Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 6

Due Diligence
Considering that the main argument against the usage of the term "Creation myth" is one of people getting upset because they think it's being used informally and that policy after policy state that when using such words it's important to make sure that formal context and usage is established the following IMO meets that burden. We have a wikilink to the actual Creation Myth article which clarifies the context, I've just added a FAQ to further explain and we have a novella's worth of repetitive clarification. Anyone that still has issues or thinks that people are going to be confused should probably visit WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Have a little faith in your fellows, any reasonably intelligent person should get that we're not using the pejorative "myth" considering all that has been done. If they don't then they're likely the type of person that is just looking for an excuse to be offended. Nefariousski (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Supposed to leave typos alone... can't... do it... argh! Spellcheck > self-restraint -- King Öomie  17:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nefariousski. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's early and the coffee is still brewing. You have full permission to fix any of my typos :)  Nefariousski (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth vs Story vs Account
I can see how some Christians might take offense at the word "myth". On the other hand, I think the word "account" is not quite right either. I vote for "story" as a middle ground.

Trelawnie (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read the archived discussion at Talk:Creationism? Gabbe (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or any of the 300KB of text above? Ship has sailed more often than a Carnival cruise. -- King Öomie 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, changing "creation myth" to "creation account" makes it real. That is the religionists' purpose. CUSH 06:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the term "religionist". It rings with the same "I don't like these people, but I have no valid arguments" that "Evolutionist" or "Darwinist" has.
 * Which isn't to say that I wouldn't appreciate having access to a simple, plural word meaning "one of religious persuasion". I'm tired of having to say "The religious". -- King Öomie  14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is the religious who term everyone -ists to demean them, to imply a similarly uncompromizing adherence to ideology as they themselves hold. Religionists are those folks who believe to possess all the answers. Exactly those who think that Genesis *is* an account (i.e. a description of actual events) and not some myth (some made-up stuff). CUSH 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While you're entitled to your opinion, this is not helpful. This is one more thing people can point at and say "we're being persecuted, they have an agenda". Please don't be that. -- King Öomie  15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do in fact not care if folks feel persecuted because they cannot proselytize as much as they would like to. And of course I have an agenda. Its name is "accuracy on Wikipedia". The creation stuff in Genesis is a myth as any other myth about creation all throughout history. Why treat it differently by making it appear real? Giving an account is not the same as telling a myth. CUSH 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Creation Myth' is a scholarly term that does not assign truth value, as outlined in the FAQ above. THAT is why we're proposing it rather than the less-formal 'account' or 'story'. We're not here to smack the poor believers around. But given your... dislike for the religious people here, I'd think you'd avoid giving them ammo. Cut it out. -- King Öomie  20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I preserve neutrality in articles but certainly not on talk pages. I am sick beyond description of religiously non-neutral language being introduced into articles that touch religious issues. I would certainly like to move "Yahweh" to "Yahweh (mythology)" just as other articles on deities are presented. NPOV is key. THAT's the reason we are removing language that seeks to present religious claims as reality. CUSH 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You were not involved in the quite sizeable debate above. Please don't hijack this for your own purposes. Wikipedia does not declare any religions 'false', and it is not NPOV to assert that it should. -- King Öomie 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Christian and Jewish fundamentalists have been hijacking countless articles that refer to issues that touch religious doctrine, especially articles about certain events and periods in ancient Middle Eastern history. Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading doctrine for any particular faith. Hence we use neutral language and we use reliable sources that have critically analyzed the claims made by the teachings of the faith at issue. I am content with "myth" or "story", although I think that myth is not a piece of writing. CUSH 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that there are some editors who try to push their POV with fanatical fury but reacting in an emotional way doesn't do anything but turn the editing process into a tit for tat, us vs. them bitch session. When they make an edit to "Creation Fact" and justify it on the basis of the bible being 100% literally true and then you change the edit to "Creation Bullshit" and justify it on the basis of the bible being a complete lie nobody has gained higher ground and both sides end up looking like petulant children.  POV hijack type edits can be fixed without asserting opposite POV, policy is on your side.  It's easy to get emotional on both sides of the fence regarding these articles but in the end cooler heads prevail.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with footnote 1
Footnote 1 gives a link to a subscription-only website (Oxford Reference online). Nothing wrong with the reliability of the site, but being subscription-only means it isn't readily confirmable by the average user, which is something all wiki-refs are supposed to be. I suggest someone who thinks this is important takes the definition or whatever it is you think important from that site and paste it into the footnote - the link itself should stay, of course. PiCo (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find that very hard to believe. After all, the link to the online version of the book is simply an added convenience - physical copies of the book are likely "readily available" in most academic and decent public libraries. Do you have a reference to some policy or guideline that defines "readily confirmable" and that "all wiki-refs are supposed to be [readily confirmable]"? Nevertheless, how much of quote are you looking for exactly? The most relevant sentence is probably:
 * "In Gen. the Creation and the Fall are myths, and are markedly similar to the creation stories of Israel's Near Eastern neighbours."
 * I hope that helps, but please reply re: policy/guidelines. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PAYWALL. This is not considered a burden on editors, any more than if you had to go out and buy a book to check a reference. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (as a way to resolve every reasonable concern)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Genesis creation myth. Ucucha 16:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis → Biblical creation myth — A quick Google scholar search shows this term is the more common method to refer to this article's subject (151 vs. 120 hits, not mention an additional 72 hits for "Genesis creation myth"). This also has the benefit of bringing this article into line with other similar articles of ours, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, etc, and again not to mention to countless "X mythology" articles that give an overview of a creation myth as part of the article. It is also perfectly in line with our WP:RNPOV policy and WP:WTA guideline. But perhaps the biggest benefit for everyone here is that it allows us to completely resolve the above issues, namely, the complete disambiguation of the term creation myth in the lead sentence to everyone's satisfaction without resorting to a parenthetical or explanatory footnote to do so.
 * The biblical creation myth (or Genesis creation myth) is the (some favoured expansion of the term creation myth here) contained in the first two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew bible, the Book of Genesis.

