Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 24

Lead and Davies
I am suspicious that this sentence in the lead is not supported fully by its source:"A common hypothesis among modern scholars is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today.[2]" [2] is Davies. The section on the page cited says: 1. In reviewing these recent developments it should be noted that by different routes quite a lot of scholars are coming to support more or less the same alternative to the older source-critical view. The developments outlined in the last four sections are increasingly merging into what is in effect the same understanding of the origin of the Pentateuch. This holds that: 1. The first major comprehensive Pentateuchal narrative was composed either late in pre-exilic times or in the Babylonian exile (7th or 6th cent. BCE), rather than in the early monarchy. Some prefer to speak of a late Yahwist' (Schmid, Van Seters), some of a Deuteronomistic narrative (Johnstone, Blum), but they are largely talking about the same thing and using the same arguments. 2. The Priestly Work never existed as a separate source, but involved the insertion into the older narrative of the specifically Priestly narratives and laws, so as to produce a work very like our present Pentateuch. The reference goes on to say "The supporters of the new views are not having things all their own way." So there are detractors.
 * Why should "quite a lot of scholars are coming to support" become "A common hypothesis among modern scholars"? The article assertion is much stronger than the reference. The word "modern" looks like a weasel assertion of truth. Interestingly, the reference is saying that these ideas are actually old ideas.


 * It seems to me the article text shows a certainty which does not exist in the cited work and distorts its meaning. The assertions are repeated in the article body with the same citation. Myrvin (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "modern" is just meant to distinguish from pre-modern. In biblical studies the "modern" era probably started in the mid-19th century.   I think the paraphrase (which is what we do here) is reasonable.  The content doesn't say that this is the only hypothesis for sure.   It is not clear to me what part of the content you are objecting to. Are you objecting to the claim that the Documentary hypothesis itself is commonly held, or to the specific dating of the sources?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am objecting to the article's certainty that is not supported by the cited text. "A common hypothesis" should be something like "One of the hypotheses". There ought then to be others as well. General readers will not know about your distinction between modern and pre-modern. There are no doubt references that do say this hypothesis is commonly held, but the cited text doesn't say that. Myrvin (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * hm. It is not "my" distinction, it is the distinction made commonly in the field.  So it sounds like you are objecting to the claim of the centrality of  documentary hypothesis in mainstream biblical scholarship.  There are plenty of sources for this, that make even stronger statements about that.  I'll find some and add them -some are in this article and some are in the article on the documentary hypothesis itself.  You are welcome to add them too.  Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'modern' is used here properly and does not need further clarification or ref. I address other concerns below. ProfGray (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if the article stated outright that it was the most common hypothesis, then it might be in contradiction with the source. However, the article states that it a common hypothesis, which is in agreement with the source. Davies says "...quite a lot of scholars [hold to this hypothesis]" which doesn't at all conflict with it being "...a common hypothesis". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For the purpose of this article, the sentence you mention is unnecessarily problematic because it starts with a hypothesis about an initial stage of the Pentateuchal narrative overall. I agree that there are those who disagree about a late Yahwist narrative of the Pentateuch. More importantly, do we need the article's opening to refer to this (posited) stage of the Pentateuch? (Yes, it's a big deal for the Pentateuch article!) Instead, wouldn't it be sufficient to say something like: ''Most scholars agree that Genesis 1 and 2 comes primarily from two distinct literary sources. One source is termed the Yahwist, which has been argued to date back to either the early monarchic period or closer to the 6th century exile, and the other source is known as the Priestly, which played a role in finishing the Hebrew Bible and hence put its version as the opening to the entire corpus.'' As written, the opening launches into a debate, without really explaining it, so that the novice reader is not getting a modulated intro to the scholarship. IMO. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * that is a great point profgrey. it looks like that paragraph of the lead was dropped in directly, and contains content not in the body of the article. that is not what the WP:LEAD is meant to be like or do.  needs revision to reflect the body and to remove content not found in the body. i agree with your proposal as a good way to go. i don't have time to do that now but will do it this weekend if somebody else doesn't get to it first. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. It should remove my fears too. We shall need an RS that actually says "most scholars agree". Myrvin (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For an RS, any solid academic textbook should suffice, e.g., Coogan (Oxford OUP) is quite clear about this (J & P) in ch.4, though he does mention the competing hypotheses about the dating of J. To get into the specifics of dating J, or nuances within the source analysis of the creation narratives, it'd be good to find review articles. ProfGray (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the content about dating is off topic; we don't need to go there. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I came here specifically to find out just how old this story is. While I now understand the answer is not so straightforward, I would appreciate a little information on this up front. It can be fleshed out in the body of the article as much as necessary, but I think -something- up front is important. Thank you 101.161.156.2 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in, 101'. There should be some answers in Documentary hypothesis for your immediate needs. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Creationism infobox
I think the creationism infobox is a bad fit for this article. This article is not about creationism -- literalist, progressive or what have you -- but about the text qua text. The various creationisms are positions about how to understand this narrative text, whereas the article, as its name implies, is about the narrative as such. The body of the article consists principally of a description of the narrative together with a discussion of its sources and structure, with interpretations forming only an ancillary set of sub-topics. Since the article is principally about the biblical narrative as such and barely touches on creationism, I think the creationism infobox should be removed and replaced with { {Bible-related}} or perhaps. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's not good. Someone should create a box for Genesis, as I'm sure there's enough pages just for that. Otherwize those boxes you mentioned would work. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. The Christian creationist movement is very strongly rooted in this text, taken literally. The "creationism" infobox isn't just about the creationism movement... it's about creationism in general, which is tied very closely to this topic.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Page is about an ancient text, not modern religious or political movements. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see including the creationism infobox, but think that it should not be the first and only infobox there. It'd probably be best to start it off with the Bible-related or Books of the Bible infobox, and move the creationism infobox to the "Later Judeo-Christian interpretations" section (since that's what creationism is: later interpretation).  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * agree 100% with the comment above - Page is about an ancient text, not modern religious or political movements. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is about an ancient text, yes - but an ancient text that is still treated as the blueprint of creation by tens of millions of people. The movement/ideology of creationism and the text are very closely linked, and the navbox represents that. Rwenonah (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i wouldn't be opposed to the infobox being at the bottom instead of on the side - is there an alternative version (many have that) Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. I'm surprised I'm seeing so much disagreement. As a creation myth that is absolutely central to Abrahamic creationism, it makes perfect sense to me that we'd feature the creationism template... but if there seems to be consensus to move it lower, I guess that would be ok too. Which one are we suggesting go at the top?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Creationism doesn't have a monopoly on the text, though. Having the infobox in the lead suggests that Genesis belongs to creationists.  The creationist movement is one interpretation among many, and so it is undue weight to have the creationism box at the beginning.  That's why it should be in the "Later interpretations" section while one of the Bible infoboxes is next to the intro. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yea, my opinion is shifting a little. Let's go with that suggestion. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * so nice to edit with sane people, every now and then! :) Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there room on the bandwagon for me? Because I'm completely on-board with moving the box to the 'later interpretation' section. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I see a consensus to move the creationism infobox down to the "later interpretations" section and replace it with another Bible-related infobox, for which purpose I've selected { {Bible-related}}.

I make this change with some misgivings, because on looking more closely at the "later interpretations" section, it strikes me that it doesn't really have anything to do with creationism, and doesn't even use the word. The only occurrences of the word "creationism" in the article are in the infobox itself. Unless someone would like to write a short section on creationism as it pertains to the creation narrative, I don't think the infobox belongs in the article because the subject is not mentioned in the article. For my part, I'm not persuaded such a section is warranted: it appears to me that while the Genesis creation narrative is important to the subject of creationism, the subject of creationism is not crucial to an article on the Genesis creation narrative qua narrative. The subject is amply covered in other articles. Perhaps a see-also link would suffice?

I also think the "genre" section would be better placed after the "structure" section: the question of genre, of what kind of text the creation narrative is, is a central one and should be featured more prominently, and forms the third part fo a natural triad with the topics of sources and structure. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Followup: I see there are some mentions of creation science in the "genre" section -- does this topic belong more properly under "later interpretations"? -- Rrburke (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the importance of the Genre section, however I think we should move it to just above the Later Interpretation section, as it reads as a good set up for more modern thoughts about it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article does and should include (earlier and later) interpretations of the narrative(s). Creationism is such an interpretation, so it belongs in the article. It is odd that the article itself does not mention "creationism" -- only the info box -- so the solution should be to discuss creationism within the body of the article, presumably under (medieval or) modern interpretations. ProfGray (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article could benefit from a full section (if short) on creationism and the narrative's role in it. That being said, I'm not sure how this relates to my comments about moving the genre section. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean as a sub-topic of "later interpretations", or a section all on its own? I'd be concerned that the section would balloon and begin to dominate the article. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I dislike having multiple infoboxes in one article, as it gets rather ugly and messy. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * well...this is a text that is pretty deep in the roots of western civilization. it is kind of unsurprising that it would have multiple infoboxes..... Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jytdog. It's not ideal to have multiple infoboxes, but this is an article that wouldn't be quite right without them. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the more I feel it could go either way. I worry about the potential for unchecked expansion if it's its own section, but I also worry about it being minimized if it's a subsection. The issue -as I see it- is that it's a contentious topic, sure to rile up the more hotheaded wikipedians on either side. Honestly, the presence of a Creationism article overrides any complaints about the subject being minimized in this article to my way of thinking, and to the MOS as far as I know, but we all know there are those who will attack the MOS because this issue is important to them, or who will insist that this is an exception to the usual rules. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said; such a section is probably bound to be a drama magnet. There seems to be a decent amount of goodwill here, though: surely editors could agree on the content of a short section, should one be deemed necessary, with a description of the main currents of creationism as they relate to the creation narrative. Too optimistic?


 * But I don't understand how the number of infoboxes should somehow reflect a topic's importance to western civilization. That baffles me. Moreover, the article did just fine with just a single infobox before -- it just happened to be the wrong one. Why is a second one crucial now? -- Rrburke (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * following the metaphor, being deep at the root of things, means it is reasonable that several distinct trunks (infoxes) grow out of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. It's more an issue of fundamentalism than importance, in that the subject of this article is a fundamental part of a number of subjects; biblical studies, modern creationism, mythology, etc, etc...

surely editors could agree on the content of a short section, should one be deemed necessary, with a description of the main currents of creationism as they relate to the creation narrative. Too optimistic? It's certainly optimistic, but I hope not too optimistic. I say we go for it. If I get the chance I'll write a paragraph of primer on creationism and put it up later today. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a creationism subsection under the Later Interpretation section, but I don't think it flows very well. The infobox clearly links to the whole section, while the information on creationism is contained primarily to two subsections (out of four). It seems to me like the section could use a re-write, with creationism being given a more prominent mention earlier in the section. I was thinking to re-write it so that there is an introduction to modern thoughts followed by 2-3 shorter subsections. I don't mean to cut any of it out, just re-arrange it and re-word it to flow better. Thoughts? MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i think what you did was great, and the best we can do, really. in my view this section should hew as closely as possible to the lead of Creationism per WP:SUMMARY and we should be careful to not let changes creep in here that are not made first to the body of the Creationism article and are of enough importance to cause changes to the WP:LEAD of that article, which summarizes it. if we are not careful this section will grow into something different from and possibly contradicting that article; we need to meta-edit.  Thanks for being bold and doing this! Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I copied the text almost verbatim (I added a sentence stating that the Genesis account was the version of creationism most common in western culture and I removed some bolding on the first word and a link back to this article) from Creationism. What I was suggesting above would be to start the section with a sentence or two about how modern interpretations differ from past ones, then show the text from the 'creationism' subsection as part of that intro, then show the 'shape of the cosmos' and 'creation: wisdom, word etc...' sections, then take some of the info from the overview subsection and make an 'other' subsection out of it. Also, we should really change the title of the 'creation: wisdom, word etc...' section, because it sounds like a sermon or a rant. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't agree. This article is about scholarship's understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis, and creationism is not part of scholarship. Any believers in creationism who read the article will, one hopes, go away with an enhanced understanding of the subject, but if they want to find out about creationism's ideas on cosmology they should go to Creationist cosmology.PiCo (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a biased non-neutral point of view. Are the 'scholars' you mention opposed to creationism? We need balance, and creationism has its own 'scholars' whose view should be documented in this article also. Preceding stated without supporting any infobox changes or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * discussion of creationism is not about "balance" but as discussed above, is a contemporary interpretation of the creation myth and although it is pseudoscience, it is noteworthy enough to discuss, with appropriate framing per WP:PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is quite right, creationism does not have scholars, it's not a scholarly position. On the other hand, the paragraph being discussed has no connection with the article - as -- Rrburke (OP on this thread) says, "this article is not about creationism -- literalist, progressive or what have you -- but about the text qua text." The wording of the paragraph makes no link to the text. The wording of the paragraph immediately following, does. What's more, it's not just creationism that misreads Genesis 1-2, it's all modern Christian sects (all Jewish ones, too) - as that section makes clear, the Genesis narrative provides no basis for creation ex nihilo, no basis for a first man called Adam, no basis for Original sin, and a host of other central theological formulations. The section as I wrote it sets all that out, and the addition of a new section on creationism will just act as a nut-magnet (you can go way back in the history and see what it looked like about 2010).PiCo (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC).PiCo (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you said. Even about having a section on creationism being a nut-magnet. However, my concern is two-fold:
 * 1) First is that creationism is a notable topic. Indeed, it's notable enough to mention it in any subject touching on it, such as this article or the evolution article.
 * 2) Second is that, while this narrative does not inevitably give rise to creationism, it is cited by creationists as their foundational document, and that their world view is drawn directly from this.

With all that being said, I believe that the link between Genesis and creationism is enough to warrant a paragraph about the latter in the article about the former. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

biblegateway.com
Is there a reason why we have external links in prose text to biblegateway.com? is there a reason we are promoting this site over directing our readers to our pages on the topics or use it as a source? Makes one question the credibility of the articles content if your not familiar with the website...also looks like Wikipedia has  some sort of affiliation with this one website since it does not comply with WP:ELPOINTS. -- Moxy (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This might be a more appropriate discussion for Template talk:Bibleref2. The template was created by User:Afaprof01, and is mostly maintained by him and User:SlothMcCarty (among others).  Elpoints does say that normally external links do not go in the body, and notes that exceptions are rare, but it does allow for them.  Our articles on Islam often include links to verses in the Quran (see Muhammad), and it wouldn't be a bad idea for similar works such as the Pali Canon or Vedas.
 * My only real problem with linking Biblegateway is that they advertise and have a store (admittedly not-for-profit) and have a slight protestant slant (albeit a mostly non-denominational "learn and discover by yourself" one that I can back). Other than that, it's probably one of the better sources.  If there was a site that had the same content but was religiously neutral (I'd recommend the Internet Sacred Text Archive if it were nearly as easy to navigate and had even half the translations Biblegateway has), I'd just look at altering what URL the template redirects to.
 * In an ideal world, there'd be a Wikimedia-owned WikiScripture site with a functionality like Biblegateway, but (unlike WikiSource) limited to religious scriptures (and works of comparable cultural value, such as the Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung), extremely notable commentaries and dictionaries (e.g. Strong's) parallel relevant verses, links to related works (e.g. Tanakh references and quotes in the New Testament and Quran, New Testament references in Gnostic works), as many translations as we can legally get our hands on, and a template where you just plug in the scripture, book, chapter, and verse. Don't know if there's time or interest for that.  That sort of stuff is why WikiSource sucks in comparison to Biblegateway.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just find it odd we are not linking our own articles instead of some website. An if we are going to have these odd links in content text why would we not link official versions like here or any other official version that has no ads or you dont  have to register for to see info.  Very odd to have a template for spamming a site within  text like this.  Has this ever come up before? I cant believe I am the first to notice this oddity. -- Moxy (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, biblegateway offers several versions, not just king james. That said, in prose links really bug me, especially given the concerns about ads. If we could provide this content somehow on-wiki (what about Wikisource?), I'd be for that. I'll be bold and remove the links, but feel free to revert me if that isn't the direction you think is best.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wikimedia owned project would be ideal, but Wikisource sucks when it comes to switching translations, selecting particular chapters and verses, or cross referencing with dictionaries, commentaries, and other scriptures. To get something with the functionality of Biblegateway, we'd have to start a new project.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I can't decide what's best. I tried moving the biblegateway links to a ref group, but that seemed sloppy and unnecessary, so I tried removing them altogether. Given Ian's concerns, I'm not sure it's practical to include them without an external link. Any other thoughts or preferences? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Though Biblegateway does offer fine resources for Bible scholars that Wikisource's KJV and ASV Bibles do not, concerns over their advertising and merchandising may make it preferable to link to Wikisource whenever possible. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Monotheism (again)
I see that this issue has been discussed:, though I also see that the discussion has sometimes digressed from the specifics of the Genesis narrative. I wonder whether or not the statements given in the article are too stringent with respect to monotheism. While I can't read ancient Hebrew, my reading in English of the Bible leads me to think that there are interpretations of the creation narrative that are possibly (though not definitively) polytheistic. God seems kind of ambiguous in Genesis. He talks to what seems to be other deities or other parts of himself (or something), for example. I feel that the present article seems to stridently damp down alternative interpretations which might be reasonable if we accept that the Genesis narrative had extremely ancient origins and influences from other cultures. I'm no expert on this, but I wonder if some accommodation should be made in the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

But, if editors are worn out on this issue, I understand. My interest in this and related articles is newly found. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I know, scholars are in general agreement that Elohim and Jehovah were initially different dieties, though I don't really see how more focus on that would improve the article. I'm not opposed to the idea, mind. I just don't see the benefit. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article, as it stands, stridently asserts that this is a monotheistic story. My sense is that such assertions are not especially neutral. At the same time, I know that citations would be needed to accommodate a more nuanced interpretation. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the composition of the narrative took place over quite a bit of time. The final editing and writing, as well as the majority of the editing and writing were decidedly monotheistic, to the point of decrying polytheism (despite leaving traces of it in the text). From where I sit, that's an unambiguously monotheistic story. To suggest that it's not monotheistic is like suggesting that the United States as a nation condones slavery and wars of conquest.
 * I understand your concerns (there is history and implications there which are fascinating, and which more people should know), but I just don't see how one can neutrally assert that this narrative isn't stridently monotheistic. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but this subject is not like suggesting that the United States condones slavery and wars of conquest. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that it is, in the following senses:
 * Both claims were true at one point. (The US conquered the majority of the lower 48, taking it by force from the natives, and used to permit and regulate slavery within its borders. Meanwhile the origin of the Genesis narrative lay in polytheistic Canaanite religion.)
 * Neither claim is true now. (The US no longer recognizes the legitimacy of Manifest Destiny nor the right of arms as a valid argument for the annexation of land, nor does it permit slavery in any sense. Meanwhile, the Genesis narrative espouses monotheism.)
 * There are elements of the former condition persisting in the subject still. (Racism in America and overseas military bases such as Rammstein AFB or Butler MB. The varying names for god in the Genesis narrative, and the contradictions between the two accounts.)
 * Both subjects are stridently opposed to their former position on the matter. (The US considers slave owning to be a crime against humanity, and wars of conquest to be both that and a war crime. The Genesis narrative slams polytheism in a number of places.)
 * It's not the identical situation, but it is an apt analogy, which was my point in using it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So ought we not explain the hypocrisy inherent in the account? Pandeist (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me start by stating that I'm an atheist. I have no particular stake in promoting any sense of validity to this narrative. That being said; no, I don't believe it's hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when one criticizes others for behavior one engages in. This narrative, while certainly critical of polytheism, does not presume polytheism. It took what was (to the authors) the known account of creation, and re-interpreted it in light of monotheism. That's not hypocrisy, it's shoddy scholarship, and a ridiculous excuse for science. But then, that's pretty much what we expect of a bronze age society.

