Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 23

Administrators'_noticeboard
Thought someone ought to mention that this debate is being talked about at Administrators'_noticeboard. 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. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 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. 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 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.&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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!&mdash; 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?&mdash; 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?&mdash; 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?&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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, 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.&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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?&mdash; 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...?&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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.&mdash; 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?&mdash; 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. This could surely benefit from more attention if anyone could spare a moment to consider weighing in there.&mdash; 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"
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)

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

Should we impose a community moratorium on moving this page title.
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 Administrators' noticeboard, where the community is discussing it. Or, if you're unhappy with the closure, you can take it to 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265? StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The proper place to discuss a move moratorium is on the article talk page.

''This discussion has been closed per BrownHairedGirl and the suggestion of StAnselm. Further discussions should be directed to WP:AN. 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 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)

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?
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)

Requested move 12

 * Note. A discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard about moratorium imposed in this closure has been closed with the summary "Consensus clearly endorses BHG's moratorium". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. As in the previous discussion, both sides make strong arguments; neither has a clear edge in policy. Note that the most recent previous discussion was closed on 22 January, only 3 months before this discussion was opened. A new discussion so soon after the previous one might be acceptable if the first discussion was scanty or significant new evidence was available. However, that is not the case here. This is the 12th move discussion on this page since January 2010, and by any standards that is grossly excessive. These lengthy discussions are using up vast amounts of editorial time and energy which could be used to the develop the content of the article. Enough already. I therefore impose a 12-month moratorium on any further proposals to rename this article. That expires on 2nd May 2015, and move requests opened before that date should be speedily closed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth – The last suggested move was no consensus, but we should still keep discussing this.

Simple argument:

No one denies that this particular story is a creation myth (it's in our lede).

No one denies that almost all other stories about creation myths in Wikipedia are titled "creation myth" (do a search).

Therefore, this page should be called Genesis creation myth. jps (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for neutrality and consistency with other creation myth articles, myth is the correct academic term.Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm a follower of one of the religions that accepts Genesis as divinely inspired, from a region and sect both a bit notorious for rallying in defense of it, and I even agree. Aside from the points OP gave, how many sources call it a "narrative" instead of a myth, really?  Aside from narrative being inaccurate, it's undue weight.  Then there's connotation.  "Narrative" sounds like a story that no one takes seriously, while "myth" denotes a story that some people accept in some form or another for religious or pseudo-religious reasons.  No one accepts Genesis without at least a quasi-religious reason, even if they're ardently opposed to organized religion.
 * "But 'myth' is commonly misunderstood to mean something false" tends to be a common counter argument, but this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for common idiocy. We don't use theory in place of hypothesis as common people do, and we don't dumb down medical terms but link to them and expect our readers to learn from those links.  Why should we treat religious matters differently, dumbing them down so some hick who probably hasn't even read Genesis doesn't have to think more than is necessary to keep breathing during a Duck Dynasty marathon?  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for crying out loud. Your premise is utterly false. YES, plenty of people deny that this particular story is a creation myth. YES, plenty of other creation stories use some other formulation. In fact, the VAST MAJORITY (see figures below) use a different formulation. Typically, only when no other formulation exists in reliable sources does it default to the "creation myth" formulation. This argument is dead before it starts. Please don't waste our time again. HokieRNB 17:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose A myth is a story, which can be told in many ways by many tellers. Cf. OED: "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon."  A narrative is a specific text relating a story.  Cf. OED: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account."  This article is about the specific narration of the Judeo-Christian creation myth given in the book of Genesis.  It is not about the myth per se but about the specific telling of the myth in the book.  Therefore it's about the narrative rather than about the myth and the title should reflect that.  This distinction is more clear in traditions which made the transition from oral transmission of myths to written more recently, where there may be many narratives of the same myth, each potentially worthy of an article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then how come Judeo-Christian creation myth redirects here? Rwenonah (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How should I know?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per NPOV and to maintain an encyclopedic voice. It would be a title consistent with the content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on how you see this title as not being (A) neutral, (B) encyclopedic, or (C) consistent with the article content? From your reasons, one could just as easily score this as Oppose. HokieRNB 20:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A) NPOV says we present things as they are presented in the academic community. B) The Genesis creation myth is extensively discussed as a myth in academia not as a narrative. An encyclopedia does not refer to something by other than the term of reference recognized in academia. C) The content of the article clearly presents the subject as a creation myth. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "Genesis creation story" is more common than either. Plus are you sure, when you're counting uses, that you're catching a distinction the author may be purposely making between myth and narrative?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The point is that common language should be use rather than academic use. Since myth has a non-neutral meaning in common English, it must not be used where it will cause offense to many readers. Narrative is neutral in this respect and non controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy about excluding content that will cause offence to some. Or will you be arguing that we remove all images of Mohamed from Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, there is a huge gap between the scholarly view of the Bible texts and the Christian view of the Bible texts. To the scholar, the Bible is just another manuscript.  To the Christian, the Bible is a collection of manuscripts written by people who were inspired by God to write, so they perceive the Bible to be the very Word of God.  Although there are some who try to straddle that gap, it is virtually impossible to find suitable neutral language that will please both sides.  I recommend that both views be presented separately in the article with, perhaps, the scholarly view first followed by the believers view.  That way the full article would be neutral in that it provides the views of both sides.   And perhaps the title might simply be The Genesis Creation.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If myth has a non-neutral meaning, who can we use it for the other eleven articles titled creation myth? Titling Genesis differently shows bias.Rwenonah (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It's systemic bias to treat one religion differently to others over fears others will misunderstand if we use the correct term. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — The "commonname" objections to this rename are wrong, in my opinion. The narrative and the myth are, if we're being strict, different topics. The narrative is the specific literary instantiation of the myth in the Book of Genesis.  The narrative is a sub-topic to the topic of the myth.  This article covers the whole topic of the myth, and so should be given that name.  Just as if we had an article entitled "Holland" which talked about the whole Netherlands, and we didn't have an article entitled "Netherlands".  That article should be renamed "Netherlands". -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to make that point more poignant: If I search Google Books for "Netherlands" I get "About 62,600,000 results" .  If I search for "Holland" I get "About 70,300,000 results" .  That doesn't mean that "Holland" is the most common name! It just means that the term is used more. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you use the same reasoning as I do but reach the opposite conclusion. How do you see this article as being about the myth rather than the narrative?  It's shot through with specific discussions of word choice and other textual elements.  It seems to me that it's entirely about the narrative itself.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It covers the narrative specifically, but also covers elements qua myth, for example the section on Mesopotamian influence. The article discusses the differences and relation between J and P.  But J and P existed before the Book of Genesis existed, so the article cannot be entirely about the narrative itself. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely it does, but so briefly and only in specific relation to the text of Genesis itself. In fact there's less on sources and influences in this article than there are in many articles on specific texts. For instance, Chinatown (1974 film) has tons of stuff about William Mulholland and the Owens Valley, but we're not going to rename that The Modern Los Angeles Creation Myth.  If it didn't have a title already, though, and it were the only source for the story we could certainly call it The Modern Los Angeles Creation Narrative. (I hope the example isn't too far afield; I wanted to pick a fictional one for various reasons).  I do think it would be possible to have an article on the myth, but this just doesn't seem to be it, or at least not yet.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, kidding about movies aside, it occurs to me that your point about the article's discussion of J and P actually weighs in favor of its being about the specific narrative in Genesis. If you're talking about a myth as opposed to a narrative your focus is on the content of the different narratives and the elements they have in common and in which they differ.  If you're talking about a narrative of a myth based on previous narratives of the myth you talk about the influence that those previous narratives had on the text under discussion, which is exactly what's done in this article.  I really think your own argument supports the opposite of your conclusion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This was discussed three months ago, and soundly rejected. Nothing has changed.  Calidum   04:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True, the conservative religious POV pushers are still making use of our systemic bias to try to get their way. It's hardly ethical, or good Christian behaviour, and doesn't help Wikipedia at all. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As pointed out above, "Genesis creation story" is the easy winner in terms of common name. That being the case, this proposal strikes me as a step in the wrong direction, i.e. "story" is closer to "narrative" on the lexical spectrum than it is to "myth." How unrelated creation stories are titled is really neither here nor there. The idea that we should retitle this article because of Ainu creation myth is letting the tail wag the dog. One leg at a time (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We should retitle the article so that all religions are treated the same. "Common name" is inevitably fed by our systemic bias. We should all care about that. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All religions are not the same. This has nothing to do with truth or falsity of their beliefs or relative numbers of believers.  It has to do with the fact that not all religions are institutional, not all religions have fixed dogmas, not all religions have written traditions, not all religions have institutionally fixed texts of their written traditions, not all religions have their own scholars producing scholarly versions of their texts, not all religions have scholars external to the religion producing critical revisions of their written texts, and so on.  The words we use in titles must reflect the subjects of articles, which are determined by about a zillion factors that you seem determined to ignore because you think all religions are the same.  Some religions are only even called religions by people who don't believe in them and they're not called anything by people who do believe in them and it's almost certainly biased to even call them religions because it involves imposing categories that are only meaningful in complex cultures onto the social structures of simple cultures.  Your insistences that "all religions are the same" is more deeply biased than you seem to have even the first inkling of.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusion, but not with your reasoning. I think it's a mistake to think there's a one-dimensional spectrum with "story" on one end and "myth" on the other with "narrative" in between.  In the case of this particular text, I am reasonably sure that in the scholarly literature both "story" and "myth" refer to the elements of the Judeo-Christian explanation of creation free from any specific text narrating them whereas "narrative" usually refers to the specific text.  I don't really have any way of checking this intuition, though.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For all the reasons that have been stated before, as recently as a few months ago, and in the discussions that resulted in not retitling it in March 2012, September 2012, February 2013, and January 2014. It's clearly too soon to bring it up again. And the broken record of "treat all religions the same" carries no weight in this argument. Of the four largest living religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism), Islam has a section titled Islamic creation narrative, Hinduism has an article titled Hiranyagarbha and Buddhism has an article titled Aggañña Sutta. Having a redirect from Judeo-Christian creation myth is completely sufficient. Ἀλήθεια 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It's systemic bias to treat one religion differently to others over fears others will misunderstand if we use the correct term. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that this is an example of systemic bias and note that it may be that we need 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency and neutrality, also agreeing that perhaps more than one article may be called for here.John Carter (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as per the norm in neutral reliable sources as seen in the section "Reliable source round-up" below. -- Moxy (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose because no compelling new argument has been raised. I stand by my arguments from previous move proposals: (i) the term "narrative" is accurate, neutral and common in sources, (ii) the article is about a text as much as a myth, (iii) the popular meaning of myth cannot be ignored, just like the popular meaning of "theory" isn't, and (iv) per this Ngram, the current title is more common. Srnec (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an area where I cannot assume good faith. I don't believe you would find any argument against your faith compelling. You are dishonestly playing with words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and numbers quoted below. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 17:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers are simply part of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no piece of evidence I can present that you won't say is part of a systemic something. It's the ultimate trump card&mdash;any policy and facts that back up my argument are somehow tainted, so you've decided to rewrite policy and the definition of neutrality so as to exclude the evidence I cite. No true Scotsman and all that. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 00:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you fully read WP:Systemic Bias? Do you care? HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me answer that question in slightly a different way than you were hoping for: yes, I've read it, and no, I don't particularly care about how you've decided it applies in this particular case. We have policy. We follow it. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 01:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support because a myth is a myth, of course, of course. To single out any one retelling of the story as something else while calling others "myths" (especially when there are previous versions labeled as myths from which elements of this myth were blatently copied) is extolling one myth over the rest, and is not neutral. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "a myth is a myth, of course, of course" "but "myth" is a word and like many words it has a variety of meanings. Here is an article in Scientific American magazine. Note that the Scientific American article has the word "myth" in its title. Note the implication of the term "myth" in that title. Its implication is that of "falsity". I think this is what some of us are trying to avoid. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. Myth - an idea or story that is believed by many people but that may not be true. Is perfect for the title - are people here suggestion this is not what this is - some believe some dont. A narrative is generally an account of events and or experiences. Are we suggestion to our readers someone was there to recoded these events? Dont think anyone thinks this - do they?  -- Moxy (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We are exploring a topic; we are not taking a stance on its veracity. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First of all, I don't see any new arguments being presented that haven't already been discussed in previous move proposals. I strongly object to the tactic of proposing page moves often enough until one gets the result that one wants. In any case, discussing this topic once a year is enough - there should be some sort of restriction on how often the same page move can be proposed. As for the actual move, "narrative" is a neutral term, and the thing we are dealing with is unquestionably a narrative. Under those conditions, we should opt for the common name, which has clearly been demonstrated to use the word "narrative". I don't think the naming of other pages is all that relevant (they haven't had the level of discussion that has been carried on here), and I note that Fon creation myth and Kaluli creation myth have "creation story" in the lead, so it doesn't seem strictly necessary that they have the word "myth" in their titles. I also accept the argument below that "myth" goes better with a people group, while "narrative" goes better with a text. And this article is about the Genesis text, not about the beliefs of Judeo-Christians, whoever they might be. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the arguments have been presented before. I could equally say that, so have yours. And yours don't convince me. Given your self declaration of religious faith on your User page, and your already demonstrated appalling behaviour in unilaterally closing the thread earlier, it's obvious that you cannot possibly approach this topic objectively. Your opinion carries no weight at all here now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that the opinions of religious people carry no weight in discussions is in complete contempt of Wikipedia policy. As for the closure, you yourself had said the discussion was pointless. I carefully explained my rationale, but my closure was reverted, and I accept the community's decision to carry on the discussion. That is why I am !voting now. My closure was fully within the guidelines of WP:BOLD. StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Per Adam's motivation. "Narrative" is such an obvious weasel word. Peter Isotalo 22:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Despite the fact that I had at one time supported the proposed title, I have now become convinced that "narrative" or "story" is a far better term to describe the subject of this article. Wikipedia doesn't (or rather shouldn't) concern itself with whether the sources are biased. In fact, sources will be biased. So long as editors are relying on sources from established publishers, that have been peer-reviewed, and especially that are highly cited by others, they are well within policy. To the editors who are attempting to discredit other contributors here based on their assertion of faith, I say that your bias is what's causing the problem. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. Wikipedia concerns itself with the quality, independence and reliability of sources all the time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. But I think you're confusing "bias" for lack of reliability and quality. Just because a source is independent doesn't make it unbiased. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fail to see a reason why when the current title is neutral and changing it would be a violation of NPOV.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If this title is neutral, then I guess "Myth" isn't, where it's used in all those other articles. I despair at the shallow contributions we see here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly believe that? Both titles are neutral, depending on the contents of the article.  Changing this one to myth wouldn't make it more or less neutral, it would just make it wrong.  The other articles are mostly about myths, so "myth" is what they should be called.  This article is about a narrative.  Really, for all you accuse religious editors of being unable to edit neutrally, one would think you would take extra care to avoid glaring logical fallacies in your own arguments.  You're fond of the ad hominem fallacy, the equivocation fallacy (by failing to distinguish between different categories of things that are both called religions), the fallacy that false premises in support of a conclusion make the conclusion false, and now this, which is either false dichotomy or some weird blend of that with equivocation.  It's not enough that you keep repeating the same logical fallacies; you're actively thinking of new ones.  You claim to despair, and yet your contributions to this discussion are among the shallowest because they display a lack of understanding of just about every single possible relevant issue.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - the word "myth" is definitely accurate here, unfortunately most people don't understand the meaning of the word and think it means "untrue" or "a made up story". "Narrative" is neutral but I believe inaccurate because Genesis contains at least two different creation myths and therefore I would say the article should be moved to "Genesis creation narratives".Smeat75 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Genesis has one creation narrative that may result from the combination of two or more preexisting narrative accounts. What are the two narratives you read? Srnec (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on the grounds that the thing of which this is a type is Creation myth. A Creation myth is a specific thing, like a "hot dog"; to eliminate the "myth" from the phrase would be like eliminating the "dog" from a page on the recipe of hot dog in a particular culture, so that we might have "Japanese hot dog" and "German hot dog" but "French hot recipe" -- so this could be called "Genesis creation myth narrative" since it is the narrative of Creation myth elements peculiar to Genesis; but narrative is not needed to identify the specific creation myth this is. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor is "myth" needed to identify the specific narrative this is. And it is a specific narrative, unlike almost all other creation myths cited by proponents of the move. Srnec (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The specificity is not the issue, it is the missing word for correctly describing the whole name of the category of this thing. Is it or is it not a thing falling under the general heading of the page titled Creation myth? That page couldn't be titled simply Creation, now, could it? The "myth" is as inherent to the phrase as the "dog" in "hot dog" -- leaving it out actively renders the title incorrect as to the category of it's contents. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're parsing this wrong. "Hot dog" is a noun phrase.  It's an atomic lexeme.  "Creation myth" is not atomic.  There are "Creation stories," "Creation myths," "Creation narratives," and so on, and the determiner "Creation" functions identically in all of them, as does the noun "myth".  That's obviously not the case in the atomic noun phrase "hot dog" where "hot" is not a determiner and "dog" doesn't have a referent in the phrase.  The fact that there's a space in the word "hot dog" is evidently confusing you.  "Hot dog" is a single word.  "Creation myth" is a DETERMINER NOUN construction.  You're the one making the category error here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your lexical lesson aside, Creation myth is the thing for which Wikipedia has a page. Consider, if there were a "narrative" about the Creation of the Bible chapter called Genesis (as a whole) that too would be a "Genesis creation narrative" -- your own compromise proposal below confesses the confusion inherent here. I take the point made, as well, that Genesis itself actually lumps together two (at least) narratives, and not seamlessly. So this would have to be "Genesis creation myth narratives." DeistCosmos (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So your argument now is that "Genesis creation narrative" is unsuitable as a title because it's ambiguous in that it may mean either "narrative of myth of creation of universe that is found in the book of Genesis" or "narrative of the process of creation of the book of Genesis itself"? That's your claim?  And you think maybe calling this article "Genesis creation myth" would avoid that problem?  How?  What if there were a myth about the creation of the book of Genesis?  Wouldn't an article on that be called "Genesis creation myth" too?  And as a matter of fact, there actually are a number of myths about the creation of the book of Genesis, and at least one of them, that God dictated it to Moses, is surely notable.  Perhaps it's time to write an article on that too (I'm serious, actually).  Then we can have both GCN and GCM as dab pages, naturally each with a link to the other as well as other additional items.  By the way, language is inherently ambiguous.  We could play this game with any article title with more than one word in it, and with many of the one word ones as well.  Your point about "narrative" vs. "narratives" is worth considering, of course.  I can see a good case for either.  This issue is discussed in the article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles lists all the articles aond named subarticles of the recent Eerdman's dictionary, and we could use articles on most everything there. A similar list from the Anchor Bible Dictionary is much longer and still in development.John Carter (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Time for this again already? Support for same reasons as last time, and the time before, and the time before. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Oppose for the same reasons as last time. In particular WP:COMMONNAME does not support the move. A Google Books search finds 30,200 hits for "genesis creation story", 8,380 for "genesis creation narrative", and only 3,850 for "genesis creation myth." In addition, it is not at all clear that the story in Genesis is a "creation myth" in the technical sense, although scholars claim that it is based on a number of myths. Reliable sources cited last time specifically argued that the term "myth" was inappropriate. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. As to consistency with other articles on creation stories, many others do not use "myth" either, e.g. Sureq Galigo, Enûma Eliš, and Diné Bahaneʼ. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "No one denies that this particular story is a creation myth (it's in our lede)." - yes, according to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH, this is not a myth in the normal, non-specialist usage of the word. The common English meaning for the word "myth" describes something rather different. Regardless of what specialist sources consider a myth to be, the common understanding of words is what we base titles on. "No one denies that almost all other stories about creation myths in Wikipedia are titled "creation myth" (do a search)." Rofl, not even close. Did you look at the category? I deny both assertions. Red Slash 03:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our guidelines WP:Words to avoid and WP:LABEL say the word myth should not be used unless the scholarly context is made clear. Indeed, the intensity of the push for this change suggests that the ordinary pejorative meaning of myth is intended. Narrative is a neutral term that doesn't need its context explained and therefore is preferable. Please stop this endless waste of time.--agr (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I gave two reasons below, in the Regarding the systemic bias claim section, and I also cannot argue with the reasoning presented by Arnold, above. To summarize my reasons below, they are: 1) The article is about the narrative (the myth, the writing about it, and the history of it), and is not limited to the myth (the story) and; 2) It's nonsensical to insist upon using a word that will put people off reading the article when a less offensive word is equally (and in fact, slightly more) valid. Arguments that other articles use "myth" in the title just show that those other articles should possibly be re-named. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