Considering most of the suggestions for a new lead above already attempt to disambiguate creation myth, filing in the above parenthetical should be something everyone here can work on together to each others satisfaction and with some editorial style. Is this a reasonable way forward? Does this solve all of the above concerns? Or am I missing something? Cheers, —Ben (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Biblical creation myth is arguable, as the term will mostly refer to Genesis. But it is important to note that the bible has passages pertaining to creation also outside of Genesis. This includes various allusions to cosmology in Psalms and other parts of the OT, as well as some passages in the NT, especially the beginning of John. Fwiiw, I see nothing wrong with the current title. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The suggestion is a non-starter and can not work at all since the New Testament also refers to creation, so lumping the Jewish views with the purely Christian views is not possible. In any case, suggestion should be discussed after the resolution of current debate, for it will even lengthen the debate. My prediction: suggestion will fail anyway after much wasted time. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you sketch out the main differences between the Christian creation myth and the Jewish creation myth? I was not aware of any distinction between them. Gabbe (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In a variety of Christian theologies, the second and third persons of the Trinity play important roles in creation. This is obviously not the case for Jewish theology. Creation theology that relies on such ideas often focuses on the first chapter of the book of John. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is right. And in fact reminds me of a topic for later attention, namely art. The art in this article needs help, and one of the items not shown is that well into the 14th century Jesus was depicted creating the world within Christian Bibles, given the assumed restrictions of Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18. But that is another issue. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify at this point: if a reader wanted an overview of creation from a Christian theology perspective, which article should give them that? Ben (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We used to have an article entitled Creation (theology), but it attracted too much cruft and was deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a section on New Testament or Christian only perspectives or something like that may be added. If people are not clear here on this, that means the article needs help. I am personally not that clear on all the differences anyway, so it will help me too. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, is it reasonable to say that an article renaming is going to make it a lot easier to talk about the details mentioned in this section? The opening chapters of Genesis are a great influence when it comes to Judeo-Christian thought on creation, but the fact that there are passages related to creation and that these too have influenced thought on creation should be mentioned. If we widen the scope of this article just a bit, then with this article acting as a top-level article on Judeo-Christian thought on creation we are easily able to fork off information into sub-articles as the need arises. I think this strategy is preferable to trying to build multiple articles in parallel (creation (theology) for instance) that necessarily have significant overlap. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the following move: Creation according to Genesis → Genesis creation myth. Biblical is way too broad a term for this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * with the opening sentence being: The Genesis creation myth is a narrative found in the first two chapters of the Hebrew Bible, describing the origins of the universe and life from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: does anyone have any arguments why we should title this article in a fundamentally different manner from the way other articles in Category:Creation myths are titled? I mean, apart from the fact that the adherents of Genesis are more numerous than the adherents of Völuspá. Gabbe (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the base argument against it pointed out above by Dab, Apologist and myself that it is "flatly inconsistent" from a theological view anyway, you have correctly observed that it is also a totally inconsistent naming convention. From a cynical perspective, which of course none of us here is an adherent of, that would telegraph the word myth much sooner to the reader. But I am absolutely sure that Ben has no intention of doing that, of course. History2007 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of what you just wrote makes sense, but I will defend myself. If it was simply my intention to force a term down peoples throats without clarification, against what you and Afaprof01 want, then leaving the article title as is better serves that purpose. That is not my intention, but I do want this article to be consistent with our other articles, our policies and guidelines, and by extension relevant reliable sources. I do think that if the article was renamed we both get what we want, and I have explained this above. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did say it was not your intention, of course. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly? It seems obvious to me that was what you were implying, albeit in a sardonic kind of way. Gabbe (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are other creation accounts in the Bible - Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Psalms, etc. Plus, it doesn't seem that the move is ideologically neutral. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first concern would be assuaged by using the term "Genesis creation myth", would it not? By your second concern, do you mean to say that you're assuming bad faith? Gabbe (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. 2) Not at all - but the term "myth" carries all sorts of baggage. It would be a move from a more neutral-sounding title to a less neutral-sounding one. StAnselm (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with St Anselm. And again, it is also a non standard naming convention, as above. But dear saint, be prepared for long debates on this page, and as a friendly piece of advice, please recall what Dante said: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. Neutral has many meanings on this page. History2007 (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * StAnselm: You're saying it would be in the interest of neutrality to have articles titled Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Mesoamerican creation myths, Earth-maker myth, Pelasgian creation myth and Sumerian creation myth, but not an article titled "Genesis creation myth"? Gabbe (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Genesis creation myth instead of biblical creation myth per the above notes. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
Editors here may be interested in the above article, which is full of original research. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

biblegateway.com
Is there any reason why we link to these guys, and not use ordinary references and a link to the commons wikisource:Genesis (if applicable)? The website looks pretty rife with advertising, and I'm fairly opposed to linking to sites like that unless there are no alternatives. Thoughts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * biblegateway.com is a comprehensive collection of bible editions, and although it does not feature apocrypha or the Septuagint, it's a acceptable reference to use. I would of course recommend sacred-texts.com as well. CUSH  13:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikisource Genesis is dominated by Evangelical and out-of-date translations, none of them up to date or really reliable. Biblegateway is preferable. PiCo (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Wikisource is a wiki, and each of the translations are public domain, there is no reason we can't just copy desired translations across is there? This is not something we have to do right now, after all links to online versions of references are simply conveniences while the actual reference is the critical part. Linking to wikisource instead of biblegateway.com encourages us (wikifolk) to start building our own collection. Secondly, no-one seems to be addressing the issue of using two different referencing styles, one for the Bible and another for everything else. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the reason for prefering Bible Gateway is the alternative to change translation instantly, with a wealth of translations available. Without biblegateway.com we would have numerous irresolvable and completely unncessary wars over KJV vs. NIV vs. Douay-Rheims vs. NASB etc. Gabbe (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth is unsourced
"Myth" is unsourced. "Genesis" is an account of creation. If we wish to portray Genesis as a "myth" in our article we would need a source to support the use of the word myth.

