cultures that are very different.

To be clear: I'm not arguing that there should not also be an article called "Genesis creation myth." There should be. It's just that this is not it. Look at Diné Bahaneʼ for an example of an article that's about a fixed myth written down through collaboration of the Diné with anthropologists and accepted by all as what the myth is but is not about a textual instantiation of it. The Diné have sufficient political power, literacy, and integration into Western society to make sure that they have influence over how their myths are discussed in the literature, so it's reasonable to accept the material in this article as an account of the myth itself. That's how an article called "Genesis creation myth" should read. But this article is about a specific text. Look at e.g. Gudea cylinders, Barton Cylinder, K.3364, Debate between sheep and grain. These are like what this article is. They are about specific texts and none of them is called X creation myth. Now look at Ainu creation myth. This is about what non-Ainu anthropologists have extracted from various discussions with informants. Such an article could also be written about the Genesis creation myth but it just hasn't been yet. It's biased to assume that somehow academic study of a culture's beliefs can produce an account of creation or anything else that's the same kind of thing as a text produced, refined, and deemed authoritative by a powerful organized religious institution. It's just not. One's not better or worse than the other. They're just entirely different kinds of things.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So, do you feel up to creating a new article? We agree there should be two articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If I did I'd do it, but I really, really don't feel up to it. I don't know enough about the subject to even make a start and even if I did know enough I'm not a skilled enough writer to do it justice. The literature to be covered is immense. I'm also a little loath to write the article if the impetus is mainly to solve this dispute, because the gravity of the topic requires that the work be unhurried.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, maybe a separate RfC or separation discussion,to have a separate article on each of the P & J creation stories, and another on the interpretation of the canonical combined text, one article for all three, or maybe including the P & J sources in existing articles on those topics? Establishing notability for each separate version could be hard. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We already have three of the four: Priestly source, Jahwist, and this article. They're all in respectable shape. I think it'd be fixing something that ain't broke to mess with what we have rather than adding to it. Believe me, notability is not a problem. Not only are all four of these topics notable, but every individual manuscript of any part of these texts is independently notable if it's old enough: Category:Biblical manuscripts.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not consider titles (for this article) such as "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis"? Such titles avoid characterizing the content of the article in any way. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those titles aren't neutral, because they explicitly avoid using the word "myth", which seems to be the big objection, and which IS used for many other religious stories. Once you deliberately avoid using that word, you are saying that one side of this dispute is right. (Note that this is NOT a declaration from me on which side is right.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with either of those although the first is more concise. If we ever get around to writing an article on the myth qua myth we can figure out if anything needs to be changed then. Maybe we should make a counterproposal below to see if there's any support for such a position?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Outside comment

I don't know if this will help, but I thought it couldn't hurt to get an opinion from someone who just came across this argument. I'm an atheist, and I have no problem whatsoever with referring to this as a narrative, even though I believe that it is a myth. I have two reasons for this, as outlined below.

1. This article is about the writings which contain this myth in addition to the contents and nature of the myth itself. Significant attention has been paid to the origins of the tales, the origins of written accounts, and the history of these accounts. This means that the label 'narrative' is not only equally valid (one would have to prove that it did not come to us as a narrative for this to be false), but preferential in some ways.
2. While I firmly believe that truth is of far more importance than political correctness, I also believe that given a choice between two equally true phrasings, the more politically correct one is preferable. The reason for this is because I believe very strongly in education and learning. Wikipedia is a learning tool only for those who choose to use it, and those who would be offended by an article which is dismissive of subjects they feel very strongly about would not be likely to read that article. Each time a person refuses to read something educational because they were offended by it, a tragedy occurs.

I hope that my opinion might help a bit, and if not, feel free to ignore it, or argue with it as you see fit. I will not likely respond, as I believe any discussion of my opinion would be off the proscribed topic for this page, but I will note it. Feel free to take the issue up on my talk page if you feel the need to debate further. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A plea to my colleagues

With all this attention being focused on the name of the article, as interesting as it is, we have a kind of ongoing slow edit-war going on regarding specific content, discussed directly above the move proposal in Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Under_the_sun.2C_moon.2C_and_stars. This could surely benefit from more attention if anyone could spare a moment to consider weighing in there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I commented on the thread.

On a side note, I did so as it was easier to digest since that thread didn't have the indecipherable wall of words that the "Suggested Move" thread has. I don't know how any of us are expected to pick that thread up after not editting over the weekend and comment intelligently... It'd take me hours to filter through all that just to figure out what the main points were. I've always thought that if you can't state your point clearly, concisely, and briefly, you shouldn't be commenting on Talk. A Talk Thread shouldn't be a running dialogue that turns into article-length content of its own... Ckruschke (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Attempts to rename this article are an annual (or sometimes even more frequent) ritual. If that energy went into improving Wikipedia, that would be nice. -- 101.117.109.197 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a pointless and misdirected platitude. Obviously a lot of editors think that the current title is a major blight on Wikipedia, and want to improve Wikipedia by fixing the title. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Moratorium"

The following discussion 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.