List of articles titled "creation myth"
(This subsection was labeled "for those too dumb or lazy to do their own search" before it was refactored by Rwenonah). Here is the complete (as of 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)) list of Wikipedia articles that use "creation myth" in the formulation of their title: At approximately the same time, there are 107 pages in the Category:Creation myths. Eleven out of one hundred seven. Approximately 10%. HokieRNB 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Serer creation myth
 * 2) Ancient Egyptian creation myths
 * 3) Mesoamerican creation myths
 * 4) Sumerian creation myth
 * 5) Chinese creation myth
 * 6) Mandé creation myth
 * 7) Ainu creation myth
 * 8) Japanese creation myth
 * 9) Fon creation myth
 * 10) Tungusic creation myth
 * 11) Kaluli creation myth
 * This is not a fair comparison as a good number of the articles in that category are related to myths, but not the myths themselves.--McSly (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which makes it a perfectly fair comparison, since this article is related to what academics refer to as a "creation myth", but it's not only about that. It's primarily about the text that makes up roughly the first two chapters of Genesis, which is what many refer to as the "creation narrative" in the Bible. Outside the world of biblical studies, many just call it the "creation story". Both of those would be apt titles for this article. HokieRNB 19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So how is this article different from a "creation myth" as described by academics? Or, in other words, what makes this article different from the above 11? Rwenonah (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, the other 11 all have the same formulation of [people group - creation myth]. "Genesis" is not a people group, but rather a canonical text. "Genesis" cannot have a creation myth. The Hebrew people can. HokieRNB 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, most of the others describe oral creation myths, which don't have canonical textual instantiations to write articles about (the Sumerian one is an exception to this) or else they describe multiple myths, like Mesoamerican and Chinese, rather than particular texts. I think really the only example on that list parallel to this one is the Sumerian one.  So we have one with each name, but notwithstanding, "narrative" is correct.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles acknowledges that A this article is the creation myth of two religious groups and B is a creation myth. Hence this article is after all about the creation myth of particular group, and is not different from the above versions. Japanese, Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian all have written versions, btw. Obviously, then, titling Genesis differently shows bias, when even the article says it is a creation myth and not a chapter of a book. Rwenonah (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I already acknowledged that the Sumerian one is parallel to this case. The Japanese one is not because although there is one myth there are two narratives and the article is about the myth itself rather than specifically about either of the narratives.  The Egyptian one is not because there are multiple myths and the article is about all of them.  Like I said, that leaves us with the only comparison being the Sumerian one.  Personally I think that should be retitled to Eridu Genesis narrative, but that's not the subject of the discussion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

List of articles titled "creation narrative"
1. Genesis creation myth. 1 out of 107. Less than 1%. Rwenonah (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

List of articles titled "sukta"

 * 1) Purusha sukta
 * 2) Nasadiya Sukta
 * 3) Nadistuti sukta
 * 4) Śrī Sūkta
 * 5) Narayana sukta
 * 6) Devi sukta
 * 7) Manyu sukta

This exercise could go on and on, but it doesn't really change the point that this statement - "No one denies that almost all other stories about creation myths in Wikipedia are titled "creation myth" (do a search)." - is categorically false. And it would seem to me that an argument that is based on an utterly false premise can be summarily dismissed.