Getting back to your original comment, regarding the following passage: I feel that the present article seems to stridently damp down alternative interpretations which might be reasonable if we accept that the Genesis narrative had extremely ancient origins and influences from other culture I can only say that this article is not, itself, a scholarly work. It is intended to provide an overview of the subject, not to be an exhaustive source of knowledge on the subject. WP articles, even the most in-depth ones, are an introduction to their subject, from which a researcher can find and follow more exhaustive sources. As things stand, it's really not that important to the average person looking to understand the GCR that it had its roots in polytheism, especially when one considers that such information is available elsewhere on WP. Anyone doing research at a level in which this would be important would certainly be reading more than one article. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  12:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion is a bit forum-y. Does anybody have proposals for content changes (with sources) for us to consider? Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for discussion of specific parts of the Genesis text (like the parts that are supposedly monotheistic and not), together with citable references. What I got was unexpected and off-track. Yes. And I'm done with this discussion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked about adding information to the article. I explained why I don't think that's a good idea. You debated my reasons, I defended them. In what possible way can that be considered off-track (or 'forum-y')? This entire time, the subject has been the article, and more specifically, whether or not to add to it. That's exactly what this talk page is for. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What other article is such content found in? And why not simply show all the cards in the main event? Pandeist (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with you IK. I have assumed for ages that are vestiges of the acknowledgement of multiple gods in the OT. Eg. this book is about The Origins of Biblical Monotheism - see pages 143 & 156. Myrvin (talk)
 * Yahweh, Elohim, Monotheism, Canaanite religion, Monolatrism, Henotheism, El (deity) and others. Also Myrvin, while I disagreed with the assertion that the discussion has gotten off-topic, it is a valid warning. What we believe and think about the subject is immaterial here, this is a place for discussing the article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. IK is saying that the article should be enhanced to include mention of these vestiges of polytheism in Genesis. And I agree. Myrvin (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And we should. For instance, there's this book published by the Catholic University of America Press. Doug Weller (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this book says, "the Israelite accounts are monotheistic, with only rare hints of an earlier polytheism (cf. Gen 1:26; 3:22; 6:1-4; 11:1-9)". There are sources for material for a paragraph or two at least. Myrvin (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need a subsection called something like "Possible polytheism in Genesis". Maybe in the "Later interpretations" section Myrvin (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding an entire section is going way to far. It will unbalance the article by putting more emphasis on the polytheistic origins than is appropriate for an article on the actual contents of the work. Besides, there's already a section dedicated to the subject at Book of Genesis § Origins. If you want to add to that section of that article, I'm wildly in support of it. However, this article is about the narrative, which is the ends result of centuries of writing by several authors. It's not about the inspiration they drew from, or the theological abstractions they used in the writing.
 * If a lot more information about the evolution of the narrative over time were available, I could get behind that. But as far as I know, there's not a lot known about early iterations of the narrative. It's not like we have a dozen versions from a period of several hundred years showing how the Canaanite creation myth evolved into the Hebrew creation myth. I could be wrong, and if I am, I'll change my stance. But absent enough information to create a fully fleshed out section, all we could possible do is make the article worse (and far more contentious than it already is). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Needs a more neutral tone
The section "Mesopotamian influence" has the sentences "Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths." and "The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2." There should be a more neutral way of wording the two sentences. I tried to do so, such as adding "probably" between "is" and "imbued" in the former, but that was rejected. I also added "Experts consider" before the beginning of the former, and replacing "is" with "to be". But that was also rejected. So, how can these two be reworded in a more disinterested way?68.100.116.118 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentences seem pretty neutral to me--if they are indeed well verified. Are they? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You may check the sources if you like. But there may be a more neutral way, such as "Genesis 1–11 as a whole seems to be imbued with Mesopotamian myths, and scholars have evidence supporting this view." or any similar way, which tells quite the same thing in a more disinterested manner.68.100.116.118 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't strike out my comments again. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * On wikipedia, "neutral" means "reflecting the reliable sources with respect to their weight." The current wording seems entirely neutral to me. What about it isn't neutral?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 10:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding words such as "seems" and "appears to" strongly implies that the opposite is true in a context such as this. For instance, when discussing a co-worker with whom you rarely interact, it's understood that saying "He/she seems nice," means that you think they are nice, but aren't sure. However, when discussing one's best friend, saying "he/she seems nice," is a very clear implication that they're not actually very nice at all. An article such as this one has more of a 'best-friend' relationship to its subject. This article is presumed by the reader to be familiar enough with the subject to speak decisively on it. So the inclusion of qualifiers such as these would not serve to add greater precision to the text, but to add implications which aren't supported by the sources. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. You have no understanding of us, believing only mainstream experts as faultless, we are not the same. In this case, we may close this discussion since the article is already "neutral".68.100.116.118 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement above certainly indicates bias here in the closer. Wikipedia should not be favouring one kind of source over another. For a controversial topic like this we can find sources that present different points of view, and they make statements that ignore other points of view. However that does not make them suitable for use as they are. Instead a balanced presentation must be made that uses a range of sources with the main points of view covered. We should not modify the statement derived from the reference to say something it does not, but instead we need other references that say something incompatible and state who says what in the presentation of different opinions. There should not be a bias to "secular experts". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (striking some of my statement because what I was commenting on was removed by Jytdog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC))

Hey! why reopen? Haven't I the right to close a discussion I started when I think it will get nowhere?68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not all about what you want. If you are done with the discussion, go do something else.  Others may or may not want to continue.  Nobody owns anything here. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection has been requested for this page
A request for permanent semi-protection for this page has been made. This is just a notice so that anyone watching this page can find the request and comment. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dating the Genesis creation narrative
The article uses the older Documentary hypothesis for its dating of Genesis. Since the 70s there's been something of a revolution - without discarding the Yahwist/Priestly sources, most scholars now date Genesis to the Persian period, and Genesis 1-11 even later (the Table of Nations, Genesis 10, is a picture of the Middle East in the early 3rd century). PiCo (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I assume you have soureces. Can this be *added*, or does it require modification of the existing text? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just adding a reference as you posted: Peter Enns saying (a) DocHyp no longer dominant in scholarship, and (b) the majority of scholars believe the Torah was given its final (current) shape in the post-exilic period. (Enns is an evangelical, by the way). I think the article needs to be modified.PiCo (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And the New Oxford Annotated Bible of 2007, a bit more nuanced, saying that the Pentateuch may have had roots in early Israel, it was probably reworked in the post-exilic period into its present form. I think that's more useful than Enns. PiCo (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And Joseph Blenkinsopp (A Jesuit) pointing out that Genesis 1-11 was a late addition to the Pentateuch.
 * Okay. Can the evolution of this interpretation of the G creation myth be described in the article, within reason? Or is that overkill? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Anything can be described, the problem is getting balance and nuance. Certainly the existence of sources isn't denied, there's just been a re-evaluation of how and when they were used to create the Pentateuch. Of that i'm quite certain. I'm fairly certain that there's wide agreement that Genesis 1-11 is a later addition to the Pentateuch that was brought together in the post-exilic period. I'm not at all certain what date is being put to it - the Babylonian influence on Genesis 1-2 is still accepted so far as I know, but there also seems to be other influences, even Greek. PiCo (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see your edits to the article. Looking forward, and thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

One narrative or two?
The article text currently refers to a (single) creation narrative in two parts, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-24. I would suggest that the article should state that there are two (distinct) narratives, not one. Comments, please? BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. This needs to be better explained. There is a nice commentary on this in this month's Biblical Archeology Review, by Shawna Dolansky, The Multiple Truths of Myths. I also support moving this article to Genesis Creation Myths. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No consensus to change. Content reflects both positions and as far as I can tell the redirect still works fine. Move protected 1 year - let it be. Mike Cline (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth – This article is about a creation myth, in particular the Genesis creation myth. This is clearly stated in the opening sentence and is virtually undisputed in the relevant academic literature. The question seems raised then of why this article isn't titled Genesis creation myth. I fear that this article has received some special considerations compared to other creation myth articles due to compassion for the average readers religious inclinations, and a hope to avoid accidentally offending someone. This grates against the ideals of neutrality that this project is trying to uphold, and doing so is codified against in the NPOV policy:


 * [E]ditors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view -- WP:RNPOV

Since it has been almost 2 years since a discussion on this point has been had per the info box at the top of this article, I would like to see if consensus still maintains that this article should be called Genesis creation narrative, or not. Thanks, 101.175.138.28 (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose yet again per all previous discussion.... In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support There is a clear consensus that this IS a creation myth, the reliable sources call it a creation myth and even Encyclopaedia Britannica does Theroadislong (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you also realize that Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to Genesis as a narative? Tiggerjay (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless there is a new development or brand new reasons for this, previous discussion and consensus supports the current title. That said, I still think that Creation in Genesis or Genesis creation story are more neutral, and certainly more widely used in reliable sources (see previous discussions). First Light (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the above info box about past moves, it is overwhelming populated by "No consensus" results, and flip flops between a 'myth' title and a 'no myth' title, so I doubt your claim about a consensus. Supposing for a minute there was a consensus though, references to past results seem a weak argument to me, otherwise why would countries hold elections every few years? And finally, a current move request should be able to establish a consensus independently of past results, should it not? I hope the closing moderator weighs comments appropriately. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to past discussion more than the results, which only reflect the discussion. This discussion will be the same as past ones, I suspect, so people should read through those to understand the issues, since they've been discussed in great depth previously. You may find those discussions enlightening also, rather than just looking at the results like you were looking at some sort of a vote or election. I'm sure the closing administrator will also go through all of those past discussions, along with any new issues that have come up since then, and weigh everything accordingly. First Light (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose "Myth" has never been anything more than hostile and polarizing rhetoric from intolerant bigots who would proscribe our faith that the Bible is correct, and have "neutral" Wikipedia officially adjudge it to be a lie. This would be only a minor propaganda coup for them in Wikimedia's name and imprimitur, pretty pathetic because as usual, such hamfisted militancy is not actually changing aanyone's faith. 172.56.34.79 (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oh no, not again. Just because a moratorium has passed, there is no reason to have yet another discussion. Anyway, even if there is "a clear consensus that this IS a creation myth" (per Theroadislong), there is also a clear consensus that this IS a creation narrative. StAnselm (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Note that there are religious/theological sources that call it a myth, this should not be seen as simply some sort of religion vs non-religion argument. Doug Weller  talk 13:00, 22 January 2016
 * The first sentence of the article links to some very good sources discussing Genesis, including as a myth. These sources generally support the notion that in ancient times myths were a powerful means of communicating ideas, even more powerful than a simple recording of "facts". Note, also, that Genesis contains two accounts of creation, and that there is a third account alluded to in Psalm 74, for example.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Further to Isambard Kingdom's comments, please review Howard Schwartz's Tree of Souls, a book published by Oxford University Press and that received the Jewish Book Council's 2005 Book of the Year award for a reference work. In it, the content of this Wikipedia article is freely described as the Genesis creation myth and compared to the creation myths of other religions and cultures. James P. Mackey, a Roman Catholic theologian at the University of Edinburgh, also freely describes this article's content as the Genesis creation myth in his Christianity and Creation. There are countless others who also use the term, and I doubt many, if any, are people as you describe. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

172.56.34.79 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support as per scholarly publications ......but I understand that this move will result in the norm of  "No consensus". -- Moxy (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Myth isn't a pejorative term. Hy Brasil (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Repeated attempt. Genesis is a narrative, an important one as well. Myth is being used here in a degorative manner. Polentarion Talk 15:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a question ...do people think that the definition at Creation myth is correct? -- Moxy (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – If Japanese creation myth or Chinese creation myth are going to be titled as they are, this must be moved for WP:CONSISTENCY. There is no reason why Genesis should be given special treatment, as that's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and nothing else. Presently, this is the only article with the "narrative" title. "Myth" is not pejorative, simply the description that is most commonly used for this type of story. We shouldn't use WP:WEASEL words like narrative to imply that this is in any way different from any other creation myth. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per prior discussions on this matter, no significantly new revelation of policy or precedent has been established since the last time this was up for a requested move. Furthermore, as stated above, that Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to Genesis as a narrative? Tiggerjay (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that it is a "narrative". It is a "narrative" by default, as all stories are narratives. The question is, why is this article titled "narrative" when no other articles on creation myths are titled as such? Given that the more specific and common term "creation myth" is used for all other similar stories, the only explanation for the use of "narrative" in the title here is an attempt at painting a WP:POV narrative. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The EB reference was brought up due to a post above about EB using the term Creation Myth, yet overlooking that EB also calls Genesis Creation a narrative. Using reliable sources such as EB, and others supports the use of the term 'narrative' as does the long standing stable page title, and various other page move discussions which there is little use to rehash here. And I would add that just because other pages use "myth" doesn't necessarily make it correct, as per WP:OSE. Perhaps they should also be moved to narrative instead. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – it's systemic bias to call this a narrative but refer to most other articles on creation myths as myths, and smacks of pandering to religions more widely held among editors. Rwenonah (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The problem with this move–both in the past and now—is that there is somewhat of a disconnect between the academic sense of the word "myth" and the lay/popular sense of the word. In the academic sense of the word, there is no question that this is a myth. But in lay/popular usage, the word has an air of representing either fantasy or fallacy. When one calls this a myth, one gets the sense that this is no different from, for example, Greek or Norse mythology. To people with monotheistic religious beliefs, that's offensive. For this reason, "narrative" is a more useful word to use in the title. It describes the content accurately enough, but dodges the tone of the lay/popular sense of the word myth. And "narrative" is not a word offensive to the encyclopedic tone we are seeking. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I (and many others here) understand that some might take offense, but it is not an informed offense: the word "myth" is much richer than the word "fact" and more descriptive than the word "narrative". Do you favor not referring to Greek or Norse mythology as "mythology"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per StevenJ81 — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Narrative is the more neutral term of the two, there is no problem with the current title, and renaming it as a myth has a whiff of POV about it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's odd that you object to myth here but not on any other creation myth articles. That has, uh, "a whiff of POV about it". Rwenonah (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing other articles, we're discussing this article, so not odd at all. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for the small matter that title policy states that similar articles' titles should be consistent. Rwenonah (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose this current title has been worked out after much previous debate. Nothing has changed in the meantime to suggest another title would be more appropriate. Proposing to use "myth" in the title is a POV indication. "Narrative" is neutral sounding word. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support move back to Genesis creation myth - Scholarly sources support using the word "myth", and it seems peculiar that this creation myth is the only creation myth not called a creation myth. I echo the concerns raised by others that this is part of Wikipedia's systemic bias problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying "back" to "Genesis creation myth" is rather misleading - it was originally "Creation according to Genesis" and was only called "Genesis creation myth" for a period of less than three months in early 2010. StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The issue of other article titles is a red herring, and the accusation of systemic bias is silly. For a start, most articles in Category:Creation myths do not have "myth" in the title. It seems that most of the ones that do (e.g. Tungusic creation myth, Ainu creation myth, Kaluli creation myth, Mandé creation myth, etc.) were all created by the same user (Professor marginalia) in July/August 2010, which was a few months after this article was moved to its present title. StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And that makes it justifiable to call them "creation myth" while opposing the use of myth here because ... Rwenonah (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about justifiable? I would happily support a move to Ainu creation account, for example. StAnselm (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OUP's Dictionary of Creation Myths, for example, calls it the "Ainu creation story"... StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Modifying eleven articles to conform to editors offended by the use of myth on one is just as much a display of systemic bias. Rwenonah (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with StAnselm - no reason not to call the lot "creation accounts" or "creation narratives", or whatever. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that modifying eleven articles (where no one cared about the use of myth for years on end) just to avoid titling one with "myth" is a ludicrous display of systemic bias.Rwenonah (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose; While per WP:Commonname 'Genesis creation myth' is preferable to 'Genesis creation narrative' (which isn't really used anywhere), the real common name for this topic is 'Genesis creation story' or 'Creation in Genesis' as can be seen from a | google trends result. When this discussion inevitably capsizes and results in no-consensus, I will start a new request for 'Genesis creation story' as i think is is the best title choice of the two common names. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I found it hard to believe that a Google trend search would be considered reliable for the purposes of WP:NPOV, but I checked your WP:COMMONNAME link and on that page, just below where that link takes me to, is WP:NPOVTITLE, which itself linked to WP:POVNAMING:
 * In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.
 * In settling this article's name, we should always be referring back to policy, and reliable sources overwhelmingly consider this article's content as creation myth. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Prove that reliable sources overwhelmingly consider this article's content as creation myth. Of course it *is* a creation myth, that isn't being disputed. However, from the statistics listed below by StAnselm, it seems that 'Genesis creation story' is the most commonly used name for the myth. EDIT: also, Google rend searches are often used to settle WP:COMMONNAME disputes, which certainly applies to this case. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 03:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The number of people opposing because they'd prefer to avoid the term myth despite Wikipedia's policy explicitly stating not to do that is, frankly, astounding. Made even more astounding because I pasted the relevant policy in this move request. This leads me to believe people aren't reading the move request at all, that they are just opposing on personal principle, and reinforces my fear, also pointed out in the move request, that this article is titled as it currently is out of concern for offending some readers. I must ask the question then, what about the readers who come to Wikipedia and would like an accurate representation of the topic they're reading up on? That it uses the correct terminology, and informs in line with reliable sources on the topic? It is not correct that this article dodges reliable sources and tries to rewrite things in what some people consider a more sympathetic light, which is the essence of the WP:NPOV policy. I realise and appreciate that people like to defend or push their views, that's completely normal, but this project is not the place to do that. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But to be honest, I think some editors here would have liked to have seen more evidence that you read all the previous move discussions. In any case, if we look at the raw statistics in GBooks mentions, we get "Genesis creation myth" with 1040 mentions, "Genesis creation narrative" (2330), "Genesis creation account" (3630), and "Genesis creation story (4900). So it remains to be demonstrated that "myth" is the "terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" after all. StAnselm (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to InsertCleverPhraseHere above, and also WP:GOOGLE. It is far better to read reliable sources on a topic, and
 * [Search engines m]ay disproportionally represent some matters, especially related to popular culture (some matters may be given far more space and others far less, than fairly represents their standing): popularity is not notability.
 * as found in the section on biases in the linked article. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is why I used GBooks rather than straight Google. Of course, accurate statistics on RSs will be impossible. But the onus is on you to demonstrate your claim about the majority of reliable sources. I did the same search on JSTOR, and I got: "Genesis creation myth" (10), "Genesis creation narrative" (16), "Genesis creation account" (39), and "Genesis creation story (80) - exactly the same order as with GBooks. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The linked article was about search engines in general. Are you disputing that creation myth is not the best descriptor of this article's content? I thought that was a given since this article's opening sentence already uses the term as its preferred desriptor. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct: creation myth is not the best descriptor of this article's content. That is, the article about the text rather than the belief, and emphasises literary features over mythological content. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I think the article you're looking for is either Book of Genesis (the text) or Creationism (the belief). This article deals specifically with the creation myth found within that book, and ideally gives readers a comprehensive academic treatment of the topic. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While you are correct, 'Genesis creation myth' and 'Genesis creation story' are effectively synonymous. One is arguably neutral, the other is obviously neutral and the second is clearly more common in JSTOR, GBooks, and google search trends. 'Narrative' is barely better than 'myth' from a WP:Commonname perspective. The clear choice for the article title here is 'Genesis creation story'. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 03:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term neutral as you have indicates that you're misunderstanding the concept. Arguably neutral? Obviously neutral? Neutrality is defined in terms of reliable sources, it is independent of editors own thoughts on the subject. I suggest you review WP:NPOV, it is fundamental to the project, and the policy that this move request should be weighed against. Creation myth has stably described this article in the lead sentence for years, yet as an article title, it is somehow unacceptable? Something doesn't line up here. At a guess, it feels like a trench has been dug, some editors have grudgingly accepted that creation myth in the article is correct, but are defending the article title as a final refuge. Is this accurate? 101.175.138.28 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, how 'neutral' the 'Genesis creation myth' title sounds to the reader is entirely dependent on how entrenched their viewpoint is on the subject. On the other hand, "Genesis creation story' is better both from a standpoint that it is used far more commonly by reliable sources, and ALSO because it is unlikely to draw the ire of rampaging hordes of indignant readers, (which if you don't want to waste everyone's time with dozens of move requests, is a | bad thing). While you are correct that we should use the correct term for the title, you have not demonstrated that 'Genesis creation myth' is preferable to either 'Genesis creation story' or even 'Genesis creation narrative'. However, even though it is clearly the LEAST used among sources as listed numerous times in this discussion, you continue to campaign for 'myth'. Check your own NPOV my friend. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 03:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , which policy do you mean? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Scholar Search Results A much better Google search is to see how Reliable Sources actually use the terms. The most accurate way of doing so is to look at search results using only Google Scholar. If people had read previous discussions on this, they would have learned a great deal, since this was already done. I'll update the results for those who can't be whinged to go through previous discussions.
 * Google Scholar search results for the following phrases, searched within quotes:
 * 1. Creation in Genesis: 4,420
 * 2. Genesis Creation Story: 958
 * 3. Genesis Creation Narrative: 360
 * 4. Genesis Creation Myth: 176