"Myth" puts a particular "spin" on the narrative of creation that is provided in Genesis. The FAQ explains that it (myth) is used by "academics and scholars," but we don't know that — because no source is provided.

Furthermore minority views should not be vaulted up to the level of majority views. WP:NEUTRAL requires the representation of "all significant views." Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the reference was removed by so I've readded it. Also, the relevant policy/guidelines are at WP:WTA and WP:RNPOV. Gabbe (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused. Creation Myth is the term that is used / sourced and there's an entire FAQ to clear this up for you.  Feel free to scroll up to the top of this talk page and check it out.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

somebody should add the evolution myth on this page. --Templeknight (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ... what? You might need to clarify your question. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This text is accepted as a true documentation by many people. It is ok to write that many others have accepted another idea as their truth. But to judge the truth by using the word myth is not a NPOV ! --Templeknight (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see the earlier discussions. Whether some people consider it truth or not is irrelevant to the fact: no one witnessed any of the events described, and there is no evidence to support it. Just like Greco-Roman or Norse mythology, the story of Genesis is accurately described by scholars as mythology. Doesn't make it true or false to call it a myth. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia. Not a religionist platform. And there is no such thing as personal truth. Either you have reliable sources that feature solid evidence to show that Genesis is a "documentation" or you leave the article alone. Creation Myths exist in many religions, including Judaism and its offshoots. And the Jewish creation myth is not special or more "true" that any other, especially as we know that most of it is stolen from various Mesopotamian traditions anyways. CUSH 00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The word myth is a POV judgement about the quality of this documentation. wikipedi should only publish NPOV. It is a fact that it is a documentation. And it is a fact that this documentation has never been proven wrong. The fact that it scientificaly hasnt proven right either is not important in this case it should be described as documentation and nothing else. --Templeknight (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So here we go with stereotypical creationist rant. This is an encyclopedia with rules. You are not exempt from providing reliable sources for what you seek to write into an article. You may write that certain fringe religious groupings view Genesis as literally true, because that can be easily sourced, but you may not write that Genesis is in fact literally true, because that - as we all know - cannot be sourced at all. The creation as described in Genesis is a myth as is that of any other religious group. It is not any more special than that of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Maya, the Inca, the Mesopotamians, the Chinese, or that of anybody else. It is clearly a religious story and not one describing actual events in the formation of the universe, the solar system, or the earth with its features. CUSH 11:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not say it should be written that it is true .... I said it is a documentation. It is ok to mention that this documentation is been considered false by some and considered true by others. But wikipedia is not the place to judge who is right. --Templeknight (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Talking about the "Genesis creation myth" is not the same thing as saying that Genesis is false. See the FAQ above. Gabbe (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Truth is not a matter of personal consideration. Documentation means the description of something that actually happened, which is clearly not so. Otherwise there would be indications for that. You may write that some hold on to the myth and others don't.
 * But we do not open a separate section for the sheeple of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. CUSH 11:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At GABBE: Ask 20 Persons on the street if they believe that a MYTH is something true or just an old story and you will understand the problem with using this word. It doesnt matter what some english teacher might think about its meaning if the rest of the world uses the word different.

At Cush: you dont have a NPOV ...... There are many scientific proofs about the Genesis documentation ... but again we should not discuss here if this is true or not we should just take care that we have NPOV. --Templeknight (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is proofs, you should not have trouble finding reliable publications elaborating on them, should you? CUSH 12:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * thats right but we dont need them here since this is not a discussion about if this is true or not.

But for your private Information some scinetific proofs: Big_Bang      Mendelian_inheritance --Templeknight (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that formal meaning of the word "myth" differs from the informal meaning is no argument against using the word "myth" in a formal setting. See WP:WTA: "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception." Gabbe (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