A sadly pointless exercise due to our systemic bias
Obviously all religions should be treated equally on Wikipedia, with all creation stories called myths. But a hard core of mostly Christian adherents here will continue to behave in un-Christian ways to prevent it happening. I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do its job properly and fairly. Some will now attack me for not assuming good faith, but masses of evidence I have seen here in the past, and even up above in this thread, would make me a hypocrite if I pretended to do so. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And I sincerely thank StAnselm, a user who openly and clearly declares their conservative Christian position on their User page, for virtually instantly proving my point by unilaterally attempting to close down this discussion immediately after I made that post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it was your post that prompted me to do it - you said that this was a pointless exercise, and I agree. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that our reasons for thinking that are very different. I believe we should be discussing this. I suspect you would rather we didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I read through this silliness; has there been a compelling argument against WP:COMMONNAME yet? Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 23:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that it's not obvious to me what result WP:COMMONNAME would deliver, I don't know what your point is. The common name in countries with strong Christian advocacy and scholarship such as the USA would not be an objective measure. Otherwise we would have to find some strong traditional Australian Aboriginal sources to discuss how we should name their creation stories. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you know what my point is, HiLo. You and I have been through this before. COMMONNAME states that, "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title." Directly following that quoted text, COMMONNAME states that this holds true even when the common name is not neutral. Now, I don't see how anyone can say that "narrative" is not neutral&mdash;in its only extant form it is a single literary narrative&mdash;but you seem to think it is. COMMONNAME is policy, not a guideline, so it is up to you and those who agree with you to demonstrate why it is a good idea for us not to follow policy in this case.
 * So, how exactly do the sources stack up? Well, "Genesis creation narrative" gets 276 results at Google Scholar. "Genesis creation myth" gets slightly more than half that number. The numbers are somewhat closer using Google as a whole (293,000 for "narrative", 232,000 for "myth"). Google Books gets 8,320 hits for "narrative", 3,870 for "myth". Anyone with an EBSCO log-in is welcome to check as well: I got 18 results for "creation myth" and 50 for "narrative".
 * Please understand: I am not denying that there are multiple sources underlying the Genesis creation narrative; I am not denying that those sources bear witness to mythological traditions going back to Neolithic Mesopotamia; I am not denying that the Genesis creation narrative(s) as they now exist are myths in the most meaningful sense of that term. What I am denying is that "Genesis creation myth" is the common name for the topic we are discussing. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 17:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
How about if we move it to Genesis narration of the Judeo-Christian creation myth? That would be accurate and use both words. Or if we want to go Hollywood we could call it Judeo-Christian creation myth: The Genesis narrative.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Far too complicated. Just treat all religious creation stories the same. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Too complicated" is not policy-based reasoning. "All religious creation stories" are not the same because some are solely transmitted orally so that versions vary wildly in the retelling, some are solely transmitted orally by professional transmitters so that versions don't vary wildly, some are transmitted orally and recorded textually by anthropologists, who may or may not collate various oral versions to produce more "average" narrative versions or less "average" multiple versions preserving distinctions, sometimes there are multiple anthropologists who do this, complicating the matter further.  Sometimes the believers themselves invent literacy and write down their own texts, sometimes this causes oral versions to vanish and sometimes it does not.  Sometimes scholars study written texts created by literate believers and produce new texts based on scholarship that are still narratives of the myths involved but distinctly different from religiously approved canonical versions; this happens e.g. with the Koran.  Sometimes the believers themselves invent scholarship and do scholarly collations and revisions of their own pre-scholarly written versions of their own oral traditions.  This is what happened with Genesis.  It's probably unique in that regard.  You act like there are a bunch of fixed religions (already a mistake) and each fixed religion has a fixed creation myth that everyone in the religion agrees to (also a mistake) and that we should treat them as all on a par.  Your conclusion would indeed be true if your premises were true, but your premises are wildly wrong.  You think this discussion hinges on belief vs. non-belief, but it does not.  Anyone who thinks belief or non-belief is relevant on either side of the argument colossally misunderstands what the issues are.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "single narrative" claim
Read the Documentary hypothesis article, which is pretty much introductory in Biblical criticism and is taught in any seminary worth a damn. Genesis consists of the Priestly creation myth (Genesis 1) and the Jahwist creation myth (Genesis 2). The combination of the two resulted in a new creation myth. The one text contains at least three myths, not one. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, so this article isn't actually about a creation myth. It's about a specific narrative text.  So it should be called GC narrative, right?  The J and the P articles could be called J creation myth and P creation myth respectively, and an article that talks about the myth resulting from the merger independent of the text in the book of Genesis could be called G creation myth.  I don't see how your point, which is completely valid, supports changing the title of this article, if that's what it's meant to do.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No... One of the arguments for the current title is that it's a monolithic and set narrative, when it isn't. It's multiple narratives of the same underlying myth.  The only reason to include "narrative" in the title is if it is "Narratives of the Genesis creation myth."  If we continue to call this the "Genesis creation narrative," we need to retitle the Sumerian and Japanese creation myth articles (and probably others) to "creation narratives," because they have written versions as well.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And if this is about the reconciled text, this article should be merged with (expurgating if necessary) the Book of Genesis article to prevent it from bring a POV fork, and a new Genesis creation myth article should be started from scratch instead of redirecting here. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Only noting that you seem to be assuming (maybe correctly, I dunno) that the variations all still qualify as the same "myth"? Is the word "myth" regularly used that way? Honestly reqesting clarification of how the word "myth" is most regularly used here. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument set forth by alf laylah wa laylah earlier using the Oxford English Dictionary implied that a myth is the underlying story beneath different narratives (and vice versa, each narrative is a presentation of a given myth). To be honest, I'm not entirely for that (taken to its logical conclusion, all creation stories are narratives of the same ur-myth, which ignores many unique elements).  I merely bring up the multiple narratives to point out that even if we stick with Genesis, we're dealing with multiple narratives of the same myth, according to the definition set forth of both by the OED.  In one, God's rather transcendent, efficient, and egalitarian towards gender.  In the other, God takes oddly specific amounts of time to do stuff and arguably sets up a ranking between genders.  They are different.  Then the attempts to reconcile the two as one work results in various interpretations, including the first as an introduction to the second, or both happening in order (perhaps with another first woman running about, or the first being the true creation and the second a delusional mistake by a demiurge).  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not all versions of the same ur-myth. That's silly.  We have to deal with existing texts and the existing myths they instantiate.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there's only the one text extant; the others, J and P, are hypothetical. Furthermore, they already have articles about them.  This article as it stands now is about the existing text in Genesis, which is thought by most scholars to be a reconciliation of two texts, but it's still a narrative as a thing in itself, so it can have an article.  I have no opinion about merging it to the article on the book of Genesis.  Perhaps that's a good way to settle the issue here.alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (e-c) Thank you for the quick reply, Ian. That only leaves one (I sincerely hope) last question: would the "combined" stories be regarded as a form of single iteration of the myth, by, perhaps, literalist Christians,and is it significant? I don't know that area of Christianity very well, I'm afraid. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to the unsigned comment above, we are supposed to be a basically academic encyclopedia,discuussing topics from a basically academic perspective. If the independent academic community largely accepts hypotheses, we should do the same, to basically the same degree.John Carter (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. What in my comment made you think otherwise?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I seem to have maybe misread you. What we are probably looking at here is establishing notability and assignment of content for 4 distinct topics: the text as text, myth versions 1 & 2, and the combined text as one version. Does that sound right? John Carter (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm not sure what you mean by your last item.  Maybe the myth that the combined text is an instantiation of?  If so I think that's right.  All four are clearly notable.  We already have articles on J, on P, and on the specific text in the book of Genesis.  There is room to write an article called Genesis creation myth as well.  It would be easy enough to establish that all four subjects are sufficiently notable and have the sourcing to support stand-alone articles.  This article is currently about the text in the book of Genesis, and it's not in bad shape, so I think it would create unnecessary work to try to turn it into an article on the myth qua myth with (almost certainly) a long subsection on the text.  I would rather see those who feeled moved to do so write a new article on the myth itself, almost certainly with a subsection on the text.  There's so much more that could be said in this article about the text that I think it would be a shame to mix it all up with an article on the myth just to have to try to separate it later should it grow too long.  Furthermore an article on the (combined) myth would have to cover later interpretations, popular understandings through history, how new oral and written versions and traditions concerning the myth have grown in various sects and denominations, and so on.  There's a little of that in this article, but obviously much, much more could be written.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source round-up
Results from reliable source search engines, reputable books, etc. Feel free to add to this list. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 17:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar results


 * "creation narrative in Genesis" OR "creation narratives in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation narrative" OR "Genesis creation narratives" OR "creation narrative of Genesis" OR "creation narratives of Genesis" - 1,310 results


 * "creation myth in Genesis" OR "creation myths in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation myth" OR "Genesis creation myths" OR "creation myth of Genesis" OR "creation myths of Genesis" - 569 results


 * Google Books results


 * "creation narrative in Genesis" OR "creation narratives in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation narrative" OR "Genesis creation narratives" OR "creation narrative of Genesis" OR "creation narratives of Genesis" - 8,870 results


 * "creation myth in Genesis" OR "creation myths in Genesis" OR "Genesis creation myth" OR "Genesis creation myths" OR "creation myth of Genesis" OR "creation myths of Genesis" - 6,200 results

Lets look at those sources as a head count is never a good way of doing this. Lets see who is publishing what? What will the world see as more reliable and neutral - Do we think our reader's would have more confidence with publishers like  Oxford University, ABC-CLIO and University Press of New England or  publishers like Baker Publishing Group and William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company?-- Moxy (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Myth
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * Narrative
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * Narrative
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * Narrative
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * (Neusner uses "creation myth" once and "creation narrative" four times)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Creationism navbox?
I don't get it. This article mentions evolution and/or the modern political controversy in a total of one sentence, along with a whole load of other things only peripherally related to modern creationism. The article title and 99.9% of the content imply it is about the text of Genesis. And yet a template devoted to the modern political controversy, with a collection of links to barely related articles, hangs over it all. If I could be forgiven a comparison: the title "Hindu creation myth" currently, unfortunately, redirects to "Hindu views on evolution". But let's say we had an article of that title. Or, better yet for our comparison, we had an article of the title "Vedic creation myth" (or, "Vedic creation narrative"). Let's say said article devoted its entire text to a discussion of the text of the Vedas from a textual, literary, historical and mythological point of view. This article makes no reference anywhere to modern day political controversies between Vedic literalists and biologists. In fact there is no reference to biology anywhere in the article.

Do we put the same "creationism" navigation box in the intro to our article on the Vedic creation narrative?