It's obvious that among the most reliable sources, the "myth" version is the least popular of the various titles used here over the years! First Light (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Creation in genesis" probably is inflated due to the natural use in sentences, rarely being used as a title or descriptive term (as seen in the search results link you thoughtfully provided). 'Story' seems to be the best choice for title, certainly over 'myth' or 'narrative'. Note that due to the current title choice, the word 'narrative' has been used extensively (and awkwardly) throughout the article, if the title is changed to 'Genesis creation story' this should be cleaned up to reflect the literary preference of 'story' (as preferred by reliable sources). InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 03:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) Using search engine results is disingenuous, I've mentioned that above (and seems well covered by Wikipedia already), but here it can be demonstrated. Clicking your first link we see that the top result forms part of a sentence: "The 'days' of creation in Genesis ...". The Genesis Creation Story link's first few hits are from the 1970's. Search engines just pick up everything with weightings not particularly relevant to deciding on encyclopedic article titles. Reliable sources themselves should be consulted, and after doing so it should be clear that this article's topic is firmly creation myth. As has been pointed out above, several Oxford University Press publications would make a good start. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not disingenuous. Article_titles actually suggests the idea:
 * "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."
 * This is in the official Wikipedia policy on article titles. See Policies_and_guidelines for what that means.First Light (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, they also say that, "A search engine may help to collect this data." First Light (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Genesis Account: 8030 . I stand by my position that using search engines is not the correct way to choose an article title. A review of modern, relevant and reliable sources is how this should be handled. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To what sources do you refer? InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 04:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources that deal with the issue. Some general ones have already been mentioned that just flatly categorise this article's topic as creation myth, and I note you have not engaged with them at all, but there are others that deal very specifically with the issue of categorisation. For example, in biblical scholar and theologian Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation, in a section on Genesis' genre, he writes
 * "If some consensus could be reached for an alternative term, it would seem profitable to abandon the term 'myth' altogether, since the term has such a long history of meanings attached to it, which prejudices the discussion from the outset. There is no consensus for another word, so, before we proceed, allow me to repeat how I use the word 'myth' ..."
 * This perfectly sums up the situation with this move request. If you can find a better source that demonstrates the issues involved in this move request I would be very impressed. If you can do that and your source argues for 'creation story' or some such, I will be blown away. I am confident you will not be able to find one.
 * Ultimately though, it is not Wikipedia's job to engage in original research and try to form a new consensus about terminology, something that not even experts in the field are able to do. We should be standing by the existing consensus in reliable sources. This move request seeks to establish a consensus on the article title, which if we are to follow suit with reliable sources on the topic should be called Genesis creation myth. We should, like Enns does, be careful to explain by what we mean when using the term. Fortunately, that advice is already given at WP:RNPOV. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing my argument. Genesis *IS* a creation myth, I am not disputing that, and I agreed with you on the subject earlier in this discussion. However, in the majority of sources they avoid the term specifically for the reasons that Peter Enns references, because the vernacular is too controversial. Instead they use 'Genesis creation narrative', 'Genesis creation story', 'genesis account' etc. The fact that Peter Enns has decided, in his work, to use 'creation myth', does not change the fact that the majority of sources don't use it (despite, categorically, matching the definition of a creation myth). EDIT: While 'Genesis account' is probably not specific enough for the article title, 'Genesis creation account' has 828 results, lending support that that 'account' could also work as a title. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 05:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * More than use the term, he provides a citable reference that there is no consensus for any other word. We are both in agreement about this article's topic being creation myth. The only other ingredient is Wikipedia's policies. Taken together, this move request is perfectly sound. I still maintain that search engine results are a poor substitute for proper research, though you are free to continue posting them. As I said above, I just hope the closing moderator weighs comments appropriately. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(busy disk today...) I don't care too much about google but would refer to a certain hierarchy of the terms. Narrative is much more of a scholarly term and much more generic than "myth", or, beware "story", it includes both. Moxys question about the entry of Creation myth nicely makes a point. The narrative(s, Isambard's point about the different creation myths have been made by hc theologists at least in the 18th century) in questions are one of the most well known in the Old testimony and among the most present and known, way beyound art and culture. The seven-day weekly cycle (with some elder background) has remained unbroken in Europe for almost two millennia and neither French nor Russian calendar reforms could do away with it. Thats said, its more than a story or myth, it is a strong and important narrative with a certain importance for as well "secular" everyday life. Polentarion Talk 03:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but as per WP:COMMONNAME, while 'narrative' may be preferable to 'myth', 'story' is still preferable to 'narrative'. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 04:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Point is that we are better off to use the appropriate term, not the most common or understandeable one.Genesis_creation_narrative is quite good at telling the narratology of "storytelling" here, including a great trick to solve the issue of the storyteller in a creation setting and the 'demythologisation' (OK, I am German ;) of the Babylonian background. Polentarion Talk 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."--WP:COMMONNAME InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 06:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thnx mighty teacher ;) Not the first policy I read here. But as said, 'story' may be common, but the more generic term (narrative) is better, since neither story nor myth provide the ''complete story' here. Polentarion Talk 06:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion on 'Genesis creation account"? it seems to be equally commonly used (or nearly so) as 'story' and both are far more common in the literature than 'narrative' or 'myth'. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 08:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * InsertCleverPhraseHere, I very much agree. The German scholars (as well school teachers, religion is a regular topic here) use the term Schöpfungsbericht(e), creation accounts. Our use of Mythos is much less about 'telling myths' (we tell 'fairy tales'), we call e.g. Manifest Destiny an American Mythos (and important narrative), but its not at all a fairy tale. Lets forward your suggestion. Polentarion Talk 21:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Account is probably the worst option, because it has a clear implication of truth. "A written or ​spoken ​description of an ​event." It's highly biased to use a term which implies truth, and even more biased when we continue to use "myth" on other articles. Rwenonah (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rwenonah. A fair and accurate argument against 'account'. I've stated elsewhere on this disscussion why 'myth' is inNapropiate, also only a small fraction of the articles in the creation myth category use 'myth' in the title. 'Narrative' is rarely used in the literature. I guess that leaves 'story' as the best remaining option. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 22:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, every article with a title similar to this one (and hence where WP:TITLE's requirement of consistency would apply) is titled "creation myth". Story, narrative and account are never used. Rwenonah (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Narrative" is perfectly acceptable and accurate; "myth" can be taken to mean "untrue". My point yesterday, also made by Isambard Kingdom, was that Genesis has two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-24, and therefore the article title should be plural. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That nice issue with myth is the reason why some guys hop on it. Polentarion Talk 06:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just wanted to disclose that I have mentioned this move request at WP:NPOVN. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When posting move discussions at noticeboards, you should use neutral wording. It's good that you disclose things here, but it certainly looks like WP:CANVASSING. StAnselm (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That was not my intention. I could have just posted a link here, but I thought it better to explain my concern and how I have tried to resolve it. If you can explain what exactly is wrong with my wording that would be appreciated. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an example of a neutrally-worded notification. Something like "There is a move discussion currently underway at Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative in which issues of neutrality have been raised" would have been appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have edited the comment per your suggestion. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on Google Scholar First I have to say with sorrow that it does pick up clearly fringe sources, some really bad ones. That is fairly rare though. Secondly, User:Insertcleverphrasehere, the 2nd hit on your search for "Genesis "creation myth"" is one that says "The 'days' of creation in Genesis" which has nothing to do with this discussion. And finally, you did the wrong search -searching on Genesis "creation myth" turns up over 7000 results. But that's still useless, it turns up stuff such as "The Creation Account in Genesis 1: 1-3" - how does that help? This sort of search is pretty useless.  Doug Weller  talk 10:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It also picks up a lot of very good sources. I think it's reasonable to assume that the ratio of bad/good is roughly equal with each. Google search comparison is about relative numbers, it's not about individual sources. Those relative numbers point to the second of the main five features of a good Wikipedia article title: Naturalness. When a phrase is used so many times, it's clearly a natural way of describing the topic.


 * The problem with individual sources, when there is so much disagreement between them, is cherry-picking. Google search results are far from ideal, but they do show a larger trend that is free from cherry-picking based on individual POV, as many here are doing. It's only one thing to consider, among many others. Far from "useless." First Light (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more to titling articles than simply picking the most widely used term. One important requirement is consistency; in the category for these articles, every other article with a title in this formulation is titled "creation myth". Narrative is used only for this article; story isn't used at all. On that point, then, myth is clearly the preferable title - indeed, continuing to treat this article differently from those seems demonstrably biased. Another requirement is precision; myth is by far a more precise term than either story, narrative, or the most vague of all, account, since it has the clear meaning of "a traditional or legendary story", whereas the others are vaguer by far. Rwenonah (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? In Category:Creation myths there are 110 articles there, and only about 10 of them have "creation myth" in their title. Not all of the rest are straight "creation myths," but most of them seem to be. And yes, there is a lot more to titling articles than Naturalness and how scholars phrase the subject. It's why these discussions are so complex and have so many legitimate arguments. First Light (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way, a similarly ancient and foundational scripture, the Rigveda, also has a creation stanza. Our article simply titles it Nasadiya Sukta. There really doesn't seem to be any consistency or urgent requirement to title all Wikipedia creation story articles with "creation myth." First Light (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and every article where the title involves "identifier creation _____" is titled "creation myth". For many articles, the name by which it is overwhelmingly known is its native name, such as in the case you describe. Are you seriously recommending we title this article in ancient Hebrew? I'm guessing you're not.
 * What's concerning is how so many editors vociferously object to the use of myth in the title of this article, while cheerfully accepting the use of myth in the titles of numerous other articles. I suspect this to be because they already view those articles' subjects as myths (in the pejorative and academic sense), while viewing this article's subject quite differently. That's systemic bias. Rwenonah (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hebrew for the title? No, you're guess is correct. The most common English translation for the verse titled Nasadiya Sukta is Hymn of Creation. Very neutral title, acceptable to English speaking people, and perhaps what that article should be titled on Wikipedia. Similar to the more neutral sounding titles that should be used here. First Light (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As agr points out below, "....all the the articles listed in (the category) that include "creation myth" in their title refer to a specific group or culture, never to a literary work. All literary works are listed in this category by title, without any modifier." Personally, I would prefer to see those other articles drop the 'myth' word in the title and use 'story,' but I suspect reliable sources overwhelmingly move them towards 'myth.' I would also like to see 'story' used for this article's title, but that doesn't seem to be an option for either side here. First Light (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article is about a section of a literary work, namely the Book of Genesis, in its capacity as a creation myth, similar to Japanese creation myth and Kojiki. This article is also about the Judeo-Christian creation myth. What titling this differently is actually about isn't the distinction between a literary work and a non-literary work myth, but the distinction between a religions idely adhered to by English-language editors and a number of religions which aren't, and thus are treated differently. Rwenonah (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - What do the RSs call it? Britannica calls it a story, so Genesis Creation Story would work for me, and "myth" is closer to that than "narrative.". "Narrative" is for people who don't want to call it a myth or a story. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I !voted below, but the whole discussion is such a mess, I'm not really sure how it's being organized.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - If there's a more classic example of systemic bias on the English Wikipedia than this, I am not aware of it. Google searches showing the number of sources using "narrative" or "story" are merely examples of one form of systemic bias reinforcing another. Wikipedia simply cannot have a situation where every creation myth article has "creation myth" in the title except this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Our use has to reflect others writing, and there is no surprise that the Christian viewpoint dominates in writing on this topic, so the terms those writers use should be the ones we do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a Jewish myth partly and possibly substantially derived from other myths. Isambard Kingdom (talk)
 * Support This page's name is biased in favor of the Christian POV. Calling it Genesis Creation Myth is NPOV. jps (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The name used here currently was specifically chosen to be neutral. Outside academic use "myth" is not neutral. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Academic use is neutral by definition. The title was crowbarred in by Christian apologists such as yourself to circumvent our WP:NPOV policy. Don't you know that lying (such as you just did about the history of the title of this page) is a sin? jps (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At least some of the editors arguing for the neutral "narrative" here are neither Christian or apologists. Some of us are just Wikipedia editors with varied interests. Ironically, just yesterday I was ordered from a place of worship because of my (wrongly perceived) religion. Prejudice (Cambridge dictionary: "...an unfair or unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge.") is pure ignorance, plain and simple, clouding the ignorant one's mind. It sucks, too. First Light (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's, of course, true that people can have differing opinions for many different reasons, but it isn't hard to see that the majority of "opposers" at this page wear their conservative Christian faith on their sleeve and seem inclined to accept the proposal that the reason the term "creation myth" is a bad one is because it implies that the myth "isn't true". The irony, of course, is that the there is no way that this particular myth is literally true, and such is acknowledged by most serious scholars of the subject. That Wikipedia entertains the protestations of the agnotologically-inclined means that we are biased towards accommodating apologists and religious true believers in their on-going attempts to skew content in favor of their corrupt and incorrect ideas about the veracity of their holy texts. This is an example where "crowd-sourcing" fails. Wikipedia should represent the best WP:SCHOLARSHIP available and instead we are pandering to the religious beliefs of a vocal minority. Whether you are part of that vocal minority is immaterial to the point that if we ignored their problematic and anti-academic positions, the numerical consensus would be clear. jps (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This illustrates perfectly why there exists what we call a significant difference of opinion. Because just as surely as you are convinced the account is false or fictional, could not be true, and want wikimedias voice to proclaim your conviction to the world, there exist millions, perhaps a billion others who do not accept your teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.79 (talk • contribs)
 * The correct venue to discuss that issue is over at the Creationism article. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? I'm concerned with this article where it is a relevant point, have had zero involvement with that one, have never even had reason to consult it, nor do I plan to.Got anything besides a slippery slope argument? 172.56.34.79 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Creationism is the subtextual elephant, whose-name-dare-not-be-spoken, in the room of this myth/narrative/story debate. Page histories show that the currently-titled Genesis creation narrative article (note the Template:Creationism sidebar) originated on 29 October 2004 as a split from Creationism; and the Talk:Genesis creation narrative page was started on 31 October 2004 with a complaint about Creationism. In contrast, the Christian mythology article was started on 15 December 2001, and the title has remained stable despite similar Talk page arguments about whether myth and mythology are pejorative. Keahapana (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Narrative'' is a neutral terms in all contexts. "Myth" may be in academic use, but it is not in its ordinary meaning. Our guideline WP:LABEL says "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." The later step isn't done here. I would also point out that all the the articles listed in Category:Creation myths that include "creation myth" in their title refer to a specific group or culture, never to a literary work. All literary works are listed in this category by title, without any modifier.--agr (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Judeo-Christian creation myth redirects here. Rwenonah (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has always seemed to me the strongest argument in favour of "narrative". The article is about the narrative. And this is why "narrative" is probably better than "story" since it is a slightly broader - Genesis 1, at least, is laid out in a tight narrative structure that is not particularly story-like. (But not really a poem, either.) StAnselm (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, neutrality is defined in terms of reliable sources, not how Wikipedians feel about the subject. I'll repost a source that directly deals with the issue here:
 * "If some consensus could be reached for an alternative term, it would seem profitable to abandon the term 'myth' altogether, since the term has such a long history of meanings attached to it, which prejudices the discussion from the outset. There is no consensus for another word, so, before we proceed, allow me to repeat how I use the word 'myth' ..." -- Peter Enns' book Inspiration and Incarnation, on a section detailing Genesis
 * Experts use creation myth and acknowledge that there is no consensus for any other term, and we can cite this. Wikipedia should be making use of sources like this, and following the reliable sources' lead. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But Enns is not saying that there is a consensus for the word "myth"; here merely says there is no consensus for any other word. In fact, the whole point of his comment is that there are problems using the word "myth". StAnselm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Enns' note that there is no consensus for any other term is enough, reliably sourced, for Wikipedia to not try and build a consensus for some other term -- it would be against NPOV to try and do so. That this article is using narrative for example, can be reliably sourced as being non-neutral. This article's content can be reliably sourced as creation myth, has been stably described as such in this article's introduction for years, and seems well agreed upon by editors contributing to this move request (there are multiple instances of "this article's content is creation myth" for example). 101.175.138.28 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One source is not enough to say that we should use 'myth' over anything else. Enns's quote only demonstrates that there is no consensus on what term to use and that he personally decided to use 'myth' in his publication. Therefore we should follow other guidelines to choose the appropriate title. Some have argued that 'myth' should be used as per WP:CONSISTENCY, and others (myself included) have argued that 'story' is better than 'narrative' or 'myth' due to its apparent wider use in literature as per WP:COMMONNAME. The argument for 'narrative' presumably comes from a position of WP:PRECISE, although 'narrative' and 'story' seem roughly synonymous from various definitions of 'Narrative': a story that is told or written or 1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious. 2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 02:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This one source is enough to say we shouldn't use another term over myth, which is equivalent to "we should use myth over anything else". But you're still trying to argue for a consensus for a term other than myth, even though reliable sources can be cited that state that this is not possible. I don't understand how that makes sense. As for your "one source" comment, earlier in the thread I provided other sources in support of the term, though you have not engaged with them. But this raises the question, are you suggesting further sources can't be presented that support the term myth? Is it necessary to present more sources to support the terminology, even though the term has stably existed in the article's first sentence for years? 101.175.138.28 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the two claims are not equivalent at all. StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter if the OP has a source saying that this is the 'best' name. Article titles aren't solely chosen based on individual sources saying it is the 'best term' for the topic, they are chosen based on notability, and the great majority of sources on this subject avoid the term creation myth. Now admittedly the reason for that is the biased influence of christian writers, but we are an encyclopaedia, we aren't here to right great wrongs. We follow the majority of sources, and the majority of sources don't use 'myth'. Go read WP:AT please, lots of articles don't use the official or even most accurate name for a subject, but rather use the name that readers are most likely to search for that still matches the article's content (i.e. the WP:commonname) and is also NPOV. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that I'm bringing reliably sources opinion on the matter to the table, yet search engine results are being used to back up "the great majority of sources on this subject avoid the term creation myth". 101.175.138.28 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support move for consistency with Creation myth. I do understand the objection that the alternative meaning of myth implies falsehood but we do need to be consistent with our terminology and not give a particular myth preferential treatment.  If the consensus is that we do not wish to unintentionally offend the sensibilities of the religious then we need to change other titles to match. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not a myth pieced together from various sources, oral and written, by modern students of mythology. It is one specific written narrative that's been around for millennia exactly as is. The current title is neutral—nobody denies it's a narrative—and there is no problem here that needs fixing. Perhaps we could call it a "scientifically superseded cosmological model". Srnec (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 00:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Break This discussion has become rather long and fragmented. Is it possible to have an uninvolved user or admin to synthesise the major arguments for and against the following options so that we can have another round of Oppose/Support?:
 * 1) Keeping the article at 'Genesis creation narrative'
 * 2) Moving, (as suggested by the OP) to 'Genesis creation myth'
 * 3) Moving to 'Genesis creation story' as suggested by myself and others in the discussion.
 * 4) Plural vs. singular title as there is more than one genesis narrative/myth/story.
 * 5) Other suggestions.
 * And if you use numbers instead of bullet points, it'll be easy to tell how many people are in each category. However, I'd leave the plural-vs-singular out of this for now.  This is already complicated enough and it and the other issues are not mutually exclusive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And now you engage in Vote splitting? It seems incredibly dishonourable to me to hijack a move request and start splitting votes. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It might help sort some of the opinions though. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 05:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the principle behind vote splitting still stands. I have been bold and moved this into another section where this can be freely discussed. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, as I said, this not a vote, therefore arguing against 'vote splitting' is meaningless. That was a deliberate attempt by you to derail the opinion poll (which isn't what I originally asked for anyway, but rather what Darkfrog24 suggested) by separating it into another section. In any case, I have sub-headed the section below 'Opinion Poll' instead. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 06:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've already said that. I have moved your opinion poll to a separate section. An opinion poll within an opinion poll is not conducive to discussion. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone else seems fine with it, reorganising a new discussion with separated options is a common way to regroup opinions in very long discussions. If others agree with you then it can be moved, but generally separate sections are used for totally unrelated topics, not two halves of the same discussion. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 06:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone else seems fine with it? You don't really have any evidence of that, but perhaps you're right. Since your user page speaks ill of your history of co-operation on this project, I prefer to just leave you do your thing. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What I meant, of course, is that other users seem to be fine with using the organised structure below and no one has offered objection to it except you. You are editing from an IP, so I have no idea of your past, great that you know the old trick of resorting to ad hominem though. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 07:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also for IP 101.175.138.28. If you are going to be involved in lengthy discussions such as this, can I suggest that you create a username? While you are not required to, editing from an IP makes discussions like this thread above very awkward, as I would prefer to move it to your talk page and IP talk pages are very awkward to use and from past experience IP users often don't answer questions or discussions brought there (also you can never know when they are going to change IP). InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 12:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not expect to be so involved, and make so many contributions so quickly. For now, I don't expect my IP to change, though if it does I will create an account before posting again. For continuity of my contributions, I would prefer to keep posting using this IP, and create an account once this discussion has ended. I assure you I will read any messages I receive until that time though. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, since basically the same arguments have been made for years, it's worthwhile to quote Moe Epsilon's findings in closing the no-consensus September 2012 title debate. Hope this helps move the discussion forward. Keahapana (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) First, previous requests for renaming taken into account, the discussion is nearly identical to the past few discussions. With that in mind though, requesting a rename was not inappropriate given the title and that consensus can change.
 * 2) The article existed for five years without either "narrative" or "myth" in the title.
 * 3) Article titles, barring there being a common name (like in this situation), should reflect a neutral, scholarly and unbiased title.
 * 4) Genesis is a creation myth.
 * 5) There is differing opinions on whether the word "narrative" is scholarly/neutral and there is no consensus that it is or isn't.
 * 6) There is differing opinions on whether the word "myth" is scholarly/neutral and there is no consensus that it is or isn't.
 * 7) Google searches for the answer are not going to be representative of what the title should be. Non-scholar results are going to refer to Genesis however their religious values dictate or pending on their interpretation of the words they use. Even scholars don't have a consensus usage of the word one way or the other. They most likely use it based on their past experiences in discussing the topic, not in a way to reflect accuracy or unbiased opinion. Again, this is religion based, so you're not going to get consensus on that.
 * 8) The current title as it exists is not okay, because based on your interpretation of the word and/or your religious values (or lack thereof), it is not neutral. Any !votes saying the "current title is okay" is being oblivious to the fact this is being rehashed repeatedly.
 * 9) The article title changing to include the word "myth" would reflect current naming conventions of other creation myth articles. "Narrative" is not used in the title of many other articles in relation to creation myths (in fact, the only other article I have seen use the word "narrative" is also proposed here: Genesis flood narrative). However, since there is strong opposition to the word "myth", it appears unlikely to ever reach consensus on including it the title. There is also the point of myth could be just as weaselly as "narrative" is.
 * 10) Including the word "narrative" in the title is giving the article preferential treatment compared to other articles since "narrative" is not being used for other religious beliefs.
 * 11) There was no consensus on the alternative proposal, mainly due to the misconception that "there's nothing wrong with the current title."
 * Right, but there were several discussions since then. StAnselm (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the points posted, the exceptions being points 5 and 6. I have posted some information below that hopefully addresses those points though. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been five discussions since 2012 (as shown above), but are there any pro/con arguments in the present debate that weren't made then? Keahapana (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support move for (Genesis creation myth) consistency with creation myth and its wide use in academia. Basileias (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - not sure what is going on with multiple sections on this page to register an opinion about the same basic thing. Starting yet another move discussion? Can we please stop doing this already? Why are we afraid of the word "narrative"? Is it not a perfectly acceptable and apt word to describe the portion of text that is in focus for this article? Are you somehow concerned that "narrative" leaves open the possibility of someone coming to the conclusion that it might be a "true narrative"? Is that the primary reason behind pushing the word "myth" into the title? If that's the case, why stop there? Why not oppose the word "creation"? After all, doesn't using the word "creation" somehow imply the possibility of a created world? Or even the word "Genesis", which comes from the word for "origin"? If we leave the word "Genesis" in the title, some hapless reader may come to the conclusion that this work somehow deals with origins. We can't have people believing that lie, can we? For crying out loud! Stop beating a dead horse. For six years, we have had to keep coming back to this same argument. And the basis of the argument is almost always flawed to the core. The vast majority of other articles in Wikipedia that deal with a particular culture's story about origins aren't titled creation myth. So this one needn't be either. HokieRNB 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Complains about beating a dead horse* *Posts in a discussion days after it's come to a natural end.* Also, every article about a specific myth that doesn't have an obvious native name uses myth, except this one, so unless you're advocating for titling this article in ancient Hebrew, consistency is still a relevant concern. Rwenonah (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinion poll
Please state your opinion on the following options. This is not a vote, feel free to comment in as many sections as you wish.