But it looks like informal use. And WP:WTA tells us to not use it this way. --Templeknight (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What leads you to conclude that the word is used informally? Gabbe (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Its the typical impression most people get. --Templeknight (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not most people.
 * Oh, and please stop messing up the indentation. CUSH  21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Templeknight: How do you know that its the typical impression most people get? Gabbe (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We already went through why this is a useless line of reasoning: The encyclopedia isn't written according to "typical impressions", otherwise scientific articles wouldn't use the word theory, the universe article would contain significant discussion of geocentrism as a current model, the evolution article would talk about how wrong the concept is, all but the most basic topics would be empty or non-existent pages, etc. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to give short expositions of topics that are consistent with experts and reliable sources on the topic. Consistency with "typical impressions" is not even on the radar. If that's your cup of tea though and you just want to be told what you already know, I suggest Conservapedia. I also think this be added to the FAQ. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation account
Just like any other article on any other subject this article is subject to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The article is on the subject of the Genesis creation myth, but it (Genesis) is considered the "living word of God" by some people. It is highly disingenuous to foist upon the general reader the untenable notion that "myth" does not mean "myth." Whether used "formally" or "informally" a similar notion is conveyed. Scholars and academics do not just happen to choose a term that conveys "falsehood" in its "informal" application. This is by design, because "scholars and academics" examine a multiplicity of religious and pseudo-religious explanations for the origin of existence. These explanations are at odds with one another, and none of them hold up to scientific scrutiny. The term "myth" fulfills the needs in this context just as it fulfills similar requirements in so-called "informal" contexts. Neutral point of view calls for the representation of all significant countervailing views. Thus the veracity and literal factuality of Genesis warrants a place in this article. Though the title may be the Genesis creation myth, elsewhere in the article reference should be made to for instance the "Genesis creation account." The "account" of creation according to Genesis represents a neutral point of view. It neither attributes "falsehood" to itself nor does it assert that it is unambiguously the final word on the subject of "creation." Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A word of encouragement. Thanks, Bus stop, for joining this debate. I happen to completely agree with you, and you state it very well. Please don't get discouraged and give up. Just know you are not alone in this! Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are perfectly correct when you say "[j]ust like any other article on any other subject this article is subject to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy," but the rest of your post indicates that it's likely you haven't read, or properly understood, what you're quoting. The word neutral here doesn't mean "it sounds good to group X", it means neutral with respect to reliable sources. That is, we write articles that are consistent with and in proportion to reliable sources on a given topic. What you, me, or anyone else likes is irrelevant. Finally, please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Cheers, Ben (talk)
 * Bus stop: The WP:NPOV policy contains a portion specifically dealing with religion: WP:RNPOV. Have you read it? Gabbe (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument in favour of using the phrase "creation myth" is basically this: Wikipedia articles follow what academics and other experts on their respective topic do (see WP:SOURCES). We don't try to best them by "improving" their terminology. The fact that terms they use may be offensive to readers is not an argument against using such terms, since Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:CENSOR). Therefore, the word "account" is not neutral, but the term "creation myth" is. And finally, the view that Genesis is not only true but literally true is held by only a very small minority. Not only among scholars and scientists, but even within Christianity and Judaism. Because of this, the "Genesis is literally true" viewpoint might not deserve mention in this article at all, per WP:DUE. But that is irrelevant, since this article doesn't say or imply that Genesis is not to be taken literally. Gabbe (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say is not true because 1 130 000 000 members of the roman catholic church share the catholic truth which believe the creation documentation is literaly true (CIC Can. 750 -§ 1). So this realy should be mentioned. --Templeknight (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Roman Catholicism holds Genesis to be religiously true, not literally. And the number of Catholic adherents who do hold the creation in Genesis to be literally true is fringe.
 * BTW I was raised a Roman Catholic. CUSH 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Templeknight: Roman Catholics are among those Christians that almost exclusively assert that Genesis is not to be interpreted literally. See for example The Gift of Scripture. Gabbe (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. It is the law of church that orers to take bible literaly and everybody that doesnt is been considered a heretic. And related to your link just have a look at Dei_Verbum. And I guess wikipedia is not the place to judge how many catholics realy believe in the catholic teaching. And even this discussion is unnecessary since it is a fact that 1 1300 000 000 people are members of a church that publicly teaches that the bible is literaly true. For this reason it should not be said that this is a believe of a small group and doesnt deserve to be mentioned --Templeknight (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "orers" are, but Dei Verbum explicitly requires that "the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended", paying attention to such things as literary forms, historical context, and overall message. As a relevant examples, the Catholic Church has for a quite a while now accepted evolution as true and compatible with Genesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dont mix things up right now .... ofcourse catholic church accepts the scientific research about the creation and the evolotion theory took its main parts out of creation science:  Mendelian_inheritance and  Big_Bang --Templeknight (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There may be legitimacy for the term "myth" in this context. But you are using it to hit people over the head with it, figuratively speaking. It needs to be placed in its context so that the reader is presented with a full and evenhanded picture of extant approaches to the entity called "Genesis." It is a literary work that provides a cornerstone of religions. There is no need to endorse falseness or veracity in relation to that entity. And it is not educational to present material without explanation. One should not have to look to the "FAQ" to comprehend the article. There is a place in the article for the verbose spelling out of the academic usage of the term "myth," as well as any distinctions that may be deemed necessary between any "formal" and "informal" use of the term "myth." All of this should be sourced and all of this should be in plain English right in article space. No reader of the article should need a familiarity with WP:RNPOV to comprehend the article. WP:RNPOV exists to spell out problems that have been encountered and how to approach them. But the article itself should not be cryptic, relying on a circumlocutious path to the FAQ and to WP:RNPOV. The article is supposed to elucidate. The article is not supposed to muddy the issue or pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The word "myth" is the same word in the two usages in which you are claiming it is used. It is therefore incumbent on you, the editor, to explain the apparent contradiction in the two meanings, or at least the two usages, of the word. This should be thoroughly done in article space. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. So do you advocate as in depth a discussion of the term theory in every scientific article that uses the term? Or do you think a wikilink to an article that discusses the term theory should suffice in the event a reader is curious? Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as a theory is prooven it is not longer called a theory so this question doesnt hit reality. --Templeknight (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientific theories are never proven, but we're way off topic here. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Templeknight: Ok, this last comment disqualified you from the discussion. You are scientifically illiterate. Either come up with substantial sources or leave this article and its discussion alone. CUSH 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont need to bring sources for this because this is not the topic of our discussion...... and you are leading us far away ..... --Templeknight (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you claim that Genesis is an actual account, you are the one to present the sources that feature the evidence for it. Otherwise it remains what it is: a myth. Both in academic terms as well as in common vernacular. CUSH 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now you gave the proof we needed ..... so you call it myth because you dont think its true ! This is your POV and has not to be used in a wikipedia article ! Do we realy need to discuss this more ? Its very obvious now isnt it ? --Templeknight (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CUSH is speaking for himself and is not necessarily representing Wikipedia in general. Gabbe (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats right but it is a very good example that shows how many people take it ! So can you give me any reason why this should be used ? --Templeknight (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should treat topics the way standard works of reference do. Take the New Catholic Study Bible, for example. This is what they have to say regarding "myth" and "Genesis":


 * Wikipedia puts "Genesis" and "creation myth" in the same sentence because that's what reliable sources do. Gabbe (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gabbe, I believe you once suggested putting into the lead some scholarly description of "myth" in this context. Yours is certainly scholarly, and there's more below in my Hyers quote. Do you think we might draft something "scholarly" now for the lead? ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This sentence "The first eleven chapters of Genesis are much closer to mythical forms of writing" states very clearly without any doubt that it is not a myth. So this supports my argumentation. --Templeknight (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It supports your WHAT??? ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Templeknight: If by "myth" you mean "false story", then I agree. The text I quoted doesn't say that Genesis is a "myth". But neither does this Wikipedia article. The text I quoted, just like this article, uses the word "myth" in a different context. Gabbe (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to |Dr. Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative mythology and the history of religions:


 * The old adage says, "Perception is in the eye of the beholder." Here is a well-respected theologian-author whose expertise extends to comparative mythology and the history of religions. If anyone should know what connotations are conjured up by the term "myth" (and he's writing about creation myth), it would be someone with his credentials. And he claims what many of us have been claiming on these Talk pages: "myth" is offensive to adherents of Christianity and Judaism who revere Genesis, and the many other places in the Bible that affirm the Genesis creation account, as somehow sacred.