182.249.240.17 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Two creation myths in Genesis, not one
I tried to fix this article to reflect the modern scholarly consensus that Genesis1:1 to 2:4 is one narrative taken from the P source and it is followed by a second, separate story from the J source. The P narrative is comparable to Enuma Elish and the second to the Epic of Gilgamesh. I was almost immediately reverted by another user who seems to be a conservative Christian who despite this clearly knows even less than I do about the Bible. Why on earth should we be wording this article according to the desires of conservative Christian Wikipedians (moderated slightly by the whims of atheist Wikipedians) rather than the consensus of modern scholarship!? 182.249.241.1 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My primary source is this lecture. Now, granted, the source is Yale University, a bastion of rank, atheistic liberalism, but... 182.249.241.1 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you making disruptive comments just for the sake of it? There has never in 2000 years yet been any "consensus" and that is only one  that not all scholars have ever accept by a long shot. Why pretend now there is "consensus" when clearly there never has been? We are talking about hypothetical, reconstructed "source documents" that have never once been unearthed nor found to actually exist anywhere and never will be because their supposed contents are only divined and argued about by proponents of that hypothesis from their armchairs. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's modern, secular scholarship and there's religious doctrine. Everyone except very conservative Christians and Jews accept that Genesis 1 contains a different, separate creation account from Genesis 2. You are arguing to make this article reflect a certain theological viewpoint rather than what is taken as a FACT in virtually all scholarly literature on the subject. This stance is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. If you want to edit an online encyclopedia that rejects secular scholarship (rank, atheistic liberalism) go edit Conservapedia. 182.249.241.7 (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are trying to give some kind of magical precedence to your hypothesis when it has never been proven and has never been accepted by all scholars. You are attempting to exclude all scholars and viewpoints and diverse intrepretations that don't conform to your DH school of thought, using openly inflammatory and bigoted language. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "MY HYPOTHESIS"!? It's a widely accepted theory taught in every Hebrew Bible course in every major university in the western world! What on earth are you talking about!? 182.249.241.29 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, it is totally reconstructed, unproven, hypothetical and debated, they cannot locate these imaginary "source texts" for obvious reasons, the theory has plenty of critics and certainly no monopoly on the vast range of interpretations of this part of the Bible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "They" being every scholar on earth who isn't a fundamentalist? Anyway, I'm not here to argue source theory with you. I'm trying to point out in the article that there are two separate creation myths in Genesis. 182.249.241.13 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You might not want to be taking the side of intolerance toward dissent from your POV, have another read of WP:NPOV Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are promoting a specific theological view of the book in question that is not supported by scholarship, and you are reading malicious agenda into my comments. Maybe you should read WP:AGF again. I have presented a reputable, scholarly source written by a recognized expert and published by a major university, and this source says "There are two separate creation myths in Genesis, with a number of contradictions between them. That is it. End of story." You have 48 hours to find a comparably reliable source that argues against this view. If you can do this I will alter my proposal to say "most scholars say X, but others such a Scholar Y disagree". Either way, though, the article as it stands is unacceptable. 182.249.241.42 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As the editor who initially reverted you, I would like to respectfully point out that, your assumptions notwithstanding, there was nothing in my action or edit summary that was in the slightest way religiously motivated. What I saw was an IP editor make a fairly substantial edit to the lead paragraph of a highly sensitive article. Although I strongly disapprove of Til's rhetoric, he does make a point that the two sources are part of a hypothesis, and at that, one which "has been increasingly challenged". Two "parts", two "myths", two "narratives", two "stories" might all work, but more important is the process by which we edit. I was simply following the WP:BRD model. Please refrain from jumping to conclusions about my knowledge of the Bible. Ἀλήθεια 11:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP is definitely correct, there are two narratives, not one, all you have to do is read it to see that. To reject the basis of biblical scholarship for hundreds of years is not something a neutral source of information such as an encyclopedia should do.Smeat75 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) I apologize for my assumptions. I've had some bad experiences editing articles in this area in the past. Your Greek username remindedme of those people with the userboxes that say "This user knows more about the Bible than you", and your recentedithistory didn't help, but I can see how I kind of jumped the gun, and I agree with BRD, which is why I came here rather than re-reverting. Let's bury the hatchet on that, since this page is meant to be about article content anyway.
 * As to the substance, it seems to me that source criticism is a "major, controlling" hypothesis (Prof. Hayes' wording, again). But like I already told TE, this is not so much about source theory itself, which Hayes herself seems to have somewhat conflicting views of. The problem here is whether Genesis contains "a creation myth, in two parts" or "two creation myths". This is related to source theory, but it seems to be one of the strongest and most broadly accepted aspects of the theory. Hayes, for instance, is ambivalent about source criticism in general, and explicitly rejects its more extreme forms, but she states the two-creation-myths-in-Genesis point as a matter of fact (it's in lecture 3, at 12:44~12:52 -- Now, if we turn to the creation story -- the first of the two creation stories that are in the Bible, 'cause in fact there are two creation stories with quite a few contradictions between them -- that's her emphasis).
 * I'm concerned here that this article's first few lines read like a polemic against this scholarly point of view: "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth (not "creation myths") of both Judaism and Christianity. It is made up of two parts (but is not made up of two separate myths)". This is part of why I didn't support the recent RM: I share HiLo's concerns about systemic bias, but I'm frankly more worried that using the technical term "creation myth" to describe the combined narrative in Genesis (which this article currently does) is problematic, when specialists don't speak of the "Genesis creation myth" but of the "Genesis creation myths". (I also don't like the tendency of some atheists to poke the bear by using "myth" to describe things like the crucifixion of Jesus. They are correct acvording to the technical sense of the word "myth", but they use it in the derogatory sense of "widely-held but false belief". Regardless of what one thinks abput Jesus of Nazareth, he certainly existed and he certainly was crucified. The last RM looked a little like that, anyway, although I'm not passing judgement on any individual participants.)
 * 182.249.241.24 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's where your logic is flawed. You may claim that the text is comprised of two myths.  This is a theory that has its adherents and its detractors.  But what you are arguing is different.  You are arguing that the text is the creation myths of both Judaism and Christianity.  This is clearly not the case.  The reason the term myth is used here is that it is a foundational explanatory story used by a group or groups.  Those group or groups view it as a single story, and it is therefore a single myth, even if it is based on a multiplicity of myths in the past.  Particularly since there is no extant copy of these theorized myths.


 * Aside from that, I do not think there is any actual evidence that the character of Jesus existed historically. Nor is there any evidence supporting his existence.  Whereas I do think that the text of Genesis 1-2 is a coherent text that has come down to us exactly as it was written.  There is ample evidence that this is case, from chiastic structures running through the text to conceptual parallels between the two accounts.  Biblical scholarship is not a science, IP.  It's conjecture.  And a greater number of people in universities accepting a conjecture does not determine the truth of a proposition.  Nor does it determine what constitutes a reliable source.  I can point you to numerous books supporting what I've written here.  Many of them are written in Hebrew, so they probably won't help you.  But everyone knows there's a systemic bias in western Universities against the Bible being anything other than fairytales.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is an equally stinging bias against treating the Quran, Book of Mormon, Popol Vuh, and Bhagavad Gita as anything other than fairytales as well. But in fact every one of these accounts is due exactly equal credence from a factual-presumptive viewpoint. But from literary and logical viewpoints it is fair to treat apparent cobblings-together as apparent cobblings-together. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's remotely accurate to claim that biblical scholarship is nothing but conjecture. It follows the same structure as the academic discipline of history, differing only in that it puts more emphasis on the meaning of the text and the intent of the authors. It is, in short, an attempt to approach the subject with as close to scientific rigor as is possible, and to say that it is merely conjecture is dismissive. Besides which, the IP is correct in that the modern consensus is clear. One may dismiss it as a hypothesis, but that ignores the fact that it's acceptance is on par with other hypotheses, such as ' the events in The Exodus never took place in a literal way. ' MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ....or the hypothesis that they did so. I note that Lisa mistakes this for a proposed conflation between Jewish and Christian myths? It would be more like a conflation between Sumerian and Babylonian myths, with some Egyptian thrown in for good measure. 22:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants says "the IP is correct in that the modern consensus is clear." The IP is also correct when s/he says Regardless of what one thinks abput Jesus of Nazareth, he certainly existed and he certainly was crucified. The IP is just correct, period, in this discussion, WP does not dismiss scholarship as "people in universities accepting a conjecture."Smeat75 (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that Jesus certainly existed, but I (and the majority of scholars, AFAIK) feel that it's far more likely that he did. Without contemporary attestation however, you can never eliminate all reasonable doubt. Aside from that, yes. The IP editor is in the right overall, IMHO. I would point out however that there does exist a discussion, and this bears mentioning. The two-source hypothesis is the one from which this article should be written (as it is the academic consensus), but the single-source hypothesis is hardly a straight up fringe theory. It exists within the mainstream, as well. It doesn't bear the weight, but it certainly deserves mention. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The hypotheses that those events actually happened as depicted is not accepted anywhere in mainstream history, or biblical scholarship. Only fringe (in this case referring to biblical literalists) critics assert that the Exodus actually happened, AFAIK. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion veered a bit off-topic, and I'm partly responsible.

Wikipedia doesn't treat archaeological evidence with the absolute importance that some people might expect. There is no archaeological evidence for either Jesus or Moses, but there is also no archaeological evidence for just about everyone and everything else. History is about probability judgements. The assertion made by professional historians (like Bart Ehrman) and amateur hobbyists (like me) that Jesus "certainly" existed in other words means something between "there's a 99% chance" to "there's a 99.99% chance". I only brought up the historicity of Jesus as an example of radical atheists using the word "myth" inaccurately to explain why I don't especially advocate moving this page (as opposed to moving other articles to, say, Hindu creation narrative). Moses and the Exodus are more complicated, and while it's outside my area of interest my impression is that the jury is still out. Hayes (can you tell I like her? :) ) gives evidence for both sides and points out that there's a 0% chance of the events having happened exactly as depicted, she also points out that it seems unlikely that, for instance, later Israelites would invent a national origin story in which their ancestors were slaves led to freedom by a man with a foreign name.