---

While I firmly believe the current title to be the better of two equally acceptable options, and also believe that back-to-back move-discussions can be disruptive, I reject the notion that any single editor has the authority to impose such a moratorium. If a new move-request lacks a new compelling argument, it should be closed as frivolous and/or disruptive, rather than administrative edict. If a new move-request is made in good faith, I would challenge the speedy-close of such a proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

BHG, the closing admin, already started a thread on this at AN. Consensus there seems to be in favor of it. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 16:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So the notice should read something like: "per this AN discussion, community consensus has decided...", rather than: "Enough already. I therefore impose...". This isn't intended as a slight against BHG, but the appearance of such an ex cathedra edict seems rather off-putting. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, the problem is that community consensus has not decided anything. There was no consensus, which is why it was closed. I personally found the closure (and the language of it) something of a breath of fresh air, as even though I am fairly new to this discussion, I could clearly see that this was nothing but the latest cycle. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about community consensus at WP:AN regarding the supposed-moratorium, not community consensus about the article's title. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I call bullshit on this and someone needs that mob taken away!--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin did the right thing; we do not need identical lengthy move discussions every three months that always rehash exactly the same proposed new title and always end in "no consensus." -- 101.117.90.215 (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the article needs or not, but this is Wikipedia and we discuss these things regardless of what the subject is.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2014 (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.

This discussion has been closed per BrownHairedGirl and the suggestion of StAnselm. Further discussions should be directed to WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we impose a community moratorium on moving this page title.

The following discussion 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.

---

Only the community can impose a moratorium on moves. Admin cannot do so in a closing regardless of any attempt. I simply ask the community if they feel a 1 year moratorium should be community imposed.

• Support as long as the community wants this.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but don't know if a year will be long enough for those who insist on a less neutral title to come up with a more clever argument. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support the moratorium (while noting that closing admins do traditionally have the authority to impose a time limit on future RM or AfD discussions). We do not need pointless move requests every three months, especially when they are doomed to end in "no consensus." -- 101.117.89.63 (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Close as tedentious. As far as I'm concerned, this very discussion is a violation of the moratorium that has been imposed and agreed to by admins Irondome, Minapolis, Guy, and others. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No moratorium has been imposed. Only the community or arb com can place those sorts of sanctions.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course a moratorium has been imposed. The closer immediately started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where the community is discussing it. Or, if you're unhappy with the closure, you can take it to Wikipedia:Move review. Starting this thread wasn't very helpful - what if the "consensus" here were to end up being different to the consensus at WP:AN? StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No valid moratorium has been imposed. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, and it's fine to discuss the validity (or at least the approval) of the moratorium - but why was this discussion started? Why not just have the one at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move request moratorium at Genesis creation narrative? StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss a move moratorium is on the article talk page.

Not a closing

This discussion has been closed per BrownHairedGirl and the suggestion of StAnselm. Further discussions should be directed to WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, you may not close a discussion in which you're involved. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved. I moved to close the discussion per BrownHairedGirl, then I closed it. I have not said one word about the subject at hand (the page move). If you want to keep the discussion going, please follow the link to WP:ANI. Otherwise, do not post about it here, do not re-open discussions, and do not revert editors' actions, especially when admins have already made a judgment. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

StAnselm probably shouldn't have closed it either, but whatever. Lamenting the fact that a discussion is taking place on two pages may not matter, as this may very well end up at Move Review and/or Arbcom. In the meanwhile, I maintain that there is no binding moratorium in place here. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider myself involved - I !voted in the move discussion, but I have no opinion about the moratorium, or on the admin's right to impose it. In any case, now that I think about it, this wouldn't be the "proper" place at all - that would be Wikipedia:Move review, noting that User:Mark Miller has already discussed the issue on User:BrownHairedGirl's talk page. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, this is where move moratorium discussions for this page take place. Not at AN. I did not discuss this this issue on BHG's talk page. I discussed a different yet similar issue.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@StAnselm:The Move Review talk page may be a better place to start, as I have no desire to contest the close of "not moved". Joefromrandb (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2014 (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.