Point of semantic information

Not only myth but also narrative and story can secondarily mean "falsehood; lie" in certain contexts and collocations; for instance, urban myth, White House narrative, and fish story. Myth is a type of (e.g., sacred, traditional) narrative, which is a type of (descriptive, representative) story. The hypernym story is the most general term and the hyponym myth the most specific.

Unverified assertions about a word's neutrality or pejorativity should be reliably sourced, rather than merely based on ideolectal native-speaker intuitions and feelings. For example, SentiWordNet is "a resource for supporting opinion mining applications obtained by tagging all the WordNet 3.0 synsets according to their estimated degrees of positivity, negativity, and neutrality" (P, O, and N). See Sentiment analysis for details.
 * tale#1 story#1  narrative#1  narration#1 a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events; presented in writing or drama or cinema or as a radio or television program; "his narrative was interesting"; "Disney's stories entertain adults as well as children" P: 0 O: 1 N: 0
 * story#2 a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events; "he writes stories for the magazines" P: 0 O: 1 N: 0
 * story#4 history#2  chronicle#1  account#1 a record or narrative description of past events; "a history of France"; "he gave an inaccurate account of the plot to kill the president"; "the story of exposure to lead" P: 0 O: 1 N: 0
 * write up#1 story#5  report#3  news report#1  account#2 a short account of the news; "the report of his speech"; "the story was on the 11 o'clock news"; "the account of his speech that was given on the evening news made the governor furious" P: 0 O: 1 N: 0
 * tarradiddle#1 taradiddle#1  tale#2  story#6  fib#1 a trivial lie; "he told a fib about eating his spinach"; "how can I stop my child from telling stories?" P: 0 O: 0.625 N: 0.375
 * narrative#1 consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story; "narrative poetry" P: 0.125 O: 0.625 N: 0.25
 * myth#1 a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people P: 0 O: 1 N: 0

Keahapana (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * note that while "Not only myth but also narrative and story can secondarily mean "falsehood; lie"" is true, in the case of 'story' it is only used informally as such a link, and therefore unlikely to cause confusion in the title. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 02:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, some dictionaries note the fish story collocation is informal. I should have given a better illustration, like one of these usage examples in English dictionaries that define story as "lie" without noting informal or colloquial usage: "1.c. A lie: told us a story about the dog eating the cookies." (AHD), "2. An excuse or a reason that is not true: Do you expect me to believe that ridiculous story?" (Macmillan). "C2. a lie: He made up some story about having to be at his aunt's wedding anniversary." (Cambridge British English), "A story can also be a lie: Don’t tell me any stories – I want to know what really happened." (Cambridge American English), "2. A lie. You’ve been telling stories again, haven’t you?" (Wiktionary). But that's a strawman argument. According to the above empirical data, myth has neutral connotations but narrative does not necessarily. Keahapana (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't the usage of "myth" to mean "falsehood" just an informal usage as well? --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep at "Genesis creation narrative"

 * 1) Keep "Narrative" is neutral. "Myth" may have a specialist meaning, but Wikipedia is written for general audiences, and for general audiences, "myth" has connotations of falsehood. Though I'll add that I don't see why all extant creation narratives can't be referred to as such. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. In so far as there is a subtle difference between "narrative" and "story", Genesis 1 at least is more the former - a "poetic narrative", according to Walter Brueggemann. This article, of course, is about Genesis 1 and 2, but the broader term ("narrative") is better. StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Acceptable Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Acceptable,  Although rarely searched for in google trends, it is a natural enough title. Oppose; really it is still the worst option. rarely applied in academia, rarely searched for (definitely NOT the common name), and none of the options are perfectly 'neutral' anyway, Story as preferred option, with this last.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 07:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Incomplete information. I suppose you could use Genesis creation myth narrative instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * comment - This calls for the wisdom of Solomon. "Narrative" suddenly isn't objectionable any more as long as "myth" can be gratuitously inserted? 172.58.225.118 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep, though not my first choice. But since that's where it currently stands, and the move request is to "myth," then it should remain here. Once this move request fails, I would like to see another attempt to move to "Creation in Genesis," which really is neutral, has scholar support, and is by far the most widely used term. First Light (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Acceptable, The second best solution, after myth. Note that, as per the article, the Jewish authors of the Genesis creation myth borrowed from other forerunner myths. But as noted elsewhere, it is sufficient for this to be explained in the lead and body of the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. See my other !votes below. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Haven't seen any scholars cited to say there is anything offensive or objectionable about the perfectly good word"narrative" as some here are claiming. 172.58.225.118 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Acceptable. I think 'story' would be better but it describes the topic well enough. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. My preferred choice. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Deryck C. 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose: In reliable sources this term is less commonly used as a descriptor of this article's topic. It seems the title has been employed at some point in this project's past to acquiesce biblical literalists, or those who would speak for them. It's not clear what exactly was achieved by doing that, since the article introduces itself as a creation myth anyway, but by shoehorning this term into the title and avoiding the term creation myth I believe several of Wikipedia's article policies have been violated, notably WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Inconsistent with other article titles; the vociferous opposition to the use of myth here,a nd the total lack of such objections anywhere else, smacks of WP:Systemic bias toward Christianity and Judaism. Rwenonah (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose this is my third preference, which I guess means I oppose it. We compromised on this some time ago, but it doesn't do anything well. It's not the common name by a longshot, it's not the academic term (or, hardly ever used in academic sources), and it doesn't sum up the subject. Sure, it's a narrative in the same sense it's a "book" or a "collection of words", but "Genesis creation words" would be a poor summary. "Creation myth" is the most specific and detailed label, and no one seems to dispute it is an accurate one, so that's what we should use.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Keep: Primarily because I see the point in not giving the article a title that will offend many readers. It informs those readers that you, and Wikipedia, are really awesome because you don't believe the story is literally true. This has a legitimate purpose in high school, but it is not the way to go about building a collaborative encyclopedia article. It requires the contributions of people who believe the account is true. And if the idea of writing an encyclopedia that does not offend Jews or Christians doesn't appeal to you, there are other projects that address that; there are also other projects that address a purely Jewish or Christian audience. Also, a few editors have mentioned that the Genesis creation narrative comprises at least two stories (see documentary hypothesis). One answers the question "Why am I here?" and one answers the follow-up question, "Where do babies come from?" Roches (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking a moral stand and writing to avoid possibly offending people is to go against Wikipedia's policies:
 * In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. -- WP:TITLE
 * In the end I do hope you review your position in light of this perspective. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Keep. For all of the reasons that have been stated in the previous twelve discussions. I would also support a 2-year moratorium on further move discussions. In particular, as I have argued before, the Genesis creation narrative differs dramatically from other cultures' creation myths in that it is a well preserved and documented ancient narrative. Most other "creation myths" in the category (A) aren't titled in the format XX creation myth (only a dozen out of more than 100 take that form), and (B) don't have a single canonical text to focus on. In addition, there have been numerous works cited in past discussions that argue explicitly against titling this as "myth". For instance, Gerhard von Rad, "In essence it is not myth and not saga, but Priestly doctrine...", and Bruce Waltke, "I will argue below that Genesis 1 is an ancient Near Eastern cosmogony, but let me emphasize here that its content is essentially historical, not mythological." Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Poppycock. Genesis is not the only well-preserved and documented creation "narrative". Other cultures can claim the same. Genesis is not exceptional in that regard. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well stated. Please provide one example of another ancient canonical text documenting a culture's creation myth that is titled "XX creation myth" on Wikipedia. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Other articles about ancient canonical texts documenting creation myths are named for those texts, like Gylfaginning and the Popul Vuh. The Book of Genesis article is unusual in having a separate article for just its creation myth, but this is a particularly long article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose the 2 year moratorium, repeated move requests indicate that the title "Genesis creation narrative" is not stable and persists only because of Status quo bias. See my section below on why it should be moved back to its original title "Creation according to Genesis". InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 08:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Still unparallel and unsatisfactory. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Move to "Genesis creation myth"

 * 1) Move: There is no logical reason to distinguish between the creation stories of one culture and those of others. Since no one seems to be arguing to move Mandé creation myth, Serer creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Tungusic creation myth, etc the opposition to this move comes off as very biased. --Khajidha (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Move: As we're choosing a descriptive title (this article's content has no name per se), it is important to consult reliable sources on the topic to see how this topic is described. Since this article is only focused on a very small portion of a larger book it will be hard, if not impossible, to find authors who survey the literature and present their findings for that distinct, but particular, piece of a larger whole. A collegue has been kind enough to pass on some references that discuss this point. Thus, the following facts can be cited to reliable sources to help Wikipedia choose the most appropriate title:
 * The three most prominent descriptions of Genesis as a whole are legend, myth and saga.
 * See, for example, Sidney Greidanus's Preaching Christ from Genesis: Foundations for Expository Sermons, where he mentions early on in his book in a section on the genre of Genesis, that:
 * [An] important issue one faces in the literary interpretation [of Genesis] is the kind of literature one is interpreting. A multitude of answers to this question have been offered, the three most prominent being legend, myth and saga.
 * There is no consensus for either legend or saga, or indeed any other term, and perhaps not myth, but there is an intimation that myth is the best of a bad situation:
 * See, for example, Peter Enns' book Inspiration and Incarnation, on a section detailing Genesis:
 * "If some consensus could be reached for an alternative term, it would seem profitable to abandon the term 'myth' altogether, since the term has such a long history of meanings attached to it, which prejudices the discussion from the outset. There is no consensus for another word, so, before we proceed, allow me to repeat how I use the word 'myth' ..."
 * On Genesis 1 in particular, the last 25 years or so have seen myth prevail:
 * See, for example, Mark S. Smith's recent (2014) work Is Genesis 1 a Creation Myth?, where he explains that
 * [A] long-standing tendency in discussing the Bible and myth has been to generate any number of deﬁnitions of myth that could be applied to ancient Near Eastern texts, but not to the Bible. However, commentators in the last quarter century have largely given up this older practice of holding up the uniqueness of the Bible as nonmyth over and against ancient Near Eastern myths.
 * Additional citations can be given to Robert A. Oden's The Bible Without Theology, and Michael Fishbane's Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking.
 * It can also be inferred from a review of relevant literature that the opening sections of Genesis are very widely considered creation myth:
 * Given the above three points it is unsurprising that there are countless works that describe the opening of Genesis as a particular type of myth, a creation myth. There is little point in trying to enumerate them all, but I have offered a couple in the preceding discussion that I can paste here, two of many which use the exact term "Genesis creation myth":
 * Howard Schwartz's Tree of Souls, a book published by Oxford University Press and that received the Jewish Book Council's 2005 Book of the Year award for a reference work
 * James P. Mackey, a Roman Catholic theologian at the University of Edinburgh, in his Christianity and Creation.
 * Picking just a few may attract charges of cherry picking though, and it is perhaps more useful to look at works that are aimed at a much wider audience. Starting with the least cherry-pickable resource of all:
 * In Encyclopedia Britannica, perhaps the widest berth that can be hoped for, in relation to creation and Christianity we learn of "the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis and of the new creation in Jesus Christ."
 * In Oxford's Dictionary of Creation Myths, we see that "Genesis contains the creation myth that forms the basis of the Judeo-Christian tradition."
 * In Margaret Nutting Ralph's Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms, she explains that "The mystery of our origins and the mystery of our suffering are the two realities that are dealt with through myth in the first two chapters of Genesis."
 * ... and so on.
 * Still, cheery-picking may be called, but this article has stably introduced itself as a creation myth for years, so I hope this isn't a particularly controversial point.
 * Search engine results are not going to give a reliable indication, they trawl everything within some set of parameters, but will still pick up works from cheap publishers to non-peer reviewed journals and beyond. This is particularly important to topics where large numbers of people have an axe to grind. I hope that reliable sources should outweigh search engine results every time.
 * [Search engines m]ay disproportionately represent some matters, especially related to popular culture (some matters may be given far more space and others far less, than fairly represents their standing): popularity is not notability. -- WP:GOOGLE.
 * It is also worth considering how helpful searches like that are when Wikipedia is deciding on a 'descriptive' title. For instance, Creation in Genesis is given below, but that is not a name, it could be a part of any number of sentences. For example, "Myth of creation in Genesis" yields 561 results alone, but they were counted in with Creation in Genesis. And then there are any number of other possible sentences. Genesis Mythology also gets a tidy 110,000 hits. It's all just noise though.
 * I realise that this article is a contentious article, and unfortunately Wikipedia is tied to the same fate that experts in the field are, regardless of which title it ends up choosing -- there is no perfect title for example. The best it can do is as neutrally as possible reflect the existing reliable sources and point objectors to those reliable sources.
 * I also want to say that I can't prove that other titles like Genesis creation story are not the better candidate -- I can't prove a negative. Though I am confident that someone else's literature review could not equivalently or better support such a title, where discussions and comparisons of different terms leads to story coming out on top for example, I of course leave the floor open for them to do so. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oxford Dictionary, which you have referenced as "least cherry-pickable", under the second definition of 'Genesis': "The first book of the Bible, which includes the stories of the creation of the world, Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph." The main problem with 'myth' is it's second definition which you haven't brought up (also from oxford): "A widely held but false belief or idea." InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 10:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not state that about the Oxford dictionary, please read more carefully. As for your main point, please elaborate. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have fixed my comment to reflect my misunderstanding. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 10:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, though I would like to hear more about your main point. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of why 'Myth' is inappropriate due to definition ambiguity; OK, I feel like it has been done to death, but perhaps not from a guidelines perspective. As requested above, I will try to address the issue of using a word (myth) as a descriptor in a title when that word has two different (and very different) meanings :
 * 1) Myth: "A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
 * 2) Myth: "A widely held but false belief or idea."
 * Definition #1, which IP 101.175.138.28 and others supporting 'myth' are using, is used more in academic circles, but also among more educated laypersons (many likely readers). Definition #2 is almost exclusively used in the vernacular, thus less likely to be taken seriously academically, but more likely to be taken by laypersons (also many likely readers). Definition #1, if it existed in a vacuum, would mean that 'myth' would be the perfect descriptor to be used for the article title, therefore, for #1 there is an argument that from a neutral POV, myth is the 'best' title.
 * However, from a perspective of definition #2, 'myth' is a completely wrong descriptor for the article, basically meaning "Genesis creation falsehoods". Not only that, but a misunderstanding involving #2 is likely to bring out people bringing up the exact opposite argument about NPOV, that the title is biased against the beliefs of their culture, specifically calling out the account as False (which taken purely from the misunderstanding of the use of definition #2, it is). This interpretation (again taken in a vacuum), violates WP:NPOVNAME, but particularly WP:NDESC.
 * This fundamental misunderstanding of which definition is being used (and whether they can be separated) is a major problem that has dogged this article since its creation. Many argue that other articles use 'creation myth' in the title and so from NPOV this one should as well, but they fail to realise that in every single one of those other examples, the creation myth in question is not considered by an extremely large (and most importantly Western english-speaking) group to be representative of 'fact'. In other words, I don't think I would be remiss in saying that very few people take the Japanese creation myth, or the Ancient Egyptian creation myths to be representative of historical fact. However, a very large and very vocal group do consider the genesis creation myth to be 'fact' (see Creationism). Most importantly, this group is predominantly western and english speaking (many writers on the subject). This explains the controversy of this article compared to others: English wikipedia is written from an english-western viewpoint and with western sources almost by default. This also explains why, while the most highly academic sources might use 'myth' more often (as 101.175.138.28 has pointed out), many other sources avoid the word and there is no consensus on what is the best word (Peter Enns quote above nicely sums this up).
 * WP:TITLECHANGES has the following two quite salient quotes to say on the topic of title changes:
 * 1) "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage."
 * 2) "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
 * To me, the first demonstrates the exact reason why it is more appropriate to avoid 'Myth' for this particular article's title, and why it is not a problem that other articles use the 'creation myth' descriptor. Elsewhere in the article 'creation myth' can be used extensively, as clarity of context (as used in the article) ensures that the reader does not confuse the two definitions, something not possible in the article's title.
 * The second quote from WP:TITLECHANGES indicates the main argument against using the 'creation narrative' descriptor, because it is much more rarely used in literature, and most importantly, | almost never searched for in search engines, making the article harder to find for readers. 'creation story' appears to me to avoid the major pitfalls of both of the above, thus would likely result in a more stable article title.