 * I have responded to the above collapse on your talk page. If you're unsure how to get to it, find one of your edits in the edit history for a link (it took me a while to figure out how to find my talk page when I wasn't logged in). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Lisa: How about rewriting the opening paragraph and moving the word "Judaism and Christianity" from the first sentence? It's not, strictly speaking, accurate to describe the creation narrative contained in Genesis is the "explanatory story used by" Jews and Christians, since the vast majority of Christians (Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, various Orthodox denominations...) are members of groups whose official stance is that the Genesis stories are not to be interpreted literally, and even biblical literalists usually read a whole lot of stuff (the devil, etc.) into Genesis that isn't, strictly speaking, there. 182.249.240.32 (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Even those groups would acknowledge that the Genesis stories are the foundational narratives of their religion.  You're the one who keeps bringing in literalism.  It's beyond argument that the Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity.  It's bizarre that you'd argue with such an obvious proposition.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly clear what you're arguing. The definition you are citing for myth is one adhered to by specialists, but specialists don't actually speak of "the Genesis creation myth". Specialists consider there to be two creation myths in Genesis. As for "all Christians and all Jews" considering the Genesis narrative as a foundational myth of their religions: virtually no Christian takes the Genesis narrative(s) as "the" creation narrative on its face. They all read other characters (Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Satan...), concepts (the Trinity), ideologies (Original Sin), etc. into the story when they are not, strictly speaking, there in the text. 182.249.240.21 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

To butt in, without targeting any single person, I'd like to say that I don't see you two disagreeing on a specific point. IP, you seem to be claiming that most religious people do not view the creation story in this article literally, and you would be correct. Lisa, you seem to be claiming that these stories are of immense importance to Judaism and Christianity, and you are also correct. I don't think any change such as the one suggested above (removing the mention of Judaism and Christianity from the lead) would be an improvement. Instead, I would advise both of you to consider the precise wording of the lead sentence. It says "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity." This is markedly different from claiming that it is the "explanatory story used by" Jews and Christians. it is also markedly different from categorizing it as a minor myth in the Judeo-Christian cosmology. I understand your concerns, IP and Lisa, but it seems they are quite well addressed in the article as it stands. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

lead, description of creation of man/woman
the lead currently points out that the 2nd narrative has man created first, and woman created from man. this is strange, as the description of the first narrative is silent on the issue. both are well-discussed in the body. so either 1) we should remove reference to creation of man/woman from the description of the 2nd narrative, or 2) we should add it to the description of the 1st. I made an edit and did 2), adding "God creates man and woman together, in a single act. ". My edit was reverted by  with edit note: "grammar is poor and it doesn't really contribute to the article".   Please address the objection that led me to add this.  We can deal with the grammar objection (!) later.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me start by saying that I'm sorry if my edit summary came across as being rude. I was just trying to be concise, and a second reading here showed me that perhaps I didn't need to be quite so concise.
 * In the interest of compromise, I have made an edit to the page that includes mention of this in a less stark manner. However, if there are no objections, I would prefer to take the first option you mentioned above, as I don't believe this needs to be discussed in the lead. In fact, I don't think any summary of the two narratives is really necessary there at all, and the lead should simply mention that there are two narratives and let the body explain the contents and differences. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for talking, and for making a good compromise attempt. it doesn't accomplish the parallelism with the level of detail that is in the description of the 2nd narrative, so is not optimal. but i found the highlighting of the detail in the lead jarring so would be very fine with deleting it all (option 1). since you seem to like that, i will go ahead and make that edit, and we'll see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like that edit and am happy with it. Since two of us seem content with this edit, it stands to reason -given the history of this article- that a riotous debate will now ensue over it. ;-D   MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as you suspected ... I reverted to the earlier version because you deleted sourced material and gave no source for the new material. PiCo (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * sources are not needed in the lead if they are sourced in the body. i introduced nothing new. thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The new material isn't sourced in the body - in fact it contradicts what's in the body. You need sources, because if you don't use them you'll make mistakes, which is what's happened here. The text you want to use is this: The second narrative begins "in the day the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4–24 God, referred to by the personal name "Yahweh", shapes the first man from dust, places him in the Garden of Eden, and breathes his own breath into the man who thus becomes נֶפֶש nephesh, a living being. This contains less information than the existing version, and introduces some errors, notably the idea that there are two narratives - there's only one, made up from two sources, as the last para of the lead makes clear. It's also incorrect to say that Genesis 2 begins with the earth already created - it doesn't, since the word we translate as "created" (Hebrew bara) doesn't actually mean that, it means "prepared for use" (see Walton for example.) Please, use sources, and don't remove sourced material. PiCo (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The source for the contents of the work can certainly be the work itself. Your accusations of OR are a bit further from WP:AGF than perhaps they should be. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of bad faith - that wasn't my meaning at all. What I'm "accusing" you of, if that's the word, is: (a) deleting sourced material; and (b) replacing it with unsourced material that has less information and contains an error. Davidson and Turner, the sources used in the existing second paragraph, are established scholars - why do you want to remove their material? Do you think that paragraph is inadequate, distorted, incorrect? You haven't explained. Then the error: you want to begin with a line about "the second narrative..." There is no second narrative - see the last line of the third paragraph, sourced from Robert Alter: there's only one narrative, made up from two sources. Two sources, not two narratives. The difference isn't trivial. The two sources are the Priestly and Yahwist sources, but those aren't narratives. PiCo (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog made the edits you are referring to, not I.
 * Actually, I have. In this section, I expressed quite clearly that I felt the lead was overly detailed (for more detail, please read WP:LEAD). Jytdog agreed and deleted the material based on that, with consideration of the fact that the material appears elsewhere in the article. Please make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the issue before continuing to involve yourself in it, as your edit summary of "unexplained deletion of referenced material..." is demonstrably false. The summary of the very edit you contested leads back to this talk page and the explanations you claim are lacking.
 * With regards to this issue, I must assume you are not claiming a single source for Genesis, and instead are arguing our use of the word on semantic grounds. For clarity, understand that -for all intents and purposes and as far as I can speak for another editor- Jytdog and I have been using the word 'narrative' as interchangeable with the words 'source', 'part' or 'section'. Arguing semantics is fine for the article (I agree that the two parts should be referred to as parts or sources), but is hardly indicative of OR.
 * I hope this helps to clear things up. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With regards to this issue, I must assume you are not claiming a single source for Genesis, and instead are arguing our use of the word on semantic grounds. For clarity, understand that -for all intents and purposes and as far as I can speak for another editor- Jytdog and I have been using the word 'narrative' as interchangeable with the words 'source', 'part' or 'section'. Arguing semantics is fine for the article (I agree that the two parts should be referred to as parts or sources), but is hardly indicative of OR.
 * I hope this helps to clear things up. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope this helps to clear things up. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact is, you've removed a great deal of information from the second paragraph, information that summarises the second chapter of Genesis. You've kept the bit about the creation of man, but removed the information about the creation of animals and of woman. That's important stuff, and it needs to be kept. As for the narrative vs. source debate, the word narrative and the word source have precise meanings in bilbical scholarship, and are not interchangeable. This again illustrates why sources (I mean academic ones) are vital when we write articles - otherwise we end up doing what you've done here, writing things you think you know but which are in fact OR. PiCo (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you cannot be bothered to read my responses, do not expect me to continue to attempt to justify myself to you. Go back and read what I wrote: I have responded to each and every point you have brought up already. Repeating yourself does not make for a rational argument. I think it would do you some good to read Achieving consensus and Assume Good Faith because your discourse here does not reflect those standards. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion is obviously going nowhere, the next step is informal mediation. I suggest you pick an admin you trust, or else we can ask for a volunteer. PiCo (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

since is unhappy with creating parallelism in the lead between the first part and the second part - an appropriate thing to do when working with the Hebrew Bible :)  - by deleting content from the 2nd part, I have tried to create balance by adding content to the first part - now we have the creation of humanity in both descriptions.  What I added is copy/pasted from the body and sourced.   We want to try to work toward consensus here - Pico is this OK with you?  MjolnirPants can you live with this?  thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty happy with the second para as you now have it, except I think there's one element missing - God's first creative act is the Garden itself. This is pretty important from a theological point of view (or was back in the 5th century BC when this was written), in that the "garden" was an indispensable part of the architecture of the Temple - the Temple was a microcosm of the cosmos (as visualised at the time), and the Garden represented the heavenly equivalent of the earthly domain of man. I don't want to go into all that, not in the lead and not elsewhere, but it's still important. Can you look at the source and see if it's included there?
 * Why I put so much stress on sources: if we don't tie every sentence to an academic source that can't be argued with, we open the article to rampant ad-hoc editing by anyone on the basis of what they think they know, but in fact don't. One example is God creating Eve from Adam's rib: the Hebrew doesn't actually say "rib", it uses another word that's much more ambiguous. That's just one example.
 * On the first para, I don't know why you're so preoccupied with the creation of man. Chapter 1 isn't ab out how God created man, it's about how God created a perfect world ("very good") and placed man in it as his regent - to paraphrase the psalm, "thou madest him a little lower than the angels", and placed him foremost in creation. In other words, Genesis 1 is about theology, not biology. Read Walton, you'll find him illuminating. PiCo (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * do you have any actual questions for me about what i see as problematic and what i am trying to accomplish? if so, please ask, and i will be happy to answer.Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the intro would be stronger if it avoided later interpretations, especially relatively vapid ones like "suggesting a comparison with a king, who has only to speak for things to happen" and "in keeping with the common ancient concept that things did not really exist until they had been named." While I realize both are sourced, there are hundreds of works on this subject, and some surely take the opposite position, e.g. the legend of King Canute and the waves presents a vivid contrast with the power of mortal kings. And, of course, after "let there be light," God sees the light and says it is good before naming it. More importantly, none of these later viewpoints are central enough to the subject to be in the lede. I think it would be better for the intro to stick to what the Biblical text says, mention that it has been subject to diverse interpretations over the centuries and leave discussion of specific interpretations to the body of the article, where many sources can be brought without Wikipedia editors picking the one correct view.--agr (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * i agree with minimalizing the lead, which is what I tried to do in this dif. pico had a different perspective. i would be fine with getting rid of the detail you mention as well, arnold.Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I too, want to see a minimal lead. After all, the lead is just an introduction to the subject, per WP:LEAD. Interpretation and details rightly belong in the body. The way it looks now is better, but could still use some work, as suggested by Arnold. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and shortened the lead up, taking out the interpretation and re-writing the description of the second part to better reflect the sequence portrayed in Genesis. Let me know what you think. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is a great change! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is a lot better, but I still have a problem with "It is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis" That sentence covers up a lot of issues. It should be made clear that this is an interpretation of the text, both as to the division into two parts and the notion that it ends after chapter 2. The later has to do with how scholars define the term "creation myth" rather than any intrinsic break in the text. Even the reference to chapters suggests that they are part of the original text. I would prefer something like "Scholars generally divide the description of the creation of the world into two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters] ] of the Book of Genesis."--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you find it to be an improvement! I don't understand where you are coming from, however, in two ways.  First, "breaks in the text" have existed at least since around the turn of the millenia (i.e. year 0).  Second, the entire article is the scholarly view; it is overkill to refer over and over to "scholars say X". Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The reference to chapters is made using the modern chapter divisions, which are the only divisions the vast majority of readers will be familiar with. To define it further using the link you provided would only serve to muddy the issue. Also, to expound further upon what Jytdog has said, attributing claims to 'scholars' or specific scholars when there is a consensus on the veracity of that claim only serves to create an implied division between these scholars and some other group. Such phrasing would be more appropriate to an article on common misconceptions about the subject, where there would be an implied or explicit division between trained, professional scholars and amateur scholars. In this article, that's not appropriate because amateur scholars who dissented would simply be in the minority, and thus not a part of the consensus that informs the claim.
 * MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  01:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of amateur vs professional. These are sacred texts to three religions, and we have writings about this text over some two thousand years that do not make this division. The way the lede reads now is like saying "Hamlet is divided into five acts."  It implies something explicitly acknowledged in the original. That is not the case. If we only want to present the view of modern scholarship, we should make that clear. We currently reference "biblical scholars" in the fourth paragraph, why not set that context earlier, in the second? --agr (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was an issue of amateur vs professional scholars, but an issue of presenting the appearance of a division where there is none. That being said, I don't feel very strongly about the issue. If you see it differently from me, then I'd accept it's just a matter of opinion and go either way. I do feel that the wikilink should be left out, however. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yahweh, YHWH, YHVH, Yehowah
The name of the god of Israel in the Masoretic text is יהוה, yod he waw he, YHWH. The vowels are indicated in the Masoretic text is Yehowah but scholars have asserted they are only the vowels of Adonai. The two sets of vowels are not identical, as evidenced even in the English transliterations, and Yehowah is supported by its use in theophoric names, Yehoshua, Yehoshafat, Yehohanan, Yehozadoq, Yehonathan, et cetera. The pronunciation Yahweh is widely acknowledged by scholars as a guess, and is an agreed upon pronunciation when speaking the name YHWH in academic settings, rather than Jehovah. Yahweh is a particularly unlikely pronunciation because it in itself violates the rules of Hebrew grammar outlined in the Tiberian vocalization and explained in Aaron ben Moses ben Asher's authoritative text on the Tiberian writing system, Diqduqei Ha-Te'amim. 'Yahweh' is not Hebrew. The root word is 'howa' meaning to exist, the vowels a-way can't be derived from it. Other theophoric names, Eliyahu, Yeshayahu, Hezqiyahu, Yerimeyahu, et cetera indicate Yahuweh, or Yahuwah, which could theoretically be compatible with the semitic root 'howa'. Not only is Yahweh not a real Hebrew word, it is not semitic. Northwest semitic languages have a distinct vowel pattern. Some things just don't sound authentically Arabic or Hebrew. Like if you wanted to invent the name meaning 'YHWH is compassionate' Yeho-hesed or Hesed-yahu as a proper name, it would need to be changed to Yehohasad or Hasadyahu because that is just how Hebrew works. Yahweh does not sound like TIberian Hebrew, it sounds like 'either my way, or Yahweh', its linguistically retarded. Rendering the name as YHWH eliminates the entire issue of the mysterious vowels by taking them out all together. When you visit the Shrine of the Book or the Israel Museum, explanatory placards don't read 'Yahweh' but 'YHWH'. The only appropriate scholarly use is when someone must pronounce the name, when giving a lecture or something. Use asinine Hebrew in the article if you want, but it looks unscholarly and stupid.--Newmancbn (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While what you write above is interesting, it is of no value in Wikipedia. You could be a monkey or Moshe Greenberg for all anybody here knows - or cares. Discussion of content on WP is driven by what reliable sources tell us are mainstream views, and what are... not-so-mainstream.  Please provide reliable sources that clearly show that "yahweh" is not the mainsteam rendering of "YHWH".Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a plethora of examples to cite from scholarly sources discussing this very topic, and I will show them to you tomorrow, but right now I have other things to do.--Newmancbn (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know by now, but you need to make your case at Talk:Israelites. —S MALL  JIM   11:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The tetragrammaton is immaterial to this discussion. Please visit Yahweh and note the extensive sourcing of that article, which not only denies your assertions, but evinces an unambiguous rationale for the use of 'Yahweh' in this article. For your argument here to have merit, you will need to not only provide sufficient sources to show that there is equal scholarly support for a refusal to use the transliteration 'Yahweh', but that this transliteration is not in common usage. That last part is evidently, almost axiomatically untrue. Your own argument requires you to prove an (obviously untrue) negative, which is impossible. I fail to understand why you made it in the first place, without thinking it through this far. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