 * We label the outside of some shipping containers with the words, "Please Handle with Care." That's all most of us are asking in this and similar articles. Please Handle with Care. Call it a creation myth, but do so with literary awe rather than arrogance, with deference rather than disdain. There is tremendous precedence for introducing the article(s) as "the biblical accounts of creation in Genesis." "Account" is neutral. Next, it literary class or genre is called a "creation myth." Then, in deference to those possibly "poor ignoramus illiterates" who have a conditioned knee-jerk response to the word "myth" as always connoting fantasy and fiction and who are now flushed with indignation and want to change channels, we gently explain that it is a technical term without implication of accuracy or error.


 * Please remember that many of our readers approach this article with a predisposition of biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility. According to that "unimpeachable resource" Wikipedia, "the term 'inerrancy' is often used by conservative theologians in all religions: in Judaism to refer to the Torah; in Christianity to refer to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, also known to Christians as the Old and New Testaments; in Islam to refer to the Qur'an, and in other religions to refer to their own holy books."


 * Through the pages and pages of this Talk page, no one has ever given a sensible reason why the lead cannot (or must not) explain to the uninitiated that "creation myth" does not imply falsity.
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.
 * It should summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies
 * The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.
 * It should create interest in reading the whole article (not run a significant risk of offending those who revere the Bible as holy and sacred, incidentally which does not necessarily address the dimension of literal or figurative.


 * Thank you for your re-consideration of this most important point that obviously concerns many. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Please remember that many of our readers approach this article with a predisposition of biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility." I doubt that. This is the English Wikipedia, which serves as the international Wikipedia. The number of people who maintain biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility is restricted to the far right adherents of Protestant churches in the US and a handful of Catholics around the world. The official position of the major Christian churches, namely orthodoxy (Catholicism and Eastern orthodox churches, making up two thirds of Christianity), does not build on literal interpretations of the Creation story. Beliefs in strict biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility are almost solely US American phenomena. CUSH  22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Afaprof01: The question of whether the phrase "creation myth" is offensive or not might not be as relevant as you claim, since Wikipedia is not censored (WP:CENSOR). There have been countless discussions elsewhere about whether or not we should feature pictures of Muhammad in relevant articles here, which (arguably) is more offensive to millions of Muslims than the phrase "creation myth" is to millions of Christians. I can't remember there ever being riots and violence regarding the phrase "creation myth", for example. But trying to fit things in a spectrum of offence isn't going to get us anywhere. Anyway, in the Muhammad case, the consensus has long been that the usability of said images overrides the offence that they might cause among readers. The term "creation myth" is useful, since it connects with similar documents from other religions. And offensiveness issues aside, that it is an otherwise apt description does not seem to be in dispute. Why should we act differently in this case, and cater to the readers' possible sense of offence?

I think the "readers might not understand what we're trying to say" argument could be worthy of further discussion, so that we might reach a lead that not only exemplifies the highest standards of accuracy and concision but informativeness as well. But the whole "this is offensive" argument really is a dead end in my view. If we set out to not offend anyone, writing Wikipedia would become impossible. Gabbe (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As always, I truly appreciate your rebuttal and the considerate and scholarly way you write it. Would you consider joining in an effort to address the "readers might not understand what we're trying to say" issue? That's very valid and is backed up by both your recent citation and mine. There are others out there that are saying the same thing. The reason for the offense is incomplete or improper understanding of the technical definition. But it should be addressed from this perspective:
 * "Further, there are things of which the mind understands one part, but remains ignorant of the other; and when man is one is [sic] able to comprehend certain things, it does not follow that he must be able to comprehend everything.─Maimonides"
 * ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this within reason. There is no reason we can't offer a more or less complete expansion of the term creation myth in the very first sentence now. On the one hand the article title allows us to remain accurate and consistent with reliable sources while on the other hand the expansion of the term completely disambiguates it. Ben (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that debates on this page have gone through more circles than a whirling dervish. Honestly, I think we're in WP:BRD country now, as long as people remember that the "D" in "BRD" is not referring to edit summaries. Gabbe (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis
For most of its history, this article was called "Creation according to Genesis". This is a NPOV title. Calling it by a POV title and slapping on a FAQ that notes that this POV is shared among academics who share that POV is not the Wikipedia way. Wikipedia is not a science textbook. --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both "Creation according to Genesis" and "Genesis creation myth" are reasonably NPOV. I reflexively lean to support the "myth" variant, mostly because the arguments against it are so crappy. But I really think the old title is clearer and preferable (if only slightly). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes "Creation according to Genesis" is NPOV so we should change it back. --Templeknight (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Both titles are fine, and frankly synonymous. However, the apposition "Genesis creation myth" strikes me as less than elegant English. Of course, another problem is that "Genesis" itself means "creation", the book's Greek name being taken from the fact that it contains the creation story. A more erudite title would be something like "Cosmogony narratives in Genesis" or "Creation stories in Genesis or similar.