Apologies for the very long reply, but I thought it necessary to help avoid confusion. *Sigh* InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 12:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The long reply is not a problem at all, it's appreciated in fact. I think we can agree on quite a lot, but there are some other points where we aren't quite lined up. I will compose some discussion and post it as soon as possible. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So in other words, we should concede that we are biased, accept it, and give up on any effort to avoid displaying that bias? Not sure I'm on board with that, since it's totally contradictory to Wikipedia's most basic principle.Rwenonah (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You really take some effort here. ONe point about the difference between the Sumerian creation myth and the Genesis creation narrative - a 'myth' clearly is a thing of the past. The Sumerian creation myth is of research interest, but has no further relevance today. The length of the discussion here proves, that the Genesis story is of relevance still today, all participiants included. So there is some reason, to not use the same expression. If you look closer at the background of the Big Bang, you might note that the big bang idea has a background in Georges Lemaître, one of several Jesuit with important studies in Earth science. Would not have worked with most other creation myths. Polentarion Talk 14:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that this story is somehow different from other creation myths because some aspects of the story continue to fit in with the reality as humanity currently understands it? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Polentarion, Myths and everything from history is relevant today. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This creation myth has no more intrinsic validity than any other. It's the conviction that it does, and that others don't, that is really at the basis of opposition to using myth, as Polentarion makes clear. Rwenonah (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Intrinsic validity? Who cares? I was pointing out the reason for the controversy surrounding the title, and the historical reasons for why 'myth' has been avoided in a lot of sources on this subject. No one has brought up or refuted my main point about two different definitions disqualifying this as a title choice. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If we refuse to use myth here for fear of irritating Christian editors while using it on numerous other articles, that is literally the definition of systemic bias. Rwenonah (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please drop off the high horse. I'm not saying that we should do it for fear of "irritating Christian editors", you are strawmannirg me. I have said that many of the SOURCES in the LITERATURE have already refused to use 'myth' for fear of irritating Christians. As such we are under no obligation to use 'myth' in the title, per WP:COMMONNAME. More importantly however is the issue of 'myth' definitions. Please comment. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that myth can be perceived as pejorative. The fact you oppose its use here on that basis, but have no issue with its use elsewhere, is a biased position. A pejorative use is a pejorative use, and should either be used or not used consistently on that basis. Rwenonah (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that of the 110 pages in | Category:Creation myths, the only ones that use the term 'creation myth' in the title are creation myths that even if taken in the pejorative have no one left to offend. Any of the articles that would be likely to offend someone with the use of 'creation myth' such as the article on 'Islamic mythology' (which even uses the section "Islamic creation narrative") don't use 'creation myth' in the title. Note that the word 'mythology' does not have the same synonymity with 'false' as the word 'myth' does. Basically, any article that currently uses 'creation myth' in the title isn't likely to offend anyone, unlike this article, moreover, the sources for those articles overwhelmingly use 'creation myth' again unlike this article. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 17:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 million Shintoists or 390 million followers of Chinese traditional religions would disagree ... but they don't have a large group of advocates on English wikipedia, because few members of those groups speak English and even fewer have the free time to edit wikipedia. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid manifesting our systemic bias. Even if, as you falsely assumed, all of those articles were about largely defunct myths, we don't treat widely upheld myths differently from largely forgotten ones. No policies support that, and wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so offensiveness (or the lack of it), shouldn't be a major concern. Rwenonah (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in replying, I've had a busy day. I'm replying chronologically within this section, but hopefully the indent makes it clear that I'm replying to InsertCleverPhraseHere's comments.
 * So first I would like to discuss your concern about there being "two different (and very different) definitions" for myth. While you say that multiple definitions lead to a major problem and that there are issues of context, you indicate less directly that your objection is actually based on what that other definition is, rather than the fact that there simply exists another definition.
 * So considering the whole of your objection together we can give a refined and much more compact version of it:
 * I object to using the word myth in the title because some readers may assume that Wikipedia is implying their beliefs are false.
 * I think that's a fair refinement, that it's equivalent to your objection as a whole, but please comment with some explanation if you disagree. I also want to note that I'm not trying to discard any of the reasoning you've also given above, for example the quotes from WP:TITLECHANGES; I would like to discuss those, however it will be easier to do so with a more compact/concrete objection to reference.
 * So, assuming that everything is correct and above board, I have some questions:
 * You say that if the first definition given for myth were the only definition then the term would be perfect for the article title. I'm wondering, what if the second definition of myth was something like "Myth is the second largest city in South America" -- would you still object to use of the term in the title? Most words in English have multiple definitions after all.
 * Did you also check the definitions for the term story? Here is a link. It lists a very similar definition to the myth definition you're worried about: A false statement; a lie. Why isn't this an issue for Genesis creation story? Why is Genesis creation myth treated differently?
 * Many articles on this project potentially imply people's beliefs are false. Earth lists its age as 4.54 billion years, contradicting young-earth creationists' beliefs. Intelligent design opens by describing itself as pseudoscience. Human, Evolution, etc. all potentially contain belief defying information. Even articles like 0.999... would surprise some people. How do you feel about those articles doing that? Is this article being treated differently? For the record, I don't think this article should be trying to tear down people's beliefs, it should be focused on the myth itself, its history, influences and relationships with other texts, interpretation (a literal interpretation can be mentioned, but details can be left to more appropriate articles like Biblical literalism and Creationism), etc.
 * Your quote from WP:TITLECHANGES is illuminating -- "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense". Don't you think that by trying to avoid offending people, you're taking a moral position on the issue?
 * In light of the above references, and the quote "[E]ditors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view" from WP:NPOV, are you concerned that recommending titles other than Genesis creation myth may be a violation of WP:NPOV?
 * I may have some more questions, but I'd like to hear from you on these ones for now if you don't mind. 101.175.138.28 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that a more accurate summary of my statement above would be:
 * I object to using the word myth in the title because some readers may confuse the definition of the word 'myth' in the title and assume that this article is about Genesis being false.
 * I will address your questions briefly:
 * No I would not object if that was the other definition, as the definition you provided is not a definition likely to mislead readers.
 * The alt definition for story is informal only, i.e. "Ellie never told stories—she had always believed in the truth" meaning that this definition is extremely unlikely to result in reader confusion in an article title.
 * Implying that Genesis story was factually inaccurate would be fine if that was the purpose of the article which it is not. This article isn't about whether Genesis is real or not, therefore we should avoid the #2 definition for myth if it is likely to confuse readers IMO.
 * My point was more about avoiding misleading people. If that also avoids offending people, thats a neat side effect that would help the page be more stable and avoid repeated move requests in the future.
 * No. while you have demonstrated that some sources prefer 'genesis creation myth', i still do not see where you have demonstrated that the majority of sources do so.
 * InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 01:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, your clarified objection is appears more manageable. The article should establish context early, this is a given for any article, but it's also noted in Wikipedia's Manual of Style:
 * [The first paragraph] should establish the context in which the topic is being considered ... It should also establish the boundaries of the topic.
 * Given the title Genesis creation myth, there is plenty of editorial room to move in order to be able to do this. I won't take the time to make any suggestions for a first sentence just yet, but it's easy to see that something like
 * The Genesis creation myth is ...
 * is preferable to something as laboured as the current
 * The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity.
 * If in addition there is some concern about readers wanting information on a literal interpretation of this text, that should certainly be mentioned in the article, but I think it's also fair to change the note at the top of this article to point to, for example, Creationism or Biblical literalism, together with some explanation.
 * Are these suggestions reasonable, and do they address your objection? Leonhard Fortier (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC) (Formally 101.175.138.28).
 * It would help, I still do not think that the article would be stable at 'Genesis creation myth' as it is both controversial as well as having at least two reasonable reasons why it should be avoided (WP:COMMONNAME is not clear, and definition ambiguity). I have participated far too much in this discussion as it is, i think I'll leave some space for other editors as i think i've made it clear what my views are. However, i see a no consensus forming for any of the move choices, and a relatively strong consensus forming toward keeping the article where it is. It is not my favourite, and it might not be yours, but wikipedia discussions often boil down to compromise. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 09:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it has escaped your attention, but the current article title doesn't exactly seem stable either. There is a long list of requested moves at the top of this page, the majority for moving away from this title to a title containing the word creation myth, and most objections here refer to this issue's perennial nature. Just a few comments below this is Dweller's comment: Looking forward to opposing this again the next time it's raised. Do we really have to do this every so often? That user doesn't just reference the fact, he or she is anticipating having to deal with it again.
 * In the end I think it will be healthier for this pages participants to be arguing any future move requests, or at least objections to the title, from the point of view of reliable sources, which is easily done while the article sits at Genesis creation myth.
 * In any case your contributions to the discussion have been fruitful (your organisation of ongoing discussion leaves a little to be desired however ;) But no big deal), they've allowed me to present more discussion on the requested move, and I respect you wanting to take a break from it now. I certainly didn't envision this discussion growing so quickly. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional support, If the admin who looks this over decides that the definition ambiguity is not a problem as long as we immediately establish context for the term in the first sentences, I would support a move to 'myth', I still prefer 'story' though as it is commonly applied to the subject, searched for, and is probably the most likely-to-be-stable title. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your time InsertCleverPhraseHere, much appreciated. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. … Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's 'secret doctrine' at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of Young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible."
 * 1) Support Move - As I have said before, this creation myth should be called a creation myth like all the other creation myths. Furthermore, it is widely supported in scholarly sources. It does not matter that this creation myth is also referred to as a "story" or a "narrative" because doesn't change the facts. And Wikipedia should not be pandering to people who think the myth they believe in is not a myth. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) No, not going to happen based on lack of consensus going back to the time of Genesis, so let's try a move request that is realistic and neutral, and not pointy, such as "Creation in Genesis." First Light (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. I wanted to say this myself, but an argument from inevitability doesn't go over well. Thats what I was getting at above about the likelihood of controversy due to definition ambiguity. "Genesis creation myth" is just never going to be a stable title. It seems that lost of people don't like 'narrative' either, if the number of move requests is any judge to go by. My vote is to go for "Creation in Genesis" or "Genesis creation story" and see if we can get a stable article title that is not constantly being nominated to move. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 05:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Acceptable but not necessary Support, The best solution. Note that, as per the article, the Jewish authors of the Genesis creation myth borrowed from other forerunner myths. As Dmcq (below) explains, it is sufficient for this to be clearly explained in the lead and the body of the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The link between authors borrowing from earlier myths and that being explained in the article, and the article title is not clear to me. Could you elaborate please? Leonhard Fortier (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Looking forward to opposing this again the next time it's raised. Do we really have to do this every so often? --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as the technically and linguistically correct title, one which is entirely unthreatening to most Christians, for whom the allegorical nature of the Bible is no problem at all. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The title should describe the topic as it is commonly named or would be searched for. We are not in the job of writing an article conclusions into the title. This is why 'scientific opinion on climate change' uses 'opinion' rather than 'consensus' the topic is the opinion, there is a consensus. I know it is a myth but that is a conclusion within the article not the topic. The lead of the article is where it it is made clear that this is just some religious story rather than some scientific truth. The lead says it is a myth - that's where it should be said and not the title. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for reasons I've said elsewhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support move per CONSISTENCY, COMMONNAME, and SYSTEMICBIAS as RGloucester and Scjessey have elucidated above. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 19:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support move for consistency with Creation myth. I do understand the objection that the alternative meaning of myth implies falsehood but we do need to be consistent with our terminology and not give a particular myth preferential treatment.  If the consensus is that we do not wish to unintentionally offend the sensibilities of the religious then we need to change other titles to match. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This is an essential example of an ancient creation myth and the article should be consistent with its parent article and siblings. Myth is not offensive to begin with. Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support move. Genesis is by definition a "creation myth" in Standard English usage. Both creation story and creation narrative redirect to the normative creation myth. Wikipedia conventions do not permit religious exclusivism such as titling specifically with "creation narrative" for "One true church" and generally with "creation myth" for other religions and cultures. Note what the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ says about WP policy regarding Muslims who are offended by depictions of Muhammad:
 * Not censored for the benefit of any particular group—including adherents of Creationism, Biblical inerrancy, Biblical literalism, Biblical infallibility, Biblical mythology denialists, etc. We should follow policy to improve Wikipedia as a fact-based encyclopedia, and stop allowing strident religiocentric bias to degrade it into a faith-based Conservapedia. Keahapana (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Support My understanding is that "creation myth" is used to describe this work commonly in academia, and as an encyclopedia, that's something we should strive to emulate when possible. The biggest objection is one of offense, which is roundly covered by WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RNPOV. The most convincing objection is that it's "not the common name", but I'm not persuaded this is true. Proper searches yield pretty similar results, and not all uses of a given string of words necessarily imply they are being applied as a label for the subject, rather than a description of its contents or a synonym to avoid redundancy. The highest quality sources we actually cite often use the term "creation myth", and I'm not convinced there is a good reason not to follow the highest quality sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support yet again, for the same reasons as in 2013 and in 2014. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose really we did not have to have this section, as the main one above is about this. Opposed due to bias in the name as apparent to non-academic readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you not feel that readers who are unaware of this article's content being characterised as a creation myth would appreciate learning the fact? Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. Why are there separate sections? Just to reiterate, for anyone who is continuing to use the argument that this article should be retitled for consistency's sake - NO SUCH CONSISTENCY EVER EXISTED. The overwhelming majority of articles in the category of "creation myths" DO NOT CONTAIN THE WORD MYTH in the title - some don't even contain the word in the article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support For consistency's sake. Most of the articles in List of creation myths contain myth. AIR corn (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To borrow another editor's so-well-articulated argument, this is poppycock. The list in question links to exactly 6 (six) articles that follow this construct, out of some 50 different articles. The other few that employ the "creation myth" format do so only in either a piped link or in a redirect. Any argument along the lines of "most others do this..." is completely invalid. To suggest otherwise is either purposefully pushing an agenda or blindly believing a lie. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to "Genesis creation story"

 * 1) Move; "Story" is both neutral, as well as very commonly used in literature sources. Doug Weller  brought up above that the correct search in google scholar for this subject should be in the search format [genesis "creation ______"], which still overwhelmingly supports the use of 'story' over 'narrative' and even more so over 'myth':
 * genesis "creation story"--google scholar 14,200 results
 * genesis "creation myth"--google scholar 7,080 results
 * genesis "creation narrative"--google scholar 3,890 results
 * "Creation in genesis"--google scholar 4,420 results
 * genesis "creation story"--google books 45,700 results
 * genesis "creation myth"--google books 11,800 results
 * genesis "creation narrative"--google books 12,300 results
 * "Creation in genesis"--google books 37,800 results
 * In google trends, the situation is even more polarised, with almost all of the searches for "Genesis creation story" or "Creation in genesis".
 * Personally, regardless of the search results, I don't see 'myth' working as it has the alternative definition: "a widely held but false belief or idea" which is guaranteed to court controversy. Comparing definitions, 'story' and 'narrative' are very synonymous, meaning that we should choose 'story' because it is far more commonly used in the literature and in online searches per WP:COMMONNAME. GTrends results indicate that very few people will search for "Genesis creation narrative". InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 05:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make but worded badly perhaps is that these searches turn up a lot, an unquntifiable lot, of sources that don't back what we are searching for. 14,2000 on Genesis "Creation story" is useless when the 2nd is "Babylonian Genesis: The story of the Creation" which is about the Babylonian creation myth/story, the 3rd a citation to "Genesis, creation, and creationism", the 4th to "The genesis of gendered subjectivity in the divorce tracts and in Paradise Lost", the 5th to an article about baseball, etc. And of those 14000 + articles, over half mention "myth" as you find when you do -myth. Doug Weller  talk 07:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A legitimate concern. This sort of stuff does shows up in all the searches above, but 'creation story' is more generic, which might explain it's abundance in Gbooks and GScholar. However, it is far more searched for on google trends (along with 'creation in genesis'), which is the best reason for a title choice anyway, as readers will find it easier to find the article. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 07:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) acceptable Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Incomplete information. I suppose Genesis creation myth story could be an alternative to this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Second choice after "Creation in Genesis," because it is a neutral term among all academics and general public. First Light (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Move. I would support this; it's more precise than narrative and seems slightly more consistent with other articles' titles as well. Rwenonah (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, Genesis 1 is not a story. If anything, it is a form of poetry. Genesis 2 is a separate account, and can be viewed as a mythical story.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Looking forward to opposing this again the next time it's raised. Do we really have to do this every so often? --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support 'Genesis creation story'. That's strongly supported by Google, per WP:NAME that's how we should name it. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Dmcq I'm not at all convinced we can use Google that way. Look, 9000 seem to also use the word myth. Not that I'd want to guess how many of those are about the Book of Genesis. Anyway, "story" has negative connotations, right? Eg 'she's telling stories'. When I hear the word story though I first think of fiction. Doug Weller  talk 17:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get that feel from 'story' at all. When I see something like 'The Glenn Miller Story' I don't assume it is fiction. And even for fiction like 'Toy Story' I don't get a negative feel. I think it is in how you view the subject of the story. Christians are happy with saying 'The Creation Story' so I can't see a reason to reject it as being negative. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The use of "story" implies fiction and storytelling. Which we define as "conveying of events in words, sound and/or images, often by improvisation or embellishment. ... Crucial elements of stories and storytelling include plot, characters and narrative point of view." While I have come across modern sources discussing the Book of Genesis as a literary work which has all these elements, I am far from certain that this is how most sources view it. Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, but would accept as a second option. Last time I think I was completely against this option, but I may have changed my mind a bit. Story is better than narrative: neither sum up the topic well, but story is at least a more common word, and is applied to the subject more frequently. "Creation myth" is the academic term, but if we're not going to use that, I would prefer this. I don't personally feel that "story" implies the events did not occur. For example: "Let me tell you my the story of my trip to Paris." I can see how others may get a different feel from the word, but it's just not the sense I get anymore.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as preferable to "narrative". Though it really should be "creation myth" like similar articles, "story" would be less likely give a false impression that it's about events that actually happened. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is precisely the misunderstanding of "myth" that we want to avoid. StAnselm (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Support - Not gonna make any novel points here, but it seems that this term is the most widely used, so it gets support from WP:COMMONNAME. My position on NPOV is that while titling this page "myth" is not inherently POV, doing so when "myth" is far from the most common term (even, as far as I can tell, in academic literature) does border on POV because of the alternate definition of myth as "A commonly-held but false belief". This would not be a problem if "myth" were the most common term, but it is not, so the question arises as to why it is proposed, which leads to POV concerns. A2soup (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there are no novel points anywhere in this entire discussion, since it's all been covered in the previous page move requests, so welcome to the club :-). But you do sum up the main issues quite well — thank you. First Light (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to "Creation in Genesis"