edit warring over description of "Elohim" in lead
There's recently been edit warring over how to describe "Elohim" in the lead. The grammar of this term is not discussed in the body of the article. If anybody cares about that issue, please first discuss here whether a discussion of the Hebrew term "Elohim" belongs in the body of this article at all. If editors working here agree, we can add discussion to the body of the article, and then can arrive at a summarizing statement for the lead. In my view, none of that belongs in this article at all, and we should make the simplest statement possible in the lead. That is what the pre-editwarring lead was like. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Monogamy in Genesis
The riotous debate is coming, I have no doubt. This section sets aside a place for it. While I'm doing that, I will explain my views. I do not have an issue with Jytdog's deletion of the material, nor do I have an issue with the inclusion of the material as I rephrased it. The following points bear noting: MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Monogamy is not a major, or even a minor theme in Genesis. There is no overt mention of it to my recollection, and I recently finished re-reading it in it's entirety.
 * Polygamy is similarly not a theme in Genesis, and arguments which rest upon the assumption that it is are inherently bad, and not worth including in this article.
 * Kissling is not a renowned biblical scholar, and his views do not hold any undue importance.
 * Kissling's views are as valid as any others, and as long as they are clearly labelled as his views and not given undue weight, they deserve our consideration for inclusion.
 * let me say thanks for making that clarifying edit. that sentence and its source had been bothering me and i have been meaning to go check the source to see what is being referred to.  i suspected it was something like what you clarified it to, and would have ended up deleting it.  My bone with that sentence is not its theological view in whatever direction it was, it was that any theological "reflections" on what a given passage in Genesis means doesn't belong in this article.  we could probably double the size of the entire encylopedia with the oceans of ink that have been spilled over the past, say, 2500 years, over what any passage in this text "means."  It is an article scope question. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Always go with reliable sources, not personal feeling. Monogamy is indeed a theme of one strand of the biblical literature, and is certainly intended by this passage. Or so at least or sources tell us. Kissling's views are not personal (he's not making a personal argument), and the point is notable. And Genesis is entirely theological - unless you're a fundamentalist Christian who thinks its history and God really did begin with Adam and Eve in a real garden. Once upon a time that's exactly what this article was, a fundamentalist theme park, but it's been rewritten to reflect the theology of the original authors, not of the modern day. That's what Kissling's there for.PiCo (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * KIssling is not writing necessarily an historian. from his preface: "Genesis is read in this commentary as part of the canon of Holy Scripture."  (he also later says he reads it historically, sensitively, and poetically). Turning to this in the part we citing him on marriage, this argument from absence {wife not wives) is extremely weak, and the argument pinned to the double hypothesis (a) canon was formed at a certain time; and b) during that time, monogamy/polygamy were hotly debated) is also weak.  If this content is to stay, it needs other sources to back it up - especially those two arguments that he makes.  Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kissling is a biblical scholar,and you're not. Your argument is no more than "I don't like what he says," but that's not very strong. PiCo (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, Kissling's date for canonisation of Genesis of right in the generally accepted range, 500-300 BCE).PiCo (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please strike your comment "and you are not". We comment on content, not contributors, and you have no idea what I am or am not (and it doesn't matter). Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're not a biblical scholar :). The point I'm making is that we have a RS for this comment; it can't be dropped without adequate reason. If you have doubts,you need to find another RS with a different interpretation. You can do that by looking through commentaries )look up this verse and see how it's interpreted).
 * As for the debate over marriage in Jerusalem c.400 BCE, when this was probably written, Kissling is well withing standard understanding. This is that the exiles returned from Babylon, in several waves, with very strict ideas about how "Israel" was to be interpreted. They battled with the Judahites who'd stayed behind and, eventually successfully, enforced their own ideas of a "pure" Yahweh-worshiping community that excluded all others - therefore no outside marriages. They were not very nice people, rather like the Branch Davidian. PiCo (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

comment on content, not contributor. your speculation about what i do and what i know is irrelevant. it is hard enough to discuss topics like this without offtopic discussion entering into it. so strike it. i mean it. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because of Wiki policy on reliable sourcing - when a statement comes from a reliable source (Kissling) you can't delete it simply because you don't like it.PiCo (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC
 * right so at this point I can only say that you do not understand WP's WP:TPG, which is going to make this harder than it has to be. Just know that I will ignore and not respond to off-topic remarks going forward. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * dealing with substance:
 * there are a range of theories about when and why J was created, from ca 1000 BCE to ca 400 BCE.
 * with regard to hypotheses about particular issues in any period of ancient isreal, these are often the summary of multiple hypotheses; a) one starts with an assumption about when a given text was written; b) one looks at other events happening around that time and makes guesses about the kinds of conflicts that could have been happening at that time; c) one looks at the content of the text and guesses what kind of conflict could have been going on that could have led to the text being created (in conjunction with assumptions about what tendencies the assumed source of the text had (2 more hypotheses there); and of course, each of a), b), and c) are each looped through and through.  This is how biblical history is done.  There are some rough consensuses but there is lots of room for play.
 * for our article to pick the summary of one such set of speculations from one author, about what was going on in Isreal at the time this text was written or edited to its current form, is to me not valid, especially without some secondary source that describes what the range of consensus is.
 * more importantly, as I said the first time, we should not be making theological statements here. To say "Marriage is monogamous" as the current content states, is bizarre - this is stated in Wikipedia's voice and i don't know what it even means - is WP making pronouncements against polygamy now?  (that is a rhetorical question)  This should at least be edited to say something like "The Jahwist is claiming that ..."   or even better "Kissling understands that the  Jawhist is claiming that..."
 * And if we are making some claim about underlying social conditions or mores or better, the Jawhist's POV on social issues, why is this article not full of such claims? Why is there not commentary on what the Jawhist or P thought about humanity and the environment, about imperialism, about the proper relationships between men and women? There are endless opportunities to "go there" - why are we doing so on just these verses?  That is a real question - please answer. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything Kissling wrote is interpretation. He interprets Genesis to have a theme which is pro-monogamy and anti-polygamy. There is absolutely nothing overtly or explicitly pro-monogamous or anti-polygamous in Genesis. This is not a debatable claim, but an easily verifiable fact. That makes your argument nonsensical. As I already explained, I'm fine with including interpretation, considering that interpretation of the writings which comprise the modern bible are of major importance to western civilization. However, WP:MOS is quite clear on how such interpretations should be handled, and that is most certainly not by stating them as facts. Also, I think a scholar with a bit more notability than Kissling might be more appropriate, should we decide to include such commentary.
 * Finally, Jytdog's profession or qualifications as an expert in this subject are absolutely not acceptable subjects for discussion here. If you insist upon following that line of argument, I will back Jytdog in whatever administrative action he choose to take for this violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Monogamy is considered the rule in Genesis, and all violations of this are treated negatively. Kissling is a professor who specializes in this area, and you cannot dismiss his claims are purely his own interpretation. It is not a verifiable fact that there is nothing pro-monogamous or anti-polygamous in Genesis.--TMD (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for discussion of marriage in the hebrew bible. the point is whether this passages is speaking to marriage, and you have not brought a source to say that it is. there is nothing intrinsic in the passage that says so. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm not disputing that monogamy is considered the norm in most (not all) biblical texts, including Genesis. I'm disputing that it's a topic which gets much coverage. Absent any condemnation of polygamy in the referenced passages, your claims fall flat.
 * You keep making positive claims about Genesis, but you haven't cited a single passage as evidence for it. Kissling himself offers no citations or evidence for his interpretation, which may be par for the course for a preacher, but is hardly in keeping with scholarly standards. So whatever you think of the truth of this matter, you haven't met WP's requirements for including any mention of it, and Kissling hasn't met his field's standards for considering his comments an expert opinion. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep making positive claims about Genesis, but you haven't cited a single passage as evidence for it. Kissling himself offers no citations or evidence for his interpretation, which may be par for the course for a preacher, but is hardly in keeping with scholarly standards. So whatever you think of the truth of this matter, you haven't met WP's requirements for including any mention of it, and Kissling hasn't met his field's standards for considering his comments an expert opinion. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Change "myth" to "belief"
Obviously, the atheist hardline has been taken while approaching this topic. I would respectfully suggest that the phrase "creation myth" be replaced with the phrase "creation belief." This will allow the atheist element to continue to discount the beliefs of creationism, while being less offensive to those whose beliefs are important to them. "Myth" is just too much of a confrontational "in your face" stab at those that believe creationism is real.Devildog72 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Or you could try what myth actually means instead of making baseless accusations. Within academia, "myth" merely refers to sacred stories, without any judgement as to in what ways they are true or false, only noting that the stories are told.  George Every  wrote that the existence of "myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone", including "probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants" (see Christian mythology).  C.S. Lewis wrote "the story of Christ is simply a true myth."  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ian is absolutely correct. The word 'Myth' does not mean that something is untrue by definition. Remember, one of the pillars of WP is that it is written from a neutral point of view, and this means it should never create a false balance. Finally, using language such as "the atheist hardline" does your case no good, as it immediately sets you against a subset of Wikipedians, many of whom are quite passionate about maintaining the integrity of articles such as this. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Devildog72 is correct in asserting that the use of the word "myth" fails to present a balanced analysis of the topic. Just as MjolnirPants is correct in recognizing that "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." However, when considering this issue we should recognize that belief in a Creator is not a minority view. In fact, the Wikipedia article on atheism cites many studies that consistently show a majority of populations surveyed, including scientists and highly credentialed scholars, as having pro-theistic beliefs. A more balanced approach would recognize that there are parts of the creation narratives from various cultural and religious traditions that may or may not be myth (modern meaning = false). It is not balanced to generalize all parts of all creation narratives as myth. Some communities of scholarship believe evolutionary science is a clear argument against both creation narratives and any role of a deity/Creator. Other communities of scholarship recognize origins of the universe through the work of a deity/Creator, whether or not they recognize evolutionary biology as part of that process. :Ian's argument about the somewhat historic meaning of "myth" by academia, is not a strong enough argument for the term. Word meanings change over time as languages evolve and the contemporary meaning for "myth" has degenerated to mean "falsehood". Is there another word or words that can be used to reflect the multifaceted nature of the various creation narratives without biasing toward either a pro-theistic or anti-theistic view of universal origins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgoodell2 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * with respect, you are missing the point. from the standpoint of history of religion - the standpoint in which this article is written - belief is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is not a single person left on earth who believes the myth, or billions of people believe it.  Its a story about how the world was created - a myth. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * belief in a Creator is not a minority view
 * No, but believe in this creation narrative is. In fact, belief in this particular creator is, as well. It may be the largest minority, but so long as less than half the world is Christian or Jewish, it's still a minority. Not that it matters, anyways. WP does not exist to present a majority view. It exists to present verifiable, neutral information. Failing to refer to a myth as a myth because it might offend one group -no matter how large- would fail to be verifiable, neutral and informative. Finally, your argument ignores the meaning of the word myth. You are must assume that it indicates falsehood for your argument to even make sense, and it does not. A myth may be true, whether you are aware of this or not. You might try using WP if you wish to contribute to it, by reading up on Myth and checking out some of its sources.
 * Some communities of scholarship believe evolutionary science is a clear argument against both creation narratives and any role of a deity/Creator.
 * They are not relevant to this discussion. This is not about evolution. Both of you fail to understand that this argument has been made literally dozens of times before, and it never succeeds. It has become trivial to demonstrate that this narrative presents a myth, due to the heavy sourcing of this article as a result of this continuing debate. On the other hand, those who take your position have been entirely unable to produce reliable sourcing for calling it anything else, despite years of effort. I know what I'm talking about, because I've come from your side of the issue to this (the correct) side. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In short: theism =/= Young Earth Creationism. Theistic evolution is actually pretty common outside of the US, and among the educated.
 * Also, no sources have been presented to indicate that the term had developed an anti-theistic meaning within academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Uhm no. ...but I would support changing that to "story" instead of myth, with a piped link to that page. Sensitivity to that wording isn't necessarily something that can't be done and done correctly. I doubt this will get much support...but hey, it makes sense, still works and isn't offensive to the "believer" who doesn't see it as "myth". Is this a possibility?--Mark Miller (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a creation myth. In Tree of Souls:The Mythology of Judaism" by Howard Schwartz, winner of several Jewish Book Awards sponsored by the Jewish Book Council, Schwartz says Genesis contains the most famous of all Jewish Creation mythsp.76. In The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament'' By Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, Michael A. Grisanti, I find "Genesis 1-2 as myth. In light of the above points of similarity (and others), critical or nonevangelical scholars almost exclusively categorize these chapters as myth.27 Although it is difficult to define “myth,”25 the basic understanding is that a myth involves “an ancient, premodern, prcscicntific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?”29 In many instances by “myth” these scholars mean something fictional or non-historical. However, some scholars arc careful to distinguish myth from free-ranging fantasy and contend that myth can conjure up or point to history.30 To the question, “Is Genesis 1 a Creation Myth?” Mark Smith answers “yes and no."31 In light of the context of Genesis 1 (both biblical and ANII), Smith concludes that Genesis 1 is certainly mythic. However, its placement at the beginning of Genesis and certain phrases in the chapter suggest that it is linked to historical time. Smith grants that the answer to the question depends on how a person defines “myth.”