Stop this nonsence

The article describes creation narrative from Genesis. So why "move it" (= changing article name) ? If someone does not agree with a certain text (of encyclopedic value), it still doesn't change what the text states. This article has its optimal name. Boeing720 (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Strangely enough, not everyone agrees with you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Genesis creation narrative" does not violate the academic consensus; "Genesis creation myth" does. Genesis 1-4 is narrative made up of two separate creation myths. The article currently discusses these two myths as though they form one coherent narrative in two "parts" (I like this euphemistic wording). HiLo48, while I agree with you on the systemic bias issue, I think you have your priorities wrong. The principal problem with this article is not that its title uses the neutral word "narrative" rather than the equally-neutral word "myth". The problem is that it is a POV fork of Genesis that promotes a fundamentalist theory of the origin of the Pentateuch as having been written by Moses on direct instruction from god, rather than put together from several distinct sources some time after the 7th century BCE. 182.249.241.16 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you open a new thread on the latter matter. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We recently saw some editors here threatened with blocks for continuing religiously inflammatory comments, but this seems like just more of the same old same old "you all have to accept only my interpretation of scripture, because I am bigoted toward anyone who does not share my interpretation meaning I don't wish to acknowledge their existence as legitimate in any way" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel: I was not involved in any of the recent hullabaloo, so I don't know where you stand, but was this comment meant for the OP, HiLo48 (I looked briefly at the ANI thread so I know where they stand), or me? If it's the latter then I should clarify that I have no relevant religious affiliation and I don't care what "scripture" says because it's not scripture for me. I am trying to make this article conform with what modern scholarship, not "scripture", says.

User:HiLo48: I already did. Scroll down a few lines. :-)

182.249.241.1 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was directed at me, it's more bullshit. I am often threatened with blocks, especially by editors, even some Admins, who don't like the way I get in the way of their POV pushing. I take pride in that. It's not a crime to annoy POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It was directed at me, it turns out. He thinks I'm presenting an "interpretation of scripture" and this is "my hypothesis". Note that "my hypothesis" is a fact accepted by virtually every scholar in the field, and if TE thinks Yale faculty members are "intolerant bigots" he should probably go and write that elsewhere. 182.249.241.11 (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't all Christians present "interpretations of scripture"? If there was a consistent view, instead of dozens of different interpretations, all supported by people who are certain they are right, I may not have been driven away from the mess quite so early in my life. HiLo48 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanna say "I wouldn't know because I'm not a Christian" but it seems I now know more about Genesis than most people who call it "scripture". But we should always bear in mind that this article is not called "Christian creation narrative" but "Genesis creation account". Genesis was written and compiled centuries before Christianity existed. It is not a "Christian" book but a Jewish one. It is, however used by Christians. And by "Christians" I mean Roman Catholics, Assyrian Orthodox Ethiopian, Lutheran, Anglican, Church of Christ, Methodist, Sei-Iesu Kyoukai, etc. etc. All of these groups have their own interpretations of the text. That's why we cannot write this Wikipedia article or any other from the theological point of view of one or other religious community. We need to analyze what historical scholars say and try to best reflect the scholarly consensus. Summaries given in print encyclopedias and undergraduate textbooks used in and courses given at mainstream universities are a good place to start. "This is a book written by one author at one time. I can read it and report what it says." is not. 182.249.241.2 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Will Arbitration finally be needed to stop the bigoted attacks?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I fear that certain editors here have not heeded the recent warnings whatsoever and are proceeding full steam ahead with attempting to make this Bible article a full fledged one-sided POV job, with insulting, inflammatory, and derogatory rhetoiric being directed at all those who take this story seriously. There is only one way to get this travesty to end and that is with more level of arbitration. We know there are anti-Christian and anti-Jewish bigots in the world: always have been, no doubt about that. Why do we have to allow them to come here and spout their intolerance non-stop. The way these sad sacks look at Christians and Jews whom they always label with derogatory sounding labels like "fundamentalist" and "conservative" is reminiscent of the way Hitler felt about Jews except these mental dwarfs include Christians as well, involving a much greater proportion of the population as their target. They are poisoning the environment with their bigotry. This is a plea to arbitration for remedy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 09:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't know jack about your history with HiLo48 or whoever else, but please stop accusing me of being a "bigot" and making "attacks" on you, your religion, "your article" or whatever. You are defending OR and are refusing to engage me in civil discussion based on modern reliable sources. 182.249.241.32 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Til, stop the attacks on unnamed people. They are very nasty personal attacks, apart from the fact that you didn't show the courage to name the persons you are attacking. General criticisms add nothing here. So, are you accusing me of being a bigot? If not, who are these bigots? HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that after posting the above ridiculous and completely unjustified string of personal attacks against me, Til Eulenspiegel got himself blocked for two months. I have never attacked Christians or Jews who revere Genesis and take it as authoritative scripture. I myself revere Genesis (why I've devoted time to studying it), and the only reason I do not take it authoritative scripture is because I have other religious leanings. I respect people of all faiths. It is Til Eulenspiegel who apparently looks down on those with different beliefs to him. If other fundamentalists wish to fill this article with un-Christian and un-Jewish lies, rejecting the last several centuries of legitimate scholarship by both Christians and Jews, I am willing to continue to debate them here. But personal attacks like "you are a bigoted Nazi" are not legitimate debate tools and are explicitly banned on Wikipedia. 182.249.241.21 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we close this discussion entirely, as it is unlikely to improve the article in any way. I don't see how comparing editors trying to improve the article to Nazis is likely to at all benefit this article's coverage of Genesis. On a side note, it looks like we've hit Godwin's Law! Rwenonah (talk)