 * 1) Acceptable; this could also work, though as a title it is a little ambiguous for my taste as it doesn't make clear that the article is about the narrative/myth/story itself, it also nicely sidesteps the controversy and debate of the three above options, although it previously failed a move request (see | this link). Search trends indicate that it compares similarly to 'Genesis creation story' in terms of how much the phrase is used. EDIT: Oppose per below arguments about WP:PRECISION. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 06:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Incomplete information. I suppose Creation myth in Genesis could be an alternative to this suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as the obvious neutral term. I suspect that if a move request were made for this, and it was very widely publicized to include editors besides the usual suspects here, this would have the best chance. First Light (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - very vague, fails WP:PRECISION. Any greater commonality is probably because this phrase is so vague, it's used more frequently without those uses actually being about the subject of this article. Not to mention that this smacks of special treatment for Genesis to an even greater degree than "narrative", since this breaks the formulation used by other titles specifically to preserve greater neutrality. Definitely not superior to narrative. Rwenonah (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Looking forward to opposing this again the next time it's raised. Do we really have to do this every so often? --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, Uninformative. Note that, as per the article, the Jewish authors of the Genesis creation myth borrowed from other forerunner myths. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Uninformative, non-distinctive title. Fails to note that Genesis is not particularly unique and belongs to an entire genre of mythic narratives. Though I am not certain what Isambard Kingdom means about the forerunners and sources of the Book of Genesis. Nobody claims that the authors invented their creation myth whole cloth. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Acceptable I see no need to change, but this title would be ok if we did. As for "Fails to note that Genesis is not particularly unique and belongs to an entire genre of mythic narratives.": why is that the function of the title? Do we do that for any other literary work? Shakespeare's histories for example?--agr (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, we do: Shakespeare's plays. This title would be the equivalent of saying something like "Events written about by Shakespeare" instead. Rwenonah (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No we don't. The article Shakespeare's plays covers multiple works by a single author. The title says no more than it has to. "Plays" is not a pejorative term. A comparable article would be Hamlet, which we don't call "The legend of Hamlet," even though the play is based on a legend with no historical basis. That information is in the article where it belongs. We don't use titles to assert commentary on a literary work.--agr (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is the worst option. It is imprecise, non descriptive, and starting with "creation" implies that "Creation" really occurred, such as in "Creation of the Earth".  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Inconsistent, imprecise, unclear. Worse than the present title. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion
I'm posting here at the bottom because this is a ridiculously long discussion and no-one is likely to see my comments otherwise, at least not without looking specifically for them. There are a few things I want to say, and I'm not open to discussing them further. This is my two cents, and two cents is all I have to give. That's according to your interpretation of the narrative, if there were compelling evidence such as eg. the law of gravity, it would be a different story, but that lack of compelling evidence is the reason people are free to disagree. Perhaps you are an atheist and do not like to think that the world could have been created by anything intelligent. But Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality and not trumpet like it has found the answer to the most vexing questions of human existence when it has not. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The argument that people will misunderstand the title is spurious. That is what redirects are for.
 * 2) I've seen no reasons other than "myth will confuse people," "myth implies that it's not true," and "myth will offend people." Well, I've addressed the first one above, and the second two are political/moral reasons. As already pointed out by one editor arguing against using 'myth', WP:TITLECHANGES clearly states not to title articles for moral or political reasons.
 * 3) The narrative in Genesis is false according to every line of evidence we have ever found which addresses it. Therefore, it fits both definitions of the word "myth". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IP 172.56.35.200, what do you think about the scholarly assessment (summarized in the article itself) that the Genesis narrative is a Jewish myth that is partially derived from forerunner Canaanite and Mesopotamian myths? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism scholars and clerics have stated there is a likely connection, but that they consider it more likely both have a common origin rather than one borrowed from the other. That's more relevant than my personal view. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality and not trumpet lie it has found the answer to the most vexing questions of human existence when it has not." That's an ironic comment, considering many of the people opposed to myth oppose it on the grounds it implies falsehood (which I disagree with) while accepting its use on every other creation myth article with this title formulation. By not using myth, assuming it really does imply falsehood, we're compromising neutrality by specifically avoiding implying one myth to be false while directly implying numerous others to be false. That's an extremely biased position. Rwenonah (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone understands Rwenonah's point, could they please explain it more intelligibly? 172.56.35.200 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. He pointed out that you're being hypocritical in treating this case differently because it's one you care about. If you don't see how that's true, well, it's not Rwenonah's job to free you of your biases. That's your job. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The sourced complaint with the word myth is that it is seen as showing too much bias.You're trying to turn all of it upside down and argue it's biased NOT to call it a myth. What a colossal non rational argument. "It's already been accomplished by another editor with other article titles, so by applying the slippery slope and demanding consistency, we can extend that practice to this one without any better reasoning" 172.56.35.200 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Question to all what fits best Mythology or Narratology when referring to this topic? “Narratology” the branch of knowledge or literary criticism that deals with the structure and function of narrative and its themes, conventions, and symbols.  "Mythology" a collection of stories, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition. Lots of guess work here on the meanings of words....perhaps best to talk about the disciplines involved. -- Moxy (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree that the term "myth" is biased. What is definitely biased is opposing the use of myth on the (false?) grounds that it is biased in one article, while not opposing its use in numerous other articles. That shows bias toward this myth. Rwenonah (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK the IP is saying in everyday layman's term,  myth means a fiction or a lie...where narrative means  account of  historical events? So again what seems best here... we are here to educate  people not change meanings of words.  What type of story is this? Is this different for other religions stories here on Wikipedia...why is this one special from  lets say  ​Greek, ​Roman and other myth?-- Moxy (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first part of your statement. Another editor mentioned above that "more educated laypersons" are unlikely to be offended or object to a Genesis creation myth title, and one of the more noble goals of an encyclopedia is to facilitate the increase of knowledge of laypersons. The notion to avoid contradicting what laypersons 'already know', even if wrong, is, quite frankly, absurd.
 * With regard to the second part of your statement, there are many differences between different sets of mythology, and even differences within sets of mythology, or mythical elements within even larger works. The field is unimaginably broad, but is nonetheless well researched. That research alone is worthy of many articles, each from different aspects and about different myths (or collections thereof). But I don't think this article is the right place to get too involved in that, this article shouldn't be a battleground over such a separate issue, it should more broadly be focused on the Genesis creation myth itself, its history, its relationship with other myths of the region, the influence it has had (even on secular society, for example I drove past a garden nursery yesterday called Garden of Eden, so this point alone is huge), the views of religious adherents (which can obviously include mention of literal interpretations), and so on.
 * Getting back to the point, a classification (for every example I can think of) is based upon a set of similarities, not a set of differences. So asking about differences, though a worthy question in its own right, is probably not the best question to start with when considering a classification. Some scholars of the 20th century did try to do this, inventing all manner of definitions to avoid works contained in the bible being classified along with similar but non-biblical works, and not always for the most honourable reasons, but it was, it would seem, in vain, and ultimately that process has been abandoned (see for example the Smith reference given above). So this creation myth shares a set of features that other creation myths share, but that is not to say that all creation myths share all the same similarities and that there are no differences between them. To give a more relatable example I suppose, bananas and oranges are quite different, but there is no doubt that they're both still fruits. A tomato is a fruit too, despite most people's notion that it is not, and as surprising as it may be I'm sure that most people would appreciate learning the fact, even if only for its pub trivia value :) Leonhard Fortier (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It amazes me how some can seriously argue "let us be intolerant to Christian and Jews regarding their own holy scriptures on Wikipedia in the name of supposed tolerance. What a twisted, convoluted argument. As if opting for a neutral, judgment free term like narrative is turning us into conservapedia - really. Youve tried just about every angle there is now.172.56.35.200 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out above, narrative can have the same connotations of falseness myth does. Myth is definitely more precise and the neutral academic term, which makes it preferable in my view. I'm honestly surprised at the hypocrisy of all this outrage, since you're opposing so-called "intolerance" here but are perfectly fine with its use on numerous other articles. Presumably this is because you view Genesis as holy and therefore specially deserving of a term you think implies more truth. But Wikipedia isn't biased; we can't (or shouldn't ...) treat Genesis as any more valid than Chinese creation myth, or for that matter than Greek mythology. When we do, we're, to paraphrase you "trumpeting like we have found the answer to the most vexing questions of human existence when we have not". Rwenonah (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not "fine" with the use on other articles. You are wrong to ascribe that to me, as has been pointed out, those articles were named by one editor and if those religions have substantial followings today, as Christianity and Judaism do, you might have had a better argument-by-analogy. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does a religion with a "substantial following" deserve any kind of different treatment from one with a less substantial following, or for that matter no following? Taking that position is once again taking a biased position on the truth of religions. Popular religions have no more intrinsic validity and deserve no special treatment relative to unpopular or wholly forgotten ones. Argumentum ad populum is not a position supported by any wikipedia policy, nor should we be treating religions differently based on who many adherents they have. Rwenonah (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Because philosophies, opinions or faiths with substantial followings have always qualified as "significant points of view", whereas those with virtually no support are regarded more marginally? 172.56.35.200 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. There's a massive difference between philosophies or opinions, which can be proven (to a degree), and hence have fringe groups which can be discredited on a logical basis, and faiths, which cannot be proven. The validity of religious truth, which is inherently based on belief that supersedes (and ignores) proof, isn't determined by popular or academic support; the very religions you are so eager to preserve from so-called intolerance would have been dismissed as "myths" in the past, and may be so in the future. WP:Religion points this out well. Rwenonah (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So in essence, what you are decreeing is that the opinion of major world religions to their own sacred texts is to be dismissed as insignificant for neutrality purposes. You're biased, I think, to back selected religions you dislike into a corner on their own articles aggressively, and would love to be able to sit in your high chair in Wikipedia's voice and declare which religion's texts you deem myth and which you spare this label. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I think they should all have a consistent label, and we shouldn't use a label that (according to you) implies more truth for one article and no others. I disagree that myth implies falseness; even if it does, so can "narrative". According to George Every, a majority of Christians would acknowledge the existence of myths (such as the creation story) in the Bible, so using myth would actually be more in line with their opinions. What you seem to want is to have your favourite myth get special treatment, or, sparing that, to move numerous other articles specifically to avoid using myth on this one. In either case, that's bias. Rwenonah (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IP 172.56.35.200, myths are not insignificant. They can carry deep meaning. This is well-explained by the several cited sources for the first sentence of this article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think 172.56.35.200 raises an interesting point, one that may be core to any opposition to this move request. "The opinion of major world religions to their own sacred texts" -- that is something that should be mentioned in the article, but this article isn't owned by any major religion, it just so happens that some major religions consider this text sacred, but it's relevance goes well beyond that. More concisely, this article should be about the creation myth itself, broadly speaking, not any particular point of view stemming from it. Perhaps 172.56.35.200 would be better served if he or she focused on Creationism or Biblical literalism, or any of the other related articles? Leonhard Fortier (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does have content on those subjects. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't suggesting it shouldn't include information on those topics, just that this article's focus is broader than the biblical literalist's point of view. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. By the way, this actually a very good article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I found a few more pennies under the couch, including this gem. The Robert F. and Patricia Ross Weis Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University stating clearly in a lecture on the subject of the historicity of the Old Testament that the book is not history and was never intended to be history. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a question....do religious people learn about other beliefs...as in are they aware that there are thousands of religions of there. I understand they think their religion is right...but do they learn about the connection of beliefs to older religions?-- Moxy (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking from my own experience, no. I was taught when I was a child that other religions existed, but that they all stemmed from Satan, and were just different flavors of devil worship. As I grew older and learned about history in school, the teachings from my former religion changed, such that some other religions were mistaken. With regards to predecessors of Christianity, we were taught that Judaism was just Christianity minus a belief in Jesus, and that Genesis was an accurate history of the world, so that there could have been no predecessor religions to Judaism. Even among the most liberal (read: not fundamentalist, but still pretty damn religious) Christians I was exposed to, there was a belief that there was no predecessor religion in that region, that Judaism sprang from the Old Testament being dictated to its authors by God himself. I remember buying a book when I was 13, called Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder, which attempted to paint the subject of this article as a bronze-age interpretation of a scientifically accurate history of the universe as revealed by God to the authors. I managed to make my way through it before my parents discovered it, read the back cover and forced me to burn it in the backyard. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is very sad to hear...I now understand why there is such a problem here. So basically after indoctrination at a young age people are left on there own to learn about the world at large correct?  Secondary question...do  these religious schools teach religion in lieu of other topics  ...as in there is  religious course instead of a history or scientific method courses?  Sorry if this is not the place for this... I am just trying to find out why people think the way they do. -- Moxy (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, not really 'left on their own' per se. What I've seen is either sequestration in the form of home schooling and encouragement to avoid secular society and people, or (in my case) vehement insistence that science and secular knowledge are lies intended to deceive the faithful. As to your second question; Absolutely. I only attended religious schools in my youth (the rest of my religious education came directly from my parents, or through church), but evolution, the scientific method, history before the early modern period, the classics, mythology and religion other than Christianity were all conspicuously absent (some of those wouldn't have been taught to kids at that age anyways, but I am told by others who attended a full course of primary and even secondary Christian education that this remains true throughout it). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say this is the wrong place... your psychoanalysis here can't accomplish anything for this article or anything other than expose incompetence in the topic of Comparative Religion. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is my question - Do Brooklynites like yourself learn about comparative religion....or just one POV?  -- Moxy (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The first thing I learned in Comp Religion is you treat the "other" religion neutrally and refrain from attacks or labeling its canon "myth". You must be from a different school of Comparative Religion. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In this Comp Religion class, did you also learn about exposing "incompetence"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Getting off topic. My point is This won't solve the question at hand.172.56.35.200 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The first thing I learned in Comp Religion is you treat the "other" religion neutrally and refrain from attacks or labeling its canon "myth". Sorry if you feel that this is insulting, but you're pretty much defining the Dunning–Kruger effect with respect to Comp religion. One of the first things you'd learn in such a class is that 'myth' is not a pejorative term. Also, you'd learn that it's not really the best subject to focus in if you want to discuss the subject of this article. You'd want to take courses in comparative mythology, because comp religion is more concerned with doctrines and practices, not the mythology behind it. The video link I provided above is part of a lecture series on old testament studies. You could watch the earlier videos to see the instructor, Christine Hayes discussing how the events of Genesis were modified versions of earlier regional mythology. Also, I don't know what you meant by your reference to psychoanalysis. There was no psychoanalysis in anything I or Moxy posted. I think you might not understand what psychoanalysis really is, but you could click the word and learn (that's what WP is here for! :) ) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I can safely say that no-one here actually believes you are being honest about your educational background. Your claims about the subject do not in any way reflect the teachings of an ivy league institution, or indeed, any credible college. So please, stop making such claims and stick to discussing the subject. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly did take Comparative Religion courses while at an Ivy League in the 80s, but this was before Wikipedia when"Comparative Religion" was a strictly even handed subject! 172.56.35.200 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your saying your being taught  a strict  meaning of words? and if you question that you get in-trouble? Are you allowed to express concerns or debate the mythology or belief system in classes?  I see you  POV written about at   Religion and mythology ....very interesting. All the best guys... learned alot today. -- Moxy (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC

Keeping it on topic, we were taught "one person's myth is somebody else's religion" therefore we would be"in trouble" if we used that word in reference to the sutras, suras, etc. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But 172.56.35.200, I'm still curious, what did you learn about "exposing incompetence"? Is it "on topic" when you use such words? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But above you expressed this concern only about "major world religions"; forgotten, ignored or marginalized ones have just as much validity, and should be treated just the same, as any major and modern world religions. The fact that this opposition to the use of myth has only arisen on this article shows the real cause for opposition to the word, I think. Moving dozens of other articles to conform with a very tiny demographic that is offended by the use of myth here would be ludicrously biased toward this story's adherents. Rwenonah (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no see - that's the second thing we learned in Comp Religion class. That the five major ones are: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, and the others of some significance but don't have any state religion as a religion of state, and quite a few extinct ones. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting POV... so small and old religions... there teachings are simply less valid because of there status within nation states or historical position in time...thus can be called a myth.  I do now see how people could take offence to the term "myth"..but this does not change my mind about  what term should be used here.  I am going  to do much more reading up on these deities and creation beliefs. -- Moxy (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For one thing, that was a factually inaccurate class, since there are more adherents of Chinese traditional religion (which I personally wouldn't call a religion by Western definition, but regardless) than there are of Buddhism, and its creation myth is titled with "myth" ... something you evidently support, since it doesn't fit your factually incorrect definition of "major". Either way, there's no good reason to treat unpopular or even extinct religions differently from successful ones; if we do, it's bias. Rwenonah (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep ascribing to me the view that I am "all right" with any other religion's texts being called "myth"? That is where your entire argument falls apart since I don't think we should call any of them"myth". I guess the elephant no one wants to address is the point someone made that those articles were created by a single user and you are trying to import their unfortunate title as a fait accompli. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing pejorative about myth. There's definitely bias in moving dozens of other articles to avoid using myth on this one, which you seem to want. Rwenonah (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many articles were already moved away from mythology to religion for the same reason even when they are tiny ones? This seems to be bucking the trend but I see no valid reason why those twelve articles shouldn't be moved as well 172.56.35.200 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I have a question. How is it that for any other area of scholarship, we assess what the"significant points of view" are for the topic, or indeed other religion's points of view are treated as significant to their own topics, but only here everything is upside down, all religions great and small have an equally significant viewpoint, yet the stance of Christianity and Judaism is not significant enough to their topics because all religions have an equal viewpoint... I still can't wrap my head around what you are suggesting. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My vote is make them uniform. All religious creation claims ought to have a common title -- be it myth, narrative, story, account. Just make them all read the same. Pandeist (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't treat religions as more valid solely because they have more adherents, because those extra adherents don't translate into increased validity. All religions (and all their myths) need to be treated as equally valid; the fact Christianity is large doesn't, despite what you evidently think, make it deserving of special treatment. Especially not to the point of moving twelve articles just to conform with a convention set by one article about Christianity/Judaism. Rwenonah (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the difficulty lies in your unwillingness to accept that the word 'myth' is not pejorative. The word 'skeptic' is often used pejoratively (eg., 'climate change skeptic'), yet I proudly embrace it as descriptive of my world view, because I understand the technical meaning of the term (in the sense of philosophical skepticism) is not pejorative. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've seen innumerable sources stating that myth is pejorative and zero claiming that narrative is pejorative. So clearly there are other points of view on that one. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Myth is not pejorative, at most, due to the second definition it is ambiguous. Pejorative means "expressing contempt or disapproval", which no matter how you cut it, using the word myth does not do. The issues with narrative stem from the fact that it just isn't really used by many sources (sources generally use 'story' or 'myth'), more importantly, it is almost never used to search for the topic on google trends, implying that it is as far from the common name as it gets (see above). InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Significant point of view works locally on religion articles too. We don't give a Mormon sect with 20followers equal weight with the LDS on Mormon theology, for instance. 172.56.35.200 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

