Talk:Chinese creation myths

Untitled
To the original creators of this article:


 * I humbly apologize for such an extensive rewrite of your work. I want you to know I did not do this lightly.
 * The fact is, I have followed this topic for some time, and have seen people copy (and recopy) this myth without looking at the big picture.
 * As you can see from the update and references, we do web readers a disservice to list again (and again, and again) this very popular myth without some context.
 * Thanks for understanding. mamgeorge 22:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You tried to laugh at the relative-late appearing creationsim in china?I don't see the links between the span of Chinese History and the appearance of creationism.History is to record the human activities not the creationism.Unless you can give the conclusion for the link between the appearance of Creationism and span of History,donn't try to mention it.--Ksyrie 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you may mix up the History and folk lore of Origin belief.The Vikings may had their origin belief very old,but on the other hand,their history records are very few and limited.I didn't see the necessary to talk about History in Creationism.--Ksyrie 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Mythos??
The article doesn't describe "creationism", which is a belief that world was created by one God, in disaccord (and sometimes outright explicit conflict) with any scientific theory of the beginning of Universe or in some cases, lack thereof (s.a.f.ex. Steady State). The article describes a mythos, a creation story in itself, that can be regarded as 1. literal, 2. symbolic, a. in accordance with science, b. in disaccord. Creationism is 1.+a. with a set of angry adherents fighting science with unscientific arguments. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the name of the article is the final remnant of someone's misguided attempt to position the Chinese creation myth as a species of creationism. It was much worse previously. The entire article was assigned to the Creationism portal!
 * Bathrobe 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. From the title one expects a Chinese version of Young Earth Creationism, but the article is simply (if stubily) discussing Chinese mythology with no suggestion that, for instance, it's trying to displace evolution in high school textbooks in China!  --Plumbago 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's I who created this page,I am not very clear about the meaning of creationism which was presented in the page of creationism,which simply states the theory of beginning of humankind.And for the difference between creation myth and creationism are not so well distinguished,so maintain the current title may be a good idea.--Ksyrie 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore,Nüwa and Pangu are all deities in chinese mythology.If you define God as the appearances in the Bible or other European folklore,the chinese creationism maynot be qualified,but when you refer the creationims as the deity or other supernatural power who create the humanbeing,chinese creationim is well qualified.--Ksyrie 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The terms creation myth and creationism are very well distinguished in normal usage. Many cultures have creation myths, and had them long before the ideology of creationism came along. The Wikipedia article on 'creationism' doesn't give a very satisfactory definition. Try Websters: "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION". That is, creationism is a doctrine that places creation stories (and particularly the Christian creation story, and Jewish or Muslim creation stories) against the theory of scientific evolution. As the Wikipedia article states, "When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is to reject that research's conclusions, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology." The Wikipedia article tries to imply that 'creationism' also extends to origin beliefs in general, but in this case it's Wikipedia that is at odds with ordinary usage.


 * In fact, a quick look at the history of the article on Creationism reveals what the problem is. Originally, the note before the article read: This article deals only with the concept of creationism as found in the Abrahamic religions. Please refer to Origin beliefs for other stories of creation. Later this was changed to: This article is about the Abrahamic belief; creationism can also refer to origin beliefs in general. Then someone 'improved' this to: "Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general. These changes broadened the scope of the term "creationism" to any kind of origin belief, which actually sounds rather New Age. In fact, creationism is all about the Abrahamic tradition and its insistence on the literal truth of the creation stories in that tradition. This kind of friendly editing is one of the small problems that Wikipedia faces.


 * If China has a group of people or movement that advocates scrapping evolution in favour of the doctrine or theory that Pangu or Nuwa created the earth, then that information belongs in an article on 'Chinese creationism'. Otherwise, the Chinese creation myth really should go under a different title.


 * Bathrobe 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your explanation is excellent,so why bother write something on the article to give a distinguished separation between the Creationism and Origin belief?With such paragraph,no one will make any mistake to blur the orginal belief and creationism.--Ksyrie 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am considering making some small changes to the Creationism article. You may have noticed, however, that it is a very controversial article, so any changes would have to be carefully considered!
 * Bathrobe 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a more complete description of Chinese creation theories under Creation within belief systems than there is under Chinese creationism. Should the information be transferred across?


 * Bathrobe 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will suggest to merge Creation within belief systems and Origin belief,the two differed to a very little degree.--Ksyrie 19:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead! The two articles are confusingly named.
 * Bathrobe 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the merger suggestion myself.
 * Bathrobe 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose that this page should be moved to Chinese creation myth or Chinese creation story. "Creationism" simply doesn't come into it. Bathrobe 09:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Use "creationism" is wrong in this context. Creationism is a belief system clearly with Christian connotation. Here describe a myth or some stories about these myth. The article should be renamed.--WikiCantona 09:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was getting kind of ridiculous with the article misnamed as "Chinese creationism" and nobody even bothering to move it. So I moved it. I don't think it should be regarded as a problem. Bathrobe (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that this page be renamed to "Chinese Creation Narrative" to conform with the Jewish/Christian one, Genesis creation narrative. I feel that this is an appropriate compromise. Anyone disagree?The Australian Red Man (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, many WP editors disagree with using the current Creationistic title Genesis creation narrative instead of the NPOV title Genesis creation myth. The latest installment of this ongoing editorial debate can be found at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. If you're interested, check the Talk archives. Keahapana (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "narrative" seems to have a sort of scholastic, perhaps slightly belittling connotation: a myth does not suggest that the events depicted are entirely made up - perhaps they're real. Narrative means they're made up. Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on whether something is made up or not - it just presents the various viewpoints. So I think that "myth" in this context is more neutral. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yiguandao
Aren't Tiantang youji (天堂遊記 玉詔) and related myths specific to Yiguandao ? 125.225.67.230 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out this 一貫道 connection, which might clarify some of the editorial problems. Keahapana (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced fringe texts
Deadkid dk, thanks for your constructive edits. Did you know this article relates to several others that lack citations and reliable references? Keahapana (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, but unfortunately I can't help too much in that regard. I just felt compelled to straighten this article up since it is a fairly high profile page that could possibly mislead thousands of people per month. _dk (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERA
This edit established the usage of this page as. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — Llywelyn II   23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Overquoted
I removed the tag about the article being "overquoted", since there's nothing so terrible about walking carefully through a muddled subject like this by noting exactly where each opinion and analysis comes from. On the other hand, if these scholars (e.g. Birrell and Girardot) aren't important enough to deserve their own easily-linked Wikipedia page, then we probably shouldn't be leaning so heavily on their analyses. On the third hand, if they are fine and are well known authorities for this field, then they should have their own pages detailing their authority on the subject, beyond getting a single book on the topic published by a single publisher. — Llywelyn II   23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about this myself ... here we have an article about the chinese origin story (notice how cleverly I avoided the 'creation' tag :) ) but why the interpretation and discussion ? Two western academics who probably don't know doodly while no one chinese is referenced. I criticize this from experience, because in both the west and in china where I live, academics generally know everything but understand nothing. I would personally rather see an exposition of the various stories without the "explanations" by people who most likely couldn't buy a bus ticket in china. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)