I do appreciate that this isn't a honest debate about the best article title, but an ideologically fuelled dispute surrounding the interpretation of the term "myth". This is unfortunate, but as always, Wikipedia needs to make do with such contributions as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Sumerian creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Ancient Egyptian creation myths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Mesoamerican creation myths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Pelasgian creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Tongan creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. While I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I fail to see what's NPOV about using the term 'Creation Myth' for every other specific article about these subjects, and then ousting it for the sake of a few editors who, weeks later, still can't pick up a dictionary. -- King Öomie 13:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * King Öomie — This is the English Wikipedia. Most of those articles that you have suggested above would find their native language to involve other than English. And their cultures are not generally speaking the cultures associated with the English speaking component of the world's population. There is is an impropriety in naming any of them as "myths" as doing so fails to represent the minority views that one can assume are probably found in at least a few reliable sources. It is a self-centered impetus that causes one to impose a view on other cultures and belief systems and NPOV is there to prevent this. NPOV allows for the representation of all significant views. The proper place for the addressing of perhaps conflicting views is in the body of the article proper. The title cannot possibly adequately address divergent views. And the first sentence of an article also cannot possibly adequately address a variety of perspectives that might exist concerning these creation narratives. "Genesis" is indeed native to the segment of the human population that the English Wikipedia addresses. But reliable sources show that a variety of views exist relative to its creation narrative. They deserve thorough treatment in the main body of the article. The word "myth" is the same word used in two different ways. This nuance has to be addressed in a way that apprises the reader of the knottiness of the issue we are tackling here. This is not an issue for the wise minds of the Wikipedia editors to resolve "behind closed doors." A contradiction is found in the two different uses of the word "myth." That ambiguity or contradiction disqualifies that word from appearing in either the title or even the introductory sentences of this article. If the reader is to be brought up to speed on the issue, it has to have a thorough airing out in the body of the article. There is no reason to promote one view at the expense of another and to do so inappropriately. That is colloquially referred to as point of view pushing. It serves no one's needs. The reader needs information. The reader doesn't need to be told what to think. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 90% of your comment is rendered null and void by the difference between 'Myth' (used here) and 'Creation Myth' (and the same goes for a really sad amount of comments on this page). The reader is not being told what to think. The reader is being presented reliable literary analysis courtesy of biblical scholars. -- King Öomie  14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * King Oomie, there are equally, many thousands of "biblical scholars" who would seek to refute the notion that Creation is a "myth". Choosing which group of scholars is "correct" is not Wikipedia's role - it's POV. --Dweller (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to name any of them? Gabbe (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Genesis" does not state that Genesis is a myth. Genesis contains no words that convey that it is to be viewed figuratively, for instance. What it states, it states in an entirely straightforward manner. The source for the literal interpretation of Genesis is Genesis itself. Therefore the title should be agnostic on the issue of whether Genesis is literally true or only to be considered for instance as a metaphor for something else. Yes, you would be correct that there exists a school of thought out there that the narrative contained in Genesis might not be 100% accurate. But that is subject matter that should be taken up somewhere within the body of the article. That would be the proper place to introduce what may be a valid and reliably sourced notion of a "creation myth," as perhaps found in academic circles. But this should not be taken up in the title where its placement represents a peremptory negating of the subject matter of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the comment immediately below this one. Your comment has no bearing on the topic at hand. We are in no way dealing with, or even referring to, whether or not Genesis is true, and I'm tired of explaining that 4-5 times to the SAME EDITORS. -- King Öomie  21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus stop: The view that Genesis should be interpreted literally is held by only a small minority, not only among Christians and Jews, but among Biblical scholars (both secular and religious), theologians, and other relevant sources. As such, detailing this "Genesis is literally true" viewpoint in this article could risk violating WP:UNDUE and other policies and guidelines. This article should focus on what mainstream scholars and experts think about the content of the first chapters of Genesis. We certainly don't have to remain "agnostic on whether Genesis is literally true" as that would go against WP:GEVAL. It's perfectly neutral for this article to say that Genesis is not literally true, just as it is completely neutral for the article "Earth" to say that the Earth is several billions years old, even though a lot of biblical literalists will disagree with that. Gabbe (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not seeking consensus to call Genesis a book of myths (he clarified for the 8,000th time). We're seeking consensus that Creation Myth is a widely-used, neutral, scholarly term for a supernatural story of the creation of the earth and/or life.  -- King Öomie  20:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * David Strauss's claim that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship. --Marcus Borg here + countless other reliable refs already cited on this page (including Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible) characterising this articles topic as myth. Consistency with the mainstream is Wikipedia's role - it's WP:WEIGHT. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I support moving the title back to its original: "Creation According to Genesis." I cannot believe how quickly (and underhandedly) it was moved to this new title. The discussion is minimal, the voters are not a clear consensus. Move it back. 76.253.103.218 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Move back to Original: Yes 76.253.103.218 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You posted this both here and below. Are you formally proposing to move this article? If so, you should at least keep the discussion in one place, and probably follow the procedure listed at WP:RM. Gabbe (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth/myth moved from User Talk page space
Moving this here; no need to discuss this article on my User Talk page Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth

Regarding this edit, have you seen Talk:Genesis creation myth, in particular the FAQ on top of that page? Gabbe (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ful== February 2010 == Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from Book of Genesis. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ben (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see Tillman has resumed his relentless POV-pushing on this subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some handy links for Bugs: WP:NPA, wiktionary:resume and wiktionary:relent. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been through this many times. Tillman knows the most common use of "myth" is "fairy tale" and that's the POV he's pushing, under the guise of "scholarly". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * POV-pushing, guise... so sinister. It might behoove you to read ANY of the policies we've linked in the numerous debates. The most common, colloquial definition doesn't matter. -- King Öomie  14:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop the 'pov-pushing' comments, BB. Kingoomieeiii is correct. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This particular article makes no allowance for neutral point of view. Is the Book of Genesis not considered as anything other than a "myth" or is that its only designation? Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a neutral first sentence and Tillman does not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question: If you're asking whether Genesis is considered a "myth", in the informal sense of "a false story", then the answer is no, at least not on Wikipedia. But this informal usage of the word "myth" is generally discouraged in articles. If you're asking whether part of Genesis is considered a "creation myth", in the formal sense of "a sacred narrative providing an account of how the world was created and came to be in its present form", then the answer is yes, this is what almost all Christians, theologians and biblical scholars consider the literary genre of Genesis to be. Talking about the Genesis creation myth in this sense is perfectly neutral, as we do the same thing to other creation myths, such as the Sumerian creation myth or the Ancient Egyptian creation myths. Treating Genesis differently from other religions would not, however, be neutral. Gabbe (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the creation story article is that the creation myth information was already mentioned in the second sentence of the lead, but that wasn't good enough for Tillman, he wanted it in the first sentence, in order to bludgeon the user with the viewpoint that Genesis is a fairy tale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you keep repeating that "fairy tale" line, you may start to believe that's actually what Creation myth means. Be careful. -- King Öomie  18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what it means, to the average reader, as you and Tillman well know. You're wanting to hammer the reader over the head that that is the only viewpoitn. Tell me how that passes the neutrality standard? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With all the cranium violence in your metaphors, you'd think there'd be more traffic over at Migraine. It doesn't MATTER what the 'average reader' thinks it means. Just as we don't use "penultimate" instead of "ultimate", despite what people think they know. Words and phrases have definitions. It would be starkly biased to choose whichever one the Christians like best over the one that actually fits, according to the people who know what they're talking about. -- King Öomie  19:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're saying the same thing as Tillman, that you don't care what your readers think, because your POV is more important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to rephrase. I don't care what the reader's PRECONCEPTION is, and the scholarly definition is what will be presented, courtesy of WP:DUE. -- King Öomie  20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia is an encyclopedia by the people for the people. You want a "scholarly" work, go work for Britannica or something. The first sentence saying it's strictly a myth is a biased viewpoint. Saying it's the narrative in the book of Genesis is an unbiased viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. If you think that Wikipedia does not aim for academic accuracy you are mistaken. This is not a place to reflect or promote any people's gut feelings. The biblical Creation Myth is in no way different than that of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Maya, or anybody else. Wikipedia does not give preference to any particular religion over other religions, contemporary or extinct. There is no special treatment for the Bible just because some folks currently adhere to it. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a person. Ben (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop splitting "creation" and "myth". It's one phrase. You change the meaning when you do that, and instantly start arguing a strawman. -- King Öomie 20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFY says that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Any religious source (for instance) that asserts that the Book of Genesis is literally true provides a "significant view," and consequently is deserving of consideration for inclusion. That is in accordance with WP:NEUTRAL. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read through Talk:Genesis creation myth. And also, WP:RNPOV. -- King Öomie 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A source that asserts that Genesis is literally true is not necessarily a "significant view". For a view to be significant it has to be asserted by a fair number of experts on the topic. For example, polls conducted by Gallup have found that about 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. That alone does not make geocentrism a "significant view", since very few astronomers hold it to be true. Gabbe (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But the truth is nothing that can be decided by counting the amount of people that think this way or that way .... "Such a tendency must be resisted along with the opposite tendency to read biblical history as though it were mythical. " – New Catholic Study Bible, Saint Jerome Edition, Literary Forms of the Bible, pages 1360-61 So can anybody explain me now why this word should be used since its very obvious wrong to use it this way ? --Templeknight (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All completely irrelevant! We're not calling bible stories myths. We're using the term "Creation Myth" to refer to said creation myth in the book of genesis. Once again, don't split 'creation' and 'myth'. 'Creation Myth' is a discrete term with a precise definition, one that does not cast judgement as to whether or not the story is true. I reject the notion (as does WP:RNPOV) that we should avoid the term simply because some easily-offended individuals don't know that. -- King Öomie 04:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

moved material from my User Talk page to Article Talk page space Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

the not mythical Genesis creation myth

 * "Such a tendency must be resisted along with the opposite tendency to read biblical history as though it were mythical. " – New Catholic Study Bible, Saint Jerome Edition, Literary Forms of the Bible, pages 1360-61

What is wrong with this ? Why did you delete this ? --Templeknight (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume the source means "Genesis" when it refers to "biblical history"? Gabbe (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice the word 'myth' there, without 'creation' in front of it. This is a different term with a different meaning. -- King Öomie  14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * King Öomie — any reader would make the logical assumption that words stand on their independent meanings. It is unreasonable to expect readers to refer to a "FAQ" part of an article only to find out there exists a problem in reconciling how a word (myth) is used in a "formal" combination with another word (creation) and how that same word is used in other contexts. In order to enlighten a reader these issues should be sorted out in the body of the article. The name is misleading because the name of the article is the first thing a potential reader encounters. It is only later that they may possibly encounter the much ballyhooed "FAQ." Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And they would be wrong. "Well, me and my friends think it should be called A, and we're offended by what we think the term B means. Nevermind what experts think". To go back to Ben Tillman's analogy, the technical definition of Theory continues to go unsaid in scientific articles (and article titles). Laymen don't know what it means (yourself included, above). This is not valid criteria for exclusion. The bar for readers learning things surely lies higher up than what two f*&#ing words mean when put together. -- King Öomie  14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about being "offended." That is a word that you are using. But no one else to my knowledge has suggested "offense." Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to my browser's handy search function, both Til Eulenspiegel and Afaprof01 have claimed that the term is offensive, about a dozen times each. Til additionally claimed that we were intentionally causing offense, presumably as part of an anti-religious agenda. IP editor 71.253.143.203 likened the term to a racial epithet. But I can see where you could make that mistake- this page has swollen to almost hilarious size with the same 3-4 fruitless arguments. -- King Öomie 15:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop: By your argument readers would similarly assume that the "electoral college" is a college handing out degrees? Gabbe (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC Request for comments
WP:WTA says that " 'myth' may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing "

As may be seen in both "Lede" and "First sentence" subsections above, there is considerable controversy among this article's editors about the insistence on having the word "myth" in the very first sentence of this article. Various compromises have been suggested but never accepted through expression of consensus. One of those was to create a footnote to either "narrative" or "account," explaining the formal academic understanding of a Creation myth.
 * Proponent arguments, where present, are largely based on the definition of a Creation myth and their claim that changing "myth" to something like "narrative" or "account" will do disservice to the integrity of the article.
 * Opponents argue are that characterizing the Book of Genesis creation accounts in chapters 1 and 2 as a "myth" is an affront to both Judaism and Christianity in that it is part of their Bible which they consider sacred.