With apologies to the participants, but I think this section has devolved into something that isn't really helpful to the move request. Leonhard Fortier  (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It has. Note that the infobox at the top of this page has a long list of previous discussions. The most useful, IMO, is this one, which is the source of the current title. Because it is a consensus title, it is not necessarily a common phrase; this is the natural result of other sources being subjective and non-neutral. I'm going to try to summarize the arguments in favor of a move:


 * 1) Myth is used by other Wikipedia articles
 * 2) Myth is used by other sources
 * 3) Myth is the proper terminology, and it is not pejorative

When a decision is finally made here, it will be made based on the validity of the arguments put forth, not on the amount of text alloted to each argument. I'm not an admin, but the move cannot be made without a consensus, and the result here looks like "no consensus." (Again.) The onus is on those who want the title changed to establish a consensus, and consensus is not built by arguing but by discussion of new information. Roches (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was done in good faith, but I think the "opinion poll" completely derailed this move request. Another one would, however, be pointless. StAnselm (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point about basing decisions on the validity of the arguments put forth, but I don't see a lack of consensus as Wikipedia defines it. Quoting from WP:CONSENSUS:
 * Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals, i. e., to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * The entire page is worth reading, and one of the five pillars mentioned is WP:NPOV which has has been heavily relied upon to form arguments in favour of the move, but the note on unanimity and voting is important too. I don't see a lack of consensus so much as I see a bloc of editors opposed to the move on ideological or moral grounds, which is giving a perception of a lack of consensus.
 * Apparently this strategy has worked in the past, most of those editors are just popping in to oppose "once again", either no argument is given at all, which is basically just a vote and leaves nothing for those in support have a discussion about, or policy violations are recommended, in which case we can only point those editors to the relevant policies and explain how their recommendations lead to a violation. On the other hand, those in favour of the move are in most cases going to some effort to quote Wikipedia's policies and find reliable sources to support their position. But in the wake of that clash, that perception of a lack of consensus is left behind. If you discard the simple votes and obvious policy violations I believe things become a lot clearer.
 * I should mention that there was a single exception to the above 'oppose recipe': the editor InsertCeleverPhraseHere to his or her credit took the time to detail their opposition, and this gave me (in this instance) a chance to have a discussion about it. In the end he or she offered a conditional support, and I think that's a good demonstration of consensus building:
 * [E]ditors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; -- WP:CONSENSUS
 * On the organisation of the move request itself, I agree that it is regrettable, but I don't think I can do anything about that -- re-arranging things would probably be frowned upon, and restarting this process over some general untidiness would be hard for most people to swallow. I can probably take the time to distil things myself, but it will obviously be partisan, so unless invited I won't try. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are being unduly harsh and not at all neutral towards those who are opposing the move. Many have detailed their opposition and given sincere reasons based on Wikipedia policies, such as: using reliable sources to choose the right title; using NPOV to choose a title that is neutral to the general audience this encyclopedia is written for, rather than a scholarly audience; providing better and more neutral titles, based on policy and reliable sources; showing a clear rebuttal to those who are arguing for consistency, by linking to many similar articles that also don't use the word "myth" in the title. The only issue here is that there is disagreement over how to apply the very Wikipedia policies that both sides are pointing to. That's a reasonable ground for disagreement that many page moves cover. Disagreement over policies and application doesn't need to degrade to name-calling, but unfortunately it does when religion, politics, race, gender, and a million other issues are being discusses. Such is life, and I've learned to ignore those things here - and in real life - so that is not issue from my perspective.
 * Certainly there is some weariness on both sides who have walked this path before and are tired of repeating the same arguments, since there is nothing new in Wikipedia policy or in academic coverage that has changed since the previous twelve move requests. So yes, there are oppose and support votes that have not brought up any new arguments—in roughly equal numbers, by my count. I can honestly say that there is nothing new here in that regard, and with my previous points. This is page move discussion #13, and I predict that there will be a #14 and #15, etc., all covering the same or similar territory. Welcome to Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the original move request, your opposition was a reference to past results, and that you thought Creation in Genesis or Genesis creation story were more neutral and certainly more widely used in reliable sources (which you also cited to past discussions). I freely admit that this was (potentially) more engaging then many of the other oppose votes, and I did try to engage on the point of referencing past discussions and noting the lack of consensus among them. But you again pointed me back to past discussions and seemed to suggest that the result of this move request was a foregone conclusion with "this discussion will be the same as past ones". At the very least it seemed a little disinterested, but ok ...
 * On the other point you mentioned, your claim that the two suggested terms were more widely used in reliable sources, it seemed quite dubious to me, so I took the time review reliable sources on the topic and in the new "Opinion poll" branch of the discussion I presented some reliable sources, quotes and discussion that directly contradicted your claim. I'd hoped that this would be a convincing argument for those who felt the terminology was less neutral (in terms of reliable sources) than other terms, or at least engaging on some level. But the following day you posted these comments (among others and in the same branch of discussion):
 * "No, not going to happen [a move to Genesis creation myth] based on lack of consensus going back to the time of Genesis so let's try a move request that is realistic and neutral, and not pointy, such as "Creation in Genesis."
 * and
 * "Once this move request fails, I would like to see another attempt to move to "Creation in Genesis," which really is neutral, has scholar support, and is by far the most widely used term."
 * Well ... honestly. How could I (or anyone else) possibly engage with that? Do you honestly believe you're contributing toward a consensus with comments like that? Is it wrong to assume that your opposition is what is actually the foregone conclusion, not the move request, that you're really only here to register another round of opposition despite any other conversation that has happened? Is my previous comment really "unduly harsh", or is it actually pretty much on target? And your comments weren't the worst either I might add. If I am wrong then of course I am open to hearing how so, but otherwise I can only call it as I see it and therefore stand by my comments. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because I've decided my views on this, and am holding fast to them, you think I'm not "contributing toward a consensus?" In fact, I'm contributing to developing consensus just as much as you are. I've given my views, you've given yours, and quite simply and honestly we disagree. Yes, I do believe that scholarly usage, using Google Scholar result numbers, is a legitimate tool—and that Creation in Genesis is the best title for this article. WP:Article title, a Wikipedia policy, supports using such Google searches of reliable sources and the resulting numbers. You disagree, based on pointing out just a few specific reliable sources. I've been involved in a number of page move discussions using similar methodology with Google searches and the numbers of results. Even though these have been on more science-based articles, it's still a legitimate approach here. Our approach differs, so be it. But to accuse me and others of being "a bloc of editors opposed to the move on ideological or moral grounds" is unduly harsh, judgmental, and contributing to lowering the level of this discussion. You don't even know my ideology or morality, and I suspect you would be extremely surprised if you were to find out, so making such statements is both unhelpful to a calm discussion—and quite prejudiced (prejudice: (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) :  an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge). First Light (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add here the explanation of the decision by the closing administrator to the last page move discussion here. I'm pointing this out because she is an extremely experienced and well respected admin and Wikipedian, and because it expresses similar weariness that I express above. Along with similar view that there are good arguments, just with different viewpoints of applicable policies, on both sides. Apologies for the weariness, but maybe you'll understand once you got through multiple move discussions on one article, as I've done in a number of instances:
 * "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." First Light (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, no, I'm not saying that because you disagree with me you're not contributing toward a consensus. My question was actually "Do you honestly believe you're contributing toward a consensus with comments like that?", but I'm not too worried about that now because I'm more interested in your (now declared) reliance upon search engine results to form your opinion. If you could take the time to answer a few questions that would be greatly appreciated:
 * Have you read the 'Interpreting results' section of WP:GOOGLE, and as a result do you still feel that Google Scholar searches are the best way resolve this requested move? An example quote from that page is: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability", but there is plenty of other useful information too.
 * On Google Scholar in particular, there is a well sourced section at Google_Scholar. Shouldn't this be considered when using this service to back up claims?
 * On the first page on the Google Scholar search for genesis "creation story" we're already getting results like: Baseball as civil religion: The genesis of an American creation story. Does this dissuade you in any way from the reliability of such searches?
 * Also on Google Scholar, Genesis mythology gets 78,000 hits. Is that a useful result?
 * In the end we don't need to agree, but it is useful to go through these things for the closing moderator to review. Thanks for your time. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. I never said that such results are the "are the best way resolve this requested move" as you seem to quote me saying. They are one factor, an important one, and should be given weight along with everything else being considered here.
 * 2. It has limitations, but unless you can point out a better way to find the most common usage of a term used in scholarly articles, it's the best for now. In fact, the results that I show above give a high preponderance of reliable scholarly sources.
 * 3. My experience with Google Scholar results shows that one must put the entire phrase in quotes, such as "Genesis creation story" rather than what you did. The numbers that I showed above for search results used this accurate way of doing it. Those results I demonstrated actually show a bulk of legitimate scholarly sources, in spite of your claims here and at #1 and #2. Not using quotes, or using them only partially, give useless results, like the Baseball one. Haha, that's a good one.
 * 4. Another useless search because you didn't use any quotes at all.
 * Yes, Google Scholar searches, done correctly, give an extremely good idea of the most common way that scholars use a particular term in this instance, and are a very good tool to use in making this decision. First Light (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can come back to most of that, but on point 2, I can suggest a better way to find the most common usage in scholarly articles: we can consult the reliable sources and see what they say about it. I have given several references above, and someone else just posted one below. Is that not better? Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Specific sources are good for stating the opinion of single authors. On a controversial topic like this one, where there is disagreement even among experts, showing the most common usage by the preponderance of reliable scholarly sources is better, in my opinion. When the numbers are several times larger for one usage over the other, that is very relevant, as I showed above. In fact, we are consulting the reliable sources to see what they say, when we look at how they most commonly use a term. First Light (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But we're citing authors who have surveyed the opinions of their peers and concluded that creation myth is the most prominent term among the experts and that there isn't consensus for any other term. That's a bit different to a single author choosing to use one term over another isn't it? Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. But it's not the most "prominent" term among even scholars (much less laymen), in the way that they naturally use the various terms in their writings about Genesis. They actually use the other terms much more often, which fulfills the "Naturalness" requirement of WP:Article title ("Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."). Not to mention the way that the laymen who use this encyclopedia describe the subject in natural discussion. 2. We're determining what the article title is, not what some experts and wikipedia editors determine the subject to be ("it's a myth!", "it's not a myth!"). Naturalness gives us the answer to what the title should be. And again, I don't like the current title. I like the proposed change less. But I believe that the polarization and name-calling here has made the ship of compromise and consensus sail a long time ago. Not that "no consensus" is automatically wrong. Sometime there is just no consensus on a topic because there are different legitimate views. I believe that's what is happening here, accusations (of bigotry and religiosity) and name-calling aside. First Light (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The glaringly obvious "weakest link" in the arguments is the bold and presumptuous claim "Myth is not pejorative." This is what we call a "referenced point of view" because we have a stack of scholars in real scholarship who say it is pejorative, ambiguous, misleading and not an impartial description. That's why we had to move away from "myth" in the first place. Then we have editors here who typically want to brush off all those scholars as illegitimate, and say the only true scholarship is that scholarship which agrees with our pov, because we're right and any scholar who dissents is inadmissible, for purposes of shhoe horning the very partial label myth onto selected religious beliefs they (meaning only certain editors) will pick and choose.172.56.35.143 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources cited in the article. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The argument "All religious persuasions great and small must be given equal weight and significance to one another" is another laugh. Doesn't work that way anywhere else, not in religious studies either. In Rwenonahs kind of floating, social-justice activist worls, a Mormon sect with 20 followers counts as significantly as the major LDS church. Because it wouldn't be "fair" to the tinier group otherwise. Or perhaps all beliefs are the same to him because he has figured out they're all equally wrong no matter how many would disagree with his pov. 172.56.35.143 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you the editor Til Eulenspiegel from past move requests? Your old page says you abusively use accounts so I'm not sure it's worth continuing to try to engage with you. Apologies if not, just your arguments are very similar. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The constant ad hominem attacks and clumsy rhetoric do seem to recall that editor's behaviour ... regardless, I've never said we give each religious group equal weight and significance. That's a rather inept straw man argument. We do treat them as equally valid; according to you, myth implies less validity than narrative, so titling Genesis with narrative and other articles with myth is taking a position on their validity and is therefore biased. It's equally biased to suggest we move those other articles just to avoid using myth here; we can't give one myth special treatment over others, which is what you want. Rwenonah (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what we call a "referenced point of view" because we have a stack of scholars in real scholarship who say it is pejorative, ambiguous, misleading and not an impartial description. Sources or GTFO. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're running out of valid arguments so you're resorting to crude profane attacks (gtfo) and the standard dirty trick of trying to block me as a sopposed sock puppet of an already blocked. We've all read the previous discussions I hope where it was adequately established that numerous references of scholars state myth to be pejorative, duplicitous and ambiguous. It's not my job to look up all of them again, you'll just have to keep pretending you didn't see that. 172.56.35.143 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources cited in the article. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So he seems to acknowledge that another point of view indeed exists, the one he is attacking. 172.56.35.143 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Moxy (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep...but as a religious person should you not be following the recommendations of a priest?  -- Moxy (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha, same thing we heard in the Spanish Inquisition, word for word!16:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.35.143 (talk)
 * So that would be a no to the recommendations of one of your most prolific authors. This is why there are so many different Christian denominations...among themselves they cant even agree what is best.....dont like the  doctrine... non-adherents is you way ...form a new sect.  -- Moxy (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What is that comment supposed to achieve for our purpose? Do you want me to convert to Roman Catholicism or something? 172.56.35.143 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it depends what denomination fits your POV best ...thousands to chose from..is the point. So basically  no merit for any academic position even by one of the best selling authors on the topic is being demised.   O well ...guess i am going to hell for all this...hope Zeus doesn't hit me with a bold of lighting.  LOL -- Moxy (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to look up all of them again Yes, in fact, it is. You've seen where one other editor has provided you with a Christian source saying the word is not pejorative, so how about one of the most noted scholars in comparative religion? Wilfred Cantwell Smith wrote "Like many historians of religion, I myself am one of those for whom the term "myth" is not inherently pejorative." Or perhaps Lloyd Geering, the Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, who said "So while in popular usage the word 'myth' today refers to a story, belief or notion that is false, in academic circles the word has become greatly upgraded." Or maybe the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states "In the study of religion, however, it is important to distinguish between myths and stories that are merely untrue." Or maybe the text from WP that experts at Mcgill University personally fact checked and approved, which says "In common usage, myth can mean a falsehood, or a fable — a story which is widely believed to be based on fact but which is not true. However, the academic study of mythology does not use these definitions."
 * Haha, same thing we heard in the Spanish Inquisition, word for word! Isn't this a corollary of Godwin's Law? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants, All of those points are relevant, and as I've repeatedly suggested to 172.56.35.143, he/she can also read the sources cited in the article, where there is abundant discussion of the Genesis mythology. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that 172 has been blocked as a sock of Til Eulenspiegel, so striking through their comments as usual (can't remove them as they've been responded to). Doug Weller  talk 17:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

All those quotes do is demonstrate that "myth" is a contentious term that the writers need to explain. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, who will certainly interpret "myth" in the title in its ordinary pejorative meaning. And the so called academic consensus is open to question. There are academics who disagree with the neutrality of myth. See, for example Theoretical Anthropology, David Bidney, p.296 “To regard myth as a neutral term beyond truth and falsity and to interpret the culture of scientific rationalism as if it were based on myth, is to undermine the very basis of rational and scientific thought.”  Try getting a paper about the "Big Bang Creation Myth" published. I don't think the physics community would consider the usage neutral, though by the myth supporters' arguments it should be perfectly acceptable. And has it occurred to the myth fans that using it in the title will simply insure that religious people will avoid the article altogether, instead of being exposed to its alternative viewpoints. Is this what you all want? We have a neutral title now. Just leave it alone.--agr (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ArnoldReinhold, neither of the examples you provide, "Theoretical Anthropology" and a hypothetical "Big Bang Creation Myth", are specifically about Genesis. Please have a look at the sources cited in the article. But, yes, I can tolerate the exiting title of the article as it is. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Big Bang Creation Myth? This discussion is either becoming absurd, or trashed in the hopes of keeping it unresolved. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This accusation that oppose !voters are motivated by ideological reasons has got to stop. There have been lots of arguments against the move that have never been seriously responded to - like, for example, the argument that this article is primarily about a literary work, while the Ainu creation myth article is not. StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's about the literary work ... which is a creation myth. Thus the introductory sentence that says "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth..." and the fact that Judeo-Christian creation myth redirects here. Rwenonah (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument that the page should be moved to be consistent with the lead sentence is a very poor one. Of course, I believe the lead sentence should be changed - it is a flagrant breach of WP:LEADSENTENCE - but I don't think there would be consensus to change it, and frankly I don't want to waste everyone's time. Arguments based on redirects are also weak - redirects are cheap. In fact, I have just created Genesis creation account as a redirect - we had Creation account in Genesis and Genesis creation accounts, but not that one. Do I think "Genesis creation account" should be the title? No, but it's a plausible search term. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I assume your first comment was directly aimed at me since I was the only person to mention opposing on ideological grounds, but you're summary of my comment is not fair or accurate. First, I said "on ideological or moral grounds", which is a quite a wider berth. There are several examples of both in this move request, and from what I can see in the previous move requests. And secondly, I specifically mentioned a bloc of editors, I did not try to accuse every person who has opposed, which your comment seems to allude to, so I actually take some offence at your summary. With respect to your comment about this article being about a literary work being an unrebutted objection ... perhaps I missed it, but in any case, the objection doesn't make sense to me. I can take a guess by what you mean, but it's going to better if you explain your objection I think. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if not me, then who was in the bloc of editors? Generally, it is best not to make accusations about groups of people, since collateral damage will result. But if you're not comfortable answering that, what would be an example of an oppose based on ideological grounds? (I can see how a desire not to offend is based on moral grounds.) Anyway, I am disappointed you missed the argument about the literary focus of the article - it was mentioned by several editors both here and in previous discussions. Perhaps you need to read through them all again. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us say for a moment that the concerns about the use of "myth" are well-founded, and that the average Christian will be offended by that title, because they don't know how academics use it. What is the purpose of Wikipedia? It is to preserve knowledge, so that it may inform and educate others. So, would it be in keeping with that spirit to specifically reinforce their misconceptions about the word? Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to have an article which is titled accurately, neutrally and after its most commonly used descriptive name? I think so. In fact, I think that anyone who thinks informing and educating people takes a back seat to avoiding giving offense is wrong. Not just wrong about this issue, but wrong about one of the foundational pillars of Wikipedia. If you truly believe that avoiding offending people is important, then you should -IMHO- retire your username and go find another hobby. WP is not the place for you. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  19:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to me? What does my user name have to do with it? (And I have never breathed a word about giving offense.) Anyway, your argument sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - or titles are to reflect common usage, not shape them. (And if you were responding to my comment above, you haven't addressed the argument - that sort of neglect is one of the major issues in this discussion.) StAnselm (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Had I been responding to you, I would have indented it one tab relative to yours, as I usually do. I also would have either quoted you or pinged you, again as I usually do. I actually think you have a point, as I have said in the past on this very talk page that this article is about the narrative, not the myth. However, I think an article about the narrative is beyond the scope of WP. It's too obscure a subject, of interest only to people like Bart Ehrman and Christine Hayes and those who are interested in their work. Remember, the narrative is in Biblical Hebrew. Without a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, it's very difficult for anyone to come to any conclusions that aren't simply handed to them by such experts. It's something that just isn't notable enough. Now, the creation myth this narrative provides is something very different. That has a broad ranging appeal and doesn't care what language it is conveyed in. So I agree with your point: This article is about the narrative. But I also agree that it should be moved to "Genesis creation myth" and altered to focus on the myth itself. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I have struck the irrelevant comments. Who were you responding to? StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, but to an argument I've seen made by a number of people in this thread. Also, the part of your comment that you did not strike out is equally invalid. I spoke about the explicit purpose of Wikipedia, somethign which was well documented long before I even read my first article. I said nothing about fixing some great problem with the world. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Further comment: Here are some of the "oppose" arguments from the last RM:
 * 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. (User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah)
 * The popular meaning of myth cannot be ignored, just like the popular meaning of "theory" isn't. (User:Srnec)
 * 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. (User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz)
 * 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. (User:Red Slash)
 * StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about many things, including the narrative, its origins from other myths, its interpretation, its genre. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Related to Isambard's comment, this discussion is about a move request to the most neutral (with respect to reliable sources on the topic) title. In line with this, reliable sources citing authors who have surveyed the opinions of their peers and concluded that creation myth is the most prominent term among the experts, and that there isn't consensus for any other term, have been provided. It would be best to focus on this central point. Leonhard Fortier   (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on - who has done this? Enns doesn't say myth is the "most prominent term". Greeley does say that the usage is "common", but says nothing about "most common". Moreover, Greeley's area was Sociology of Religion. I would happily concede "myth" might be most common in that field, but it isn't the most common in biblical studies, which is the field to which this subject most naturally belongs. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A Summary of Leonhard Fortier's arguments
I've spent about a week on this move request now and I'm not particularly inclined to continue. It's once again my weekend and I prefer to spend it away from the computer, so I will provide a summary of my arguments so far and step back from the issue (hopefully until it's closed one way or the other). Most of this will be drawn from my first reply to the 'Opinion poll' branch of the discussion above, but I will modify it to include any other discussion I think has been important since then, or anything else that I have learned along the way. I warn that this may seem like a partisan summary, I'm mostly summarising my own arguments from above, but I've tried to be as honest as possible. I also apologise for the length, but it seems there is much to cover. So without further ado ...