Evangelicals also wrestle with this question, and several agree that the first section of Genesis (chaps. 1—11) belongs to the genre of myth rather than history.32 Unlike the nonevangelical scholars who reject the idea of divine revelation and inspiration, evangelical proponents of the myth view' believe that careful attention to the ANE context of chaps. 1-2 occasions their interpretation. Also, they do not discount that these chapters present “facts” (c.g., God is one and not many, human beings are made in Gods image, etc.). They arc concerned about the form in which Genesis presents these facts.33 In various ways they seek to answer the question, Did the creation of Adam literally take place the way it is narrated, or is the creation of Adam shaped to teach us things about the nature of humanity?34 Walton suggests that in the ancient world, mythology was like science in the modern world—it represented their explanation of how the world came into being and how it worked. So mythology served as a window to culture, that is, as a reflection of the worldview and values of the culture that forged it." See the footnotes also. It's easy to find more. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue with changing "myth" to "story" in favour of sensitivity is that it gives undue validation to this creation myth over numerous other creation myths. If we were to change this one, we would, in the interest of neutrality, have to change every other creation myth article to be similar, or risk appearing biased toward this one and its adherents. Rwenonah (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Valid point, but in the interest of POV maybe they should be changed? I'm personally fine with myth, but in the interests of neutrality, I can see how myth can be perceived in a more biased tone than story. Zarcusian (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Summary of the problem with this proposal (IMHO): It seems to me that as things stand, it's trivial to show that the subject of this article fits each of the defining characteristics of a myth and that other proposed terms are too vague. If we are to change it, someone would need to show that:
 * It doesn't actually fit one or more of those characteristics, contrary to what has already been determined;
 * It does fit all the defining characteristics of whatever other term is proposed, and;
 * The other term is the most precise term possible, given the evidence.
 * I think that until someone can address all three of those points in a clear manner, this discussion should be closed. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which definition of "myth" are you referring to?--agr (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any use of myth in this article refers to the academic definition, i.e. "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". Rwenonah (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And how does the reader know this neutral academic definition is the intended meaning, as opposed to the everyday pejorative usage: "a commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs)
 * By clicking on the 7th and 8th words in the article, which are wikilinked to Creation myth. BTW, just because you are more personally familiar with a particular definition of a word it is not necessarily the "everyday" usage. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines say "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." (WP:LABEL) A link to another article hardly suffices to establish a scholarly context, and the article in question creation myth does not include the definition Rwenonah gives.--agr (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the first paragraph of that article does an exemplary job of defining the term's meaning. Per WP:LINK, Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. We do not get frequent requests to change the phrasing of Native American or Taoist creation myths; why should we make a special case for Genesis? VQuakr (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion really needs to stop. I mean seriously, does anyone but me know how to check the archives on a talk page? This has been debated many times before, and the result is always the same. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  02:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that the fact it keeps being brought up up again and again, by different people, could suggest there is a perceived NPOV problem? --agr (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * sure it has. Christian apologists find this offensive and try to push their POV into WP. It is clear as day.  Other scholarly treatments of this don't have to put up with that shit.  We do; it is the nature of WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that the fact that it keeps getting shot down again and again, by different people, could suggest that there's not? It should have, I've said it several times. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that anyone who proposes rewording the title to avoid the ambiguous word "myth", in accord with our MOS guidelines, is immediately attacked as a "Christian apologist" suggests there very much is a problem worth discussing.--agr (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants is right. This discussion has been repeatedly gone over in the past, with the same result. Only a fringe minority refuses to admit that Genesis fits the scholarly definition of myth, a version of which is the first sentence on the creation myth article. Secondly, by changing this article to say "belief", we would blatantly be exhibiting systemic bias toward the dozens of similar articles that would not be changed, and are, of course, of equal validity to this one. Or does the editor arguing for belief not believe them to be of equal validity?Rwenonah (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , this thread opened with someone using the phrase "atheist hardline". It was three days later that the phrase "christian apologist" appeared. That's hardly "immediately". In addition, the argument itself is -by definition- an argument from Christian Apologetics, because it argues against a perceived attack on Christian beliefs. You claim that those who object are attacked, but the verifiable truth is that it is those who object who are doing the attacking, and those who support the use of the word who are defending neutrality. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to excise the word "myth" from this article
,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Note that none of those attempts succeeded, as evidenced by the use of the word in the article today.

It is a fact that the world was not created in the manner described in this work. It is the scholarly consensus that the world was not created in the manner described in this work. The majority of English speakers believe that the world was not created in the manner described in this work. There is no justifiable reason, given WP's policies and nature, to avoid using a word that implies falsehood, even if that were the case (which it is not).

Wikipedia exists to INFORM, not to AVOID GIVING OFFENSE. If a young child comes here believing that the account of creation in this work is true, and is disabused of that notion by the use of the word 'myth', then Wikipedia has done its job. If an adult comes here, and refuses to read further into the article because of the word 'myth', then Wikipedia has not failed to do its job, but rather that adult has failed to use good judgement. It is WP's job to inform those who use it. It is not WP's job to reinforce false beliefs, nor to subtly undermine them by wrapping contradictory facts in palatable language. WP exists to state the facts* (*by which I mean verifiable claims from reliable sources), and leaves the rest of the education process to the user. Unless someone has an objection that hasn't been brought up in those links above, I'm going to ask an admin to close this discussion, because there's no point in continuing it. Not only has it been established CONCLUSIVELY that the word 'myth' is the best word, but that arguments over whether to use it are inappropriate here. Just see the comment at the top of the main page, which reads:

The fact that such a comment has survived for three years should indicate the fact that attempts to change it are doomed to failure. It's not because there's a conspiracy, or a systemic desire to suppress the 'truth' of this work, nor an 'atheistic agenda' at work here. It's because the pro-'myth' side consists of atheists and Christians alike. It's because the pro-'myth' side has mountains of evidence to back up its case. It's because the anti-'myth' side is arguing for a fringe theory (whatever your objection, the result of your proposals would be to lend credence to a fringe theory). It's because the pro-'myth' side wins converts from the opposition, while the anti-'myth' side does not. It's because, to put it simply, the pro-'myth' side is right. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Legendary response. Now can we finally move this article to Genesis creation myth and be done with this? Ben (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Thank you, MjolnirPants, for conclusively refuting the oft made claim that "myth" is being used in this article in its scholarly, value-neutral sense. As you make abundantly clearly, the vehement insistence on the "myth" as the only acceptable word comes from a desire to tag the story in Genesis as false from the get go. (As if modern science needed that talisman.) That is exactly what WP:LABEL cautions against. No one, child or adult, is going to see the word "myth" in this Wikipedia article and think "golly, I had no idea Genesis might not be the literal history of the universe." But sensible readers will be put on guard to expect a sloppy, un-scholarly article pushing a point of view, and that, in the end, might just be truth in advertising.--agr (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A quarter of Americans don't know that the earth orbits the sun. Half don't get evolution.  A third of the EU doesn't get heliocentrism or evolution either.  Half of China doesn't get continental drift, and a third doesn't get evolution.  More than half the world (including two thirds of Japan, which otherwise does the best on this sort of thing) thinks lasers are based on sound instead of light.  In general, people are fucking stupid, and need to be told what a myth is just as much as they need to be told what a laser is, and what orbits what, and so on.  I must use "fucking" to emphasize the sheer distance from forgivable stupidity that everyone is entitled to on occasion.  People's fucking stupidity is no basis for the WP:OR claim that myth doesn't mean what academic sources says it means.  People's fucking stupidity are why we do not allow original research of any kind, but instead use academic sources that may use terms in way that conflict with people's fucking stupidity.  If it gets a single person to quit being fucking stupid, that justifies making fucking stupid people turn away.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Myth is being used in its scholarly sense, as the article makes more than clear. For one thing, a simple click on the creation myth link brings up the neutral definition of myth immediately, per the vast preponderance of reliable secondary sources. If we used any other term, we would be going against this majority of sources in order to avoid "offending" a certain group. In doing so, we would be pushing a blatantly pro-Abrahamic point of view. No one argues over the use of myth in Hopi, Chukchi or Shinto creation myth articles, simply because these religions do not have a large group of Wikipedians fighting to excise anything they feel is "unfair" to their favourite religion from the site. By using belief here, but leaving those articles untouched, we would be pandering to a specific religion, violating NPOV and putting our systemic bias in full display. Rwenonah (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole argument over how the word is being used is so far beyond ridiculous that I don't believe for one second that both sides are sincere in their claims. Context establishes what meaning is intended when a word has more than one meaning. This is a scholarly subject, therefore, the word is used in the scholarly sense. There's no wiggle room in that. There's no interpretation, or subjectivity in that. your claim that it's used in any other sense is about as reasonable as arguing that a physicist talking about the mass of a particle is referring to the particle's church service attendance. 'Ridiculous' doesn't even begin to cover it, and I cannot believe that you actually think that's a valid argument.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to make any changes as proposed that I can see...but really...is it necessary to make claims of bad faith? You seriously believe I am not being sincere? Context does establish what meaning is intended and I actually can support a range of titles here....but if we are stating outright that myth is the proper term and sensitivity is not an issue..then we should now begin a more request back to Genesis creation myth. I agree with Doug Weller as well in the fact that this is a historic context, not a religious one (what I got out of the reply...could be wrong).--Mark Miller (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I said was not a claim of bad faith. What I said is that there is no way to convince me that the specific claim presented (that the word is actually being used in the pejorative sense in this article) is believed by anyone involved in this discussion. Just as a lawyer who believes his client to be guilty can lie to the jury about his beliefs in good faith, I believe that argument was made in good faith, but with the knowledge that it was unsound. Adversarial discussions are quite the norm here, after all.
 * I wasn't referring to you, unless you are a sockpuppet of ArnoldReinhold, which I don't think you are. Hence me pinging him in my response. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've compiled a list of objections to the use of the word 'myth' and refutations here. I would suggest anyone new read that before chiming in. Feel free to add to it as needed. Maybe we can post it up top on this page to try and head off future arguments over this issue. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  00:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please consider making a F.A.Q. section, as is done here. It does help reduce repetitive arguments by pointing relevant questioners to a particular F.A.Q. entry. Good job - thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also consider that, regardless of past arguments, if one is renewed or the entire debate brought back up, consensus will determine inclusion or exclusion. You can post all the past arguments you want...but right now the question I am posing is whether there is enough consensus to actually begin a move discussion to replace the wording of Narrative as that replaced myth originally in the title didn't it?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm for it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a great example. I will get on that after the holiday. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the FAQ: There already is one. I'm adding it back to the top of this page. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your list of objections to the word myth ignores the most important one, Wikipedia's Manual of Style WP:LABEL specifically cautions about its use, and requires that its scholarly meaning be established. If all that meant was linking to another article, the guideline would have said so. You may not care if readers mistakenly understand myth in the pejorative sense, as you make clear, but Wikipedia very much does care as reflected by our guideline. NPOV is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and editors are expected to take it seriously. Nor is it all that hard to establish the scholarly context for myth. A straight forward statement that myth is being used in its scholarly, non judgmental meaning is all that is necessary. But such a statement is not in this article nor is it in the creation myth article. No, we are not required to define every word, only a few words are called out in our guidelines, but myth is one of them. The Book of Genesis is a literary work and should be treated like any other literary work, not made into a science vs religion battle ground. This misdirected zeal for the word myth only diminishes Wikipedia's credibility, it does not help the cause of science.--agr (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that the definition of the term include mention of what it does not mean, which is ridiculous in the extreme. Should the definition of 'rabbit' include a list of every non-rabbit animal known to science? Should the definition of 'liver' include an exhaustive list of organs which are not a liver? No, nor should the definition of an academic term explicitly state what it does not mean. If it's not in the definition, it doesn't mean it. That's not only an accepted practice, it's common sense. The term is quite well defined by Creation myth, and your combative arguments will never change that. As if that weren't enough, your claim that the linked article does not do so is blatantly wrong. The second sentence in that article states: While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, cultures regard their creation myths as true to varying degrees.
 * In addition, there's a wikipedia policy that no-one arguing for the exclusion of the term seems to even be aware of: WP:RNPOV, which states; (emphesis added) Do you see that? WP policy explicitly states that academic terms should not be avoided because people might not know that it has a formal definition.
 * MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  22:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By putting such a statement in the article or treating Genesis as a literary work, we would be discriminating against hundreds of other creation myths which are treated as what they are. Genesis is just as much of a creation myth as the Japanese creation myth or Chinese creation myth. Rwenonah (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Might I propose as a reasoned compromise simply qualifying use of the word as such, vis, "the Genesis creation narrative is a story which scholars identify as the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity," or some such. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * -- Moxy (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * this is not a science issue. this article is in the field of the history of religions. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will reply again with a source over my personal opnion .. -- Moxy (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * this isn't about whether or not this myth is true, but whether we should use the word 'myth'. It's already been pointed out that the 'official' WP stance on the subject of this myth's truth is that it is not true, as that is the scholarly and scientific consensus. Evidence of it's falsehood doesn't really help. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your talking about. As per the books we should not dumb down the wording because of what people believe. We need to simply present the information as its presented in the world. Not our problem peoples beliefs dont line-up with scholarly publications...we are not here to make people feel better about what they believe....we are only here to regurgitate what out there. The fact your talking about true vs not true is the whole problem here.....not our position to determine  what is fact...all we can do is regurgitate  what is out there. Its called a myth for a reason....we should not hide this fact from our readers or to make believers feel better by changing a word. Just the fact pls.....-- Moxy (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and  You are not actually arguing against each other. You are, in fact, agreeing. You just arn't paying enough attention to what each other is saying to notice. Moxy, MjolnirPants says in his first  words "this isn't about whether or not this myth is true". It looks like he understands what the argument is. Let's just agree to agree and let it go. Padillah (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ADVISEMENT This discussion is going no-where. There is no consensus for a change, and nothing but arguing is going on. One week from today, I'm going to close this discussion unless someone manages to come up with a damn good reason why I shouldn't. I'm posting this just so no-one can say I arbitrarily closed this while discussion was ongoing. See WP:SNOW, according to which I don't necessarily even need to wait a week. But since that is a 'good practice' essay and not a policy, I figured it's best to give everyone a chance to say their piece before then. Also note that I plan on closing any future attempts to remove the word as soon as I notice them, per WP:SNOW and the previous discussions. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that the word myth not be use, only that "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader." the second sentence in WPRNPOV. Were this done with due care, I believe these endless conflicts would be less frequent. But since this thread is about changing myth to belief, and I am in agreement that doing so is not required, I have no objection to closing the discussion.--agr (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The specific meaning of jargon is determined by context. That means that -barring any explicit declaration of such- it would be impossible to use the word in any sense but the scholarly sense in this article. So your concern would only have merit were the word a wikilink to fiction or the article were written with a dismissive and critical voice, neither of which is the case. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as I'm here I figured I'd say, inasmuch as this is not a proposal but a discussion it doesn't require being closed. Simply drop it and allow others to do the same. It's not necessary to defend your point of view from people that are agreeing with you. Padillah (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * an open discussion is just that: Open. The fact of the matter is that, just like the previous 79 attempts, this attempt is not going to get anywhere, nor are any of the inevitable next 79 attempts. Leaving it open just invites people to worry about participating in this discussion, rather than working to improve the page. There's just no benefit to leaving the discussion open. In fact, it should have been closed much sooner, but I wanted to make sure there was time for everyone to get what the consensus really is, and to make it clear I'm not trying to own the page. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And my point is that, since it's a discussion it doesn't qualify as "open". Nor do any of us have the authority to "close" it. That simply isn't how Talk pages work in WP. As a contributor to the consensus in 2011 I sympathize with wanting to end the incessant requests for this, but as a WP contributor I know I can't. All I can do is Watchlist the page and give attention when it happens again.
 * As for avoiding this discussion, there's no such thing. This is a thorn in the side of almost any Christian that comes across this page and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Inasmuch as we refuse to call see "the truth of God in all things" we will have requests like this crop up. That's why there are sites like orthodoxwiki.org and others, so they can make claims that are not allowed on here. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And my point is that, since it's a discussion it doesn't qualify as "open".
 * I have no idea what that means. All discussions on WP that aren't closed are open to anyone to participate in.
 * Nor do any of us have the authority to "close" it. That simply isn't how Talk pages work in WP.
 * Yes, actually it is. From the link: Emphasis added.
 * Also check out WP:SNOW, which runs down how to deal with this exact sort of situation. Basically, it says to shut it down and to hell with the usual procedures. Anyone here has the authority to close this discussion right now based on WP:SNOW, WP:SENSE and the guidelines at the top of the request for closure page. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

of course, folks could just stop responding.... Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What are the odds of that? Hell, I'm the one harping on about closing it, and I can't stop responding. I guarantee you that anyone who's really bothered by the use of the word will be in the same boat. Besides, the discussion seems to have shifted to whether the discussion should be closed (whoa... Meta...) and it'd be pretty rude of me to not participate in that, given that I announced my intention to close it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * no one here has the power to "close" this. best is just to not feed the trolls, shun, etc etc. let it die. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Check my response to Padillah above: Everyone has the authority to close a discussion when there's as clear a consensus as there is here. If you think another week is too much, we can close it now, though. It's been sidetracked, anyways. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * i've never seen anyone close an open discussion like this on an article talk page, so have no idea what will happen. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a second to the motion to close immediately, and as it's supported by my good sense (over the objections of my desire to argue on the internet), consider it done. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * EC: This should have been inside the tags.
 * MjonirPants, the same notice board that you cited also has the following on it:

Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear...
 * There are two points I take from that page. The first is "Formal closure", no one is looking for a formal closure process. This can be "closed" by simply letting it go and moving on.
 * The second is "where consensus remains unclear...". That does not apply in this case. The person that suggested the change has not posted to this talk page beyond his initial request on the 20th and the only other suggestion that comes close to agreeing was made over a week ago. Past that it's been a series of people vehemently agreeing with each other.
 * I was only trying to make note that there's no need for a formal closure of this discussion. Just accept that we will have it again in the future and walk away clean. You don't need outside imposition for this, it's dead. Padillah (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the fairest and most honorable result would be to consult the unbiased scholarship of theologians of other faith traditions-- what terminology is used by theologians who happen to be Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, and so on. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The obvious mistake in the above is the assumption that the book of Genesis is widely discussed by non-Abrahamic theologians. It isn't discussed much if at all, because, honestly, it's kind of irrelevant to their thinking. The most reasonable way to my eyes to resolve this would be to consult the extant reference works relating to this topic and see what terms they use. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct about it not being widely discussed  Even more troubling is  those that do talk about myths and religion dont agree either on the right way to even tlak. --   -- Moxy (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [[File:Smiley emoticons doh.gif]] MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest looking to our articles on other major religious works as models, e.g. Bhagavad Gita or Quran.--agr (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That might work, if those articles were about creation myths. They're not. The simple fact is, this article's subject is a creation myth. Referring to it as anything else is pandering to Christianity/Judaims/Islam and blatantly discriminating against other religions' creation myths which are referred to as, well, what they are, with no issues. Rwenonah (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)