The matter is getting pretty ugly and we need your comment assistance─quickly, please. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is not considerable controversy. In the previous section there is plenty of support and a clear rationale for the use of creation myth in terms of policy, guidelines (the first sentence makes it clear we're talking about a religious topic) and reliable sources, and then there are a few editors who just don't like the term. Starting an RFC because you don't like Wikipedia's polices and relevant reliable sources is nothing short of woeful. Ben (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Woeful indeed. The case for using creation myth is very clear and supported by precedent, academic and technical.  Other very long standing wikipedia articles (the creation myth article itself), a google test, a review of sources (encyclopedic, academic and theological) while the case against it is no more than "those words offend me".  WP:WTA states "In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." the operative words being "In less formal contexts" which this article does not do. The example from WTA of "less formal contexts" is "For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue." None of which this article does. It simply references another article which very formally defines the term and the context in which it is used. Additionally you'll see that Creation Myth is a widely accepted term that has an actual definition. When one googles Define "Creation Narrative" there were no definitions or specific articles regarding the concept of "Creation Narrative" and a handful of the hits that came back on the first page specifically defined the term Creation Myth and used the words "Creation Narrative" in the discussion of the definition or encyclopedic article (not wiki) on Creation Myth. The precident and amount of support for using creation myth is HUGE. We use creation myth because it is the real and academically accepted term to describe different belief system's versions of how the world was created.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with using "creation myth" in the first sentence, as per the way these things are normally done here on Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Some days ago I made this edit in an attempt to compromise between the two camps and to strike a balance per WP:JARGON. For what its worth, I don't think that the fact that some people misunderstand or even find certain technical terms offensive is any sort of argument against using those words, as long as our usage is in line with the correct academic usage of such words. Gabbe (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Changing a formal, technical term to a made up term to placate those whom are offended by the formal and correct term isn't the right way to go.  I think the best way to keep the integrity of the intro and to calm those who dislike it would be to add a sentance or two explaining exactly what is the formal meaning of creation myth and to clarify context / intent of using the proper term.  I'd like to also note that this is the same compromise that was agreed upon when the actual creation myth article was created and that article has been fairly stable for quite some time now.Nefariousski (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the arguments above that there is no due cause to remove the term "creation myth", however its replacement with the word "narrative" wouldn't be inaccurate. What I strongly disagree with however would be the replacement originally suggested by PiCo in which it would be described as a "sacred narrative". This would clearly be an inclusion of POV. Some people think the story is sacred and others do not. Wikipedia shouldn't advocate particular people's opinions.Chhe (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:RNPOV really leaves no room to replace the term Myth in this article. If you want to challenge that policy, fine, but do it there. WP:POV is mandatory for all articles in its entirety. There will be no small 'revolution' here to serve as a beachhead. This has come up 100,000,000 times at Talk:Creation myth, and as you'll notice, that page is still exactly where it's always been. It would appear that at this point all possible arguments have been exhausted and are beginning to loop back on themselves (though they all boil down to "throw the believers a bone, won't it be nice?"). -- King Öomie 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL I can just picture King George III shrilly shrieking "There vill BE no small 'revolution' here...!" Uh, if something is manifestly and grossly unjust, and attitudes like yours are what are thrust in our faces, then of course many people who see this will rebel - it's called human nature. (Though you might have known something about that)  When will you wake up and notice that self-described "Atheist" editors haven't accomplished anything, or persuaded anyone of their correctness, by getting their POV enshrined as "NPOV" on wikipedia; it's all been in vain - five years later, the issue is still just as strong as it was five years ago, as it probably will be five years from now, too.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except no. This is not the proper place to discuss changing WP:NPOV to fit your need for religious vindication. WT:NPOV is. But feel free to compare me to more unsavory historical figures, Hitler. You ARE aware you're comparing the oppressed masses under a tyrant to volunteers on a privately-owned web site, right? -- King Öomie 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also. The tendency for logical arguments to... bounce off the heads of the religiously-motivated isn't a failing of the atheists. -- King Öomie  22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's true that I do fail to see any logic in your arguments. If NPOV policy across wikipedia is that we do not endorse an offensive POV, but rather describe and attribute all POVs neutrally, how is it "logical" for the controversial subject of Genesis to be a magic exception to that?  All I have really seen are illogical appeals to emotion from editors who describe themselves as atheist, but that are becoming difficult for many other editors to follow who don't share your perspective.   Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're being serious about Genesis being an exception to the rule, then you're letting your personal bias cloud your judgement. You don't care about WP:RNPOV. You're offended, goddamnit, and something must be done about it.
 * The comparison to removing 'SWP' or 'PBUH' or whatever it was from instances of Muhammad in islamic articles is QUITE apt, despite your assertion (at least, I think that was you). Muslims find it EXTREMELY disrespectful to lay his name bare like that, without the honorific. Every week or so someone cries out on Talk:Muhammad/Images, demanding, for the sake of decency, that the images be removed. "What will it hurt?" they ask. "Please! You offend so many, and for what?" they plead. "You will not be safe until they're gone", they threaten (and I'm not joking). Pretty much your arguments (except the death threat). Creation Myth is the accepted, scholarly term, and thus it will be used. That's exactly how simple it is. -- King Öomie  22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation Myth is a term accepted by SOME scholars. Many others have specifically rejected its application to Genesis. There has been no grand unanimity-imposing council, where all scholars had to accept this, and all those who have rejected it were branded as "heretics".  So explain to me one more time please, how exactly is it "logical" to pretend these scholars don't exist, and for us to go out of our way to use an inflammatory term, when a more neutral one would convey the same ostensible meaning? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are a tiny minority, and I don't really care what the think. In the same way that I don't care about the .0001% of scientists to advocate biblical literalism. -- King Öomie  22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I care more about what a published RS by a prominent theologian thinks, than I care about what you think - after all, you are just a wikipedia editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. I've given sources above. And not just sources that use the term, they're a dime a dozen. I have provided a source that explicitly tells us that the term is mainstream. The problem here is that you care more about what you think than what reliable sources say. You accuse others of POV pushing, but it has become blatantly obvious that it's you that is POV pushing. Ben (