As we're choosing a descriptive title (this article's content has no name per se), it is important to consult WP:TITLE, where the following is noted:
 * In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions.

So we have some work to do: To satisfy the first point I've drawn from some reliable sources to help paint a picture of the state of scholarship on the issue of consensus for the description of this article's topic, from which Wikipedia should be able to choose the most appropriate title. The following facts can be cited to reliable sources, and please note the list of references is not exhaustive, merely illustrative:
 * 1) In order to satisfy the Neutral Point of View requirement, reliable sources on the topic must be consulted to see how this topic is described.
 * 2) We should not choose a title that suggests the opinions of the editors.
 * The three most prominent descriptions of Genesis as a whole are legend, myth and saga.
 * See, for example, Sidney Greidanus's Preaching Christ from Genesis: Foundations for Expository Sermons, where he mentions early on in his book in a section on the genre of Genesis, that:
 * [An] important issue one faces in the literary interpretation [of Genesis] is the kind of literature one is interpreting. A multitude of answers to this question have been offered, the three most prominent being legend, myth and saga.


 * There is no consensus for either legend or saga, or indeed any other term, and perhaps not myth, but there is an intimation that myth is the best of a bad situation:
 * See, for example, Peter Enns' book Inspiration and Incarnation, on a section detailing Genesis:
 * "If some consensus could be reached for an alternative term, it would seem profitable to abandon the term 'myth' altogether, since the term has such a long history of meanings attached to it, which prejudices the discussion from the outset. There is no consensus for another word, so, before we proceed, allow me to repeat how I use the word 'myth' ..."


 * On Genesis 1 in particular, the last 25 years or so have seen myth prevail:
 * See, for example, Mark S. Smith's recent (2014) work Is Genesis 1 a Creation Myth?, where he explains that
 * [A] long-standing tendency in discussing the Bible and myth has been to generate any number of deﬁnitions of myth that could be applied to ancient Near Eastern texts, but not to the Bible. However, commentators in the last quarter century have largely given up this older practice of holding up the uniqueness of the Bible as nonmyth over and against ancient Near Eastern myths.
 * Additional citations can be given to Robert A. Oden's The Bible Without Theology, and Michael Fishbane's Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking.

There are other sources that I have quoted from in the above discussion, right down to Encyclopedia Britannica, but I'd prefer to skip those for now and just stay on point -- a discussion of reliable sources with respect to consensus (not just instances of usage).

So we see that within the academic community there is some general consensus, though by no means a unanimous one, that this article's content is considered creation myth. This is particularly sticky, because according to WP:TITLE we still need to choose a term that doesn't suggest the opinions of the editors. I think there are two possible perspectives from which editors can look at this problem, and I'd venture to guess that these two perspectives are in fact the root cause of this article's long term instability with respect to its title: And here comes the real crux of the problem: since the term myth has a history of negative connotation for some people, the first perspective leads to a desire to avoid the term. But the second perspective leads to a desire to use the term. At what at first seems like an intractable problem, a further reading of WP:TITLE offers clarity:
 * 1) Wikipedia should choose a title that doesn't hint that we're making a judgement call, that we consider this creation myth to be false for example.
 * 2) Wikipedia should choose a title that doesn't stray from the academic consensus.
 * In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense.

So this seems to suggest the second perspective is the correct one to take, but not everything is right. How do we reconcile the requirement that we don't choose a title that avoids suggesting an editor's opinions?

It turns out what at first glance seems like a contradiction is in fact just a poor reading of the first quote from WP:TITLE: it's not suggesting to editors to choose a title that avoids suggesting editors opinions independently of a neutral point of view, it's a comparative sentence, it's saying do this, not that, comparing good practise with bad. It may take a few seconds to wrap your head around, but eventually you should settle on this interpretation. Some may still harbour doubt though because it's still not clear what could be meant by not suggesting editors own opinions in the title. It turns out this is pretty easy too, but there are countless examples that can be given. To give some specific examples, if the reliable sources are using creation myth, and our article uses a different term, then readers may take that to mean: In the case of myth the examples are fairly contrived, but it's not hard to think of other words where this could be a big problem, and why that sentence fragment was added at some point. But ultimately, Wikipedia has to choose a title, and here we are with an understanding that WP:TITLE is telling us to pick the most neutral term with respect to reliable sources, not what an editor thinks it should be. This is echoed in WP:NPOV too:
 * Wikipedia's editors think the reliable sources are using the wrong term, if the reader is familiar with the reliable sources
 * Wikipedia's editors think this creation myth is historically true, if the reader is used to seeing it described as creation myth elsewhere
 * etc.
 * [E]ditors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.

just in case there was any doubt, and of course it's perfectly consistent with the interpretation of WP:TITLE given above.

Finally some objections have been raised, for example search engine results feature prominently, but I don't buy it, those things pick up all manner of junk. And if the terms they're suggesting really are more widespread in reliable sources then it should be possible to find a set of sources that discuss that as I have with myth. I have to say good luck though, if there are reliable sources out there that survey its peers and concludes that story or something holds a consensus, then I will be impressed. But I doubt there is. I've addressed some other objections above, but I don't feel it's necessary to rehash them here again, especially in light of the above. So happy weekend everyone. Leonhard Fortier  (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this argument goes off the rails when you say "the term myth has a history of negative connotation for some people." Rubbish. The term is universally understood in ordinary English to imply falsity. Even the quotes from academics who claim their use of the term in their field is neutral acknowledge that the common meaning is negative. Our readers are not limited to academic specialists and our current title uses a term that is completely neutral. There is no need for a change.--agr (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The term is universally understood in ordinary English to imply falsity. The mere fact that there are people disagreeing with you proves you wrong. It doesn't evince that you're wrong, or suggest that you're wrong. It proves you wrong. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anyone in this long discussion claim that myth in ordinary English does not imply falsity. The argument is about the academic meaning and whether neutral intent by many academics suffices to render the proposed move title neutral in the face of its common English meaning. The academic sources quoted, our guideline WP:LABEL and dictionaries I have consulted all agree that in ordinary usage myth is not a neutral term.--agr (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"No consensus" indicates a move to earlier stable non-stub title? --> "Creation according to Genesis"
I think there are good arguments on both sides, and that generally is read as 'no consensus' and results in an article being stuck at the status quo. Unfortunately this is an example of Status quo bias, and the guidelines have figured out a way to avoid this problem (somewhat). The guidelines specifically state:
 * "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

Thus the discussion boils down to weather the title "Genesis creation narrative" is stable or not. I would argue the fact that "Genesis creation narrative" has never been stable, having been the subject of numerous move requests almost continuously since its inception. If "narrative" is considered unstable (which it certainly seems so), the preference should be for a move to "Creation according to genesis" as this was the title of the article shortly after its creation and was stable from | November 2004 to | February 2010 (6 years!--longer than 'narrative' has been the title). If, as I see it, this discussion results in 'no consensus' once again, I think that it is clear that the article should be moved to "Creation according to Genesis" as per the guidelines over at WP:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 02:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: not only do the guidelines seem to indicate that the article should be moved back to this title, I think it is possibly the best title for the article anyway, as it is both neutral, as well as being precise. I would Fully Support a move back to "Creation according to Genesis". InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 02:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. While there has not been clear consensus when picking between "Genesis creation myth", "Genesis creation story" and "Genesis creation narrative", there has been much clearer consensus that "Creation according to Genesis" is not an appropriate title, and moving the page to that title against consensus would certainly not be in line with policy.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Um... where? the section above was for "Creation in Genesis" (which I agree is probably not precise enough). "Creation according to Genesis" has never been argued against "Genesis creation narrative" as the article became "Genesis creation myth" for a few months before moving to "Genesis creation narrative", where it has been subject to 8 move requests since that time. I think it is clear that "Creation according to Genesis" was far more stable and uncontroversial in it's tenure as the article's title than "Genesis creation narrative" has been. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 04:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I don't like "Creation according to Genesis" and would oppose a request to move to it, I nevertheless find your procedural argument for moving to it persuasive. "Genesis creation narrative" has indeed never been stable, and persists despite a prolonged lack of consensus only because proposed alternatives have failed to gain consensus either. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is not my favourite either (Genesis creation story), but that is why this guideline exists; for articles where there really is no ideal title that a majority of editors will agree to, the original non-stub title is chosen as default to stop repeated requests to move and to avoid Status quo bias. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 08:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Support as a neutral, accurate, descriptive, and natural title. First Light (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Though not as a matter of procedure. This change would need to go to the proper route of a Requested Move. First Light (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose the procedural argument advanced here - we can't really call it the most stable title when there were two unsuccessful proposals to move it to that title after the article had been moved to "Genesis creation myth". StAnselm (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats not the point, it doesn't matter that if it wasn't stable, since there never has been a stable title, if there is no consensus we should move it to "Creation according to Genesis" as per the guideline quoted above (TL;DR the FIRST title is used if there is no consensus for any other title and if there is no stable title). InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 11:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on, the heading says "move to earlier stable title". Are you saying now it doesn't matter if it wasn't stable? In any case, you are completely wrong about the original title - it was actually Creation accounts in Genesis, which was moved to Creation according to Genesis in November 2004. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected the title of this section to reflect the guidelines better, the policy guidelines specifically state to move it to the earliest non-stub title for the article. "Genesis accounts in creation" was only ever a stub. (apologies for not noticing this sooner though). InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. This was the version in question, and it certainly wasn't a stub. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on your definition of stub, but with the largest section in that version being 'creation of birds', with most other sections consisting of only a few sentences it certainly looks like a stub to me, almost none of the topic is explored or even mentioned in that version, and most importantly it has 0 (ZERO) references prior to its name change to "Creation according to Genesis". As you probably know "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub.", so I guess It would, again, be up to the admin who closes this discussion. Note per Template:Grading_scheme: "all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category." and "It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category." InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 03:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: If there is no consensus to change the title, it is not particularly relevant what the new title should be. I think "Creation according to Genesis" is less neutral than "Genesis creation narrative" and also "Creation in Genesis." "Creation in Genesis" invites the reader to insert an opinion. "Genesis creation narrative" means "the part of the Book of Genesis about the creation of the world." But "Creation according to Genesis" appears to me to be an alternative to "Evolution by natural selection", which opens the relevant can of worms. Roches (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * People don't seem to be reading what I wrote... This is not a title i am suggesting for support/oppose (although you are free to offer your opinion), rather, I am saying that for the admin who closes this, following the quoted guideline above 'should' result in a move back to the original title, depending on how they interpret 'stable'. However, as no one is remotely suggesting that Genesis creation narrative is 'stable', the result should be a move back to "Creation according to Genesis". InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for prehistory - So far as I can tell, the first edit war ocurred within 2 days of the article's creation over whether it should be "creation account", "creation accounts" or "creation account(s)". On the 3rd day, the category "creation myths" was added, but within mere seconds was changed to "creation stories". What I would like to ascertain is when, how often, and why this article was moved through its history - prior to the move log available when I click "history". Could someone more wise in the ways of the wiki than I please provide the following analysis to help us define "stable title"? I can't figure out exactly how to nail down these dates, and not even sure if all the moves are actually included: I believe all the rest of the moves and links to the discussions are provided in the "oldmoves" infobox template at the top of this page. I would be ever so grateful to have these dates documented with links to the discussions that prompted them. Thanks. Ἀλήθεια 17:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) created as "Creation Account in Genesis" on Oct 29, 2004 - spin-off from "Creationism" to specifically cover the Genesis text.
 * 2) moved to "Creation account in Genesis" on ?date? - no need for discussion, simply following capitalization conventions.
 * 3) moved to "Creation account(s) in Gensesis on ?date? with no discussion or consensus to move.
 * 4) moved back to "Creation account in Genesis" on ?date? - no need for discussion, based on improper protocol for the preceding move.
 * 5) moved to "Creation according to Genesis" on ?date? - discussion?
 * | See this Ἀλήθεια. It doesn't look like the page was ever really that stable, although there wasn't much more than a 'split' request from "Creation according to genesis", and even that was almost unanimously opposed. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 18:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on the move discussion
A quick comparison to all of the other Requested Moves shows this one to have already exceeded all of them in verbosity and number of words. In fact, this discussion (over 200k bytes) is already about three times as long as the article itself (approx. 81k bytes), and we are only one week into it! I believe everything that can be said has been said, and then some. I support a closing of this RM by an admin, though I suspect I'm in a minority in that regard. First Light (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, its been 7 days, put it out of its misery... no consensus is going to be reached here. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 16:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here here. Close this thread so we can all move on. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" means that the status quo is maintained. If we can't agree on a change, then no change is made. Reverting back to the original title would require a different proposal.
 * To the closing admin, what procedure is necessary for a moratorium on future move requests? I won't do it myself but it would likely be beneficial. Roches (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A moratorium request can be !voted on, or an admin can simply pro-actively create one, as one did when she closed Move Request #12. That year-long moratorium ended up lasting over one year and eight months before this latest try, so it was very effective. I request the closing admin to add a 12-month moratorium to their closure again. First Light (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note what I said above, because the 'narrative' title has never been stable, the default is not actually to maintain the status quo, at least according to policy guidelines. It is still up to the admin who closes this though. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 00:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any title here will ever be stable by that definition, because the editors who come to discuss these move requests aren't, um, stable ;-) . First Light (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A fair point! but as i said above, thats why this guideline exists in the first place, to end otherwise unresolvable disputes. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 04:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I propose that this discussion be dropped, and that energy be devoted to improving this and other articles. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats all well and good to propose... but the past 4 years of constant move requests indicate that this problem is not going to go away on its own. I think I have demonstrated that "Creation according to Genesis" is probably the closest thing this article has ever had to a stable title, and even regardless of whether it was stable or not, it should be the default move (as per the guidelines) given that the current title is not stable, as it was the first non-stub title. However, I agree that the discussion has ended and that a decision should now be made by an admin. I just don't see how you can possibly say that it should be 'dropped' given the massive number of comments put into this discussion. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 22:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just sensing that, as you say, the "discussion has ended", so don't take "dropped" personally. No provocation intended. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to flog a dead horse here, but you are adopting a very unusual definition of "stub", considering the article in question was around 1500 words when its name was changed. WP:STUB notes that 250 or 500 words is usually regarded as the point at which an article is no longer a stub. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It also says: "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written. Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, and any decision on the article has to come down to an editor's best judgement (the user essay on the Croughton-London rule may be of use when trying to judge whether an article is a stub). Similarly, stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." Previous discussion here indicated that the article at the time in question was woefully unbalanced and incomplete, so it could reasonably be considered a stub. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Accurate usage data Google searches are useful but corpus linguistics is more reliable. While we're waiting for a Solomonic admin willing to close this discussion, here are the results of searching the 450-million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English for "creation narrative" and "creation myth". Start here, enter the WORD and COLLOCATES, and SEARCH. With the default COLLOCATES setting of 4 words (between the search terms), which gives skewed results like "Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation" and "The exhibit's narrative starts with the creation of the Magna Carta", "creation myth" occurs 109 times (7 with "Genesis"), and "creation narrative" 44 times (5 with "Genesis"). With COLLOCATES set to the most specific 1, "creation myth" occurs 83 times (5 with "Genesis") and "creation narrative" 20 times (5 with "Genesis"). Keahapana (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah... that backs up the google data, which also found that narrative was very rarely used. but if you only got results when omitting 'genesis' it doesn't mean much mate. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Google scholar data shows that "Genesis creation myth" is much more rare than "Genesis creation narrative." Though, again, both are less common than the alternatives "..story" and "creation in genesis." Unfortunately, the lack of willingness to compromise here means we'll be no-consensusing to the title that has been stable for four years, Genesis creation narrative. Note that the title itself has been stable for four years, which is what I believe a no consensus result will have to stay with. Attempts to destabilize the situation with repeated move requests is not a legitimate reason to change the title to another one — which will likely be just as prone to move requests. First Light (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes to the first part, 'myth' and 'narrative' are both fairly uncommon terms in the google data. But how can you say that "Genesis creation narrative" has been stable? All but 2 of the 8 move requests resulted in No Consensus, only two of them were Not Moved. This indicates that the title was left at 'narrative' only because it was the status quo and no consensus could be reached for a change to another title. In none of these move requests (even the ones that were "not moved") was there a consensus that "Genesis creation narrative" was the best title; it was simply left there because of a lack of consensus for any other title. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 03:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP policy and guidelines use "stable" in relation to article titles to refer to how long an article has remained at the same title. I haven't seen anything to indicate that it refers to the frequency of page move discussions, their outcomes, or the relative stability of the editors who keep agitating for page moves. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by policy or guidelines that indicate widespread acceptance of your interpretation of the term. First Light (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain that 'stable' is ever defined clearly. However, the only section to use 'stable' in WP:Article titles is the 'Considering title changes' section:
 * "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
 * Note: This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style, which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in the Jguk case.
 * Note that there is a Ref added that notes that this policy was adopted to stop move warring, which seems to apply rather aptly to this article. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 05:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When was there move-warring here? StAnselm (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess there is a lot of room for interpretation for that policy and its wording. I would like to see a controversial page move that has a history very similar to this one, where that policy was applied in the way you are proposing. First Light (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I continue to support closure of the RfC with a result of "no consensus." I also think a moratorium is appropriate. The only time consensus was reached on a move for this page was the move to the current title, and the current title has survived multiple challenges. That would make it, in my opinion, "stable." Roches (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The title should tell the reader the name of the subject, not inject an opinion into it. The corresponding article in New Catholic Encyclopedia is titled simply "Creation," so perhaps "Creation (Biblical)". If the title needs a descriptor, "story" is far more common than either "narrative" or "myth." H. Humbert (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked Harpercollins Bible Dictionary and Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary. They handle it the same way as NCE. That is to say, they both have articles on the Genesis story titled "Creation." That's a consensus among Catholic, secular academic, and evangelical references. H. Humbert (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but balance would certainly include checking Jewish and general academic sources as well.


 * Oppose and time to close as no consensus - honestly this move request is a solution looking for a problem. The current title is descriptive, accurate, and recognizable. Yes, the proposed title is also that, but suffers from the issue mentioned above, that in lay usage "myth" can be perceived as something that we're saying is untrue. And "genesis creation myth" is not so overwhelmingly the common name that we have to call it that. There is simply no need to move this from the current title, and I would suggest another moratorium on requests, as it's a time waster. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The multiple "challenges" are precisely why this very unpopular title is not "stable". See you back here for the next move request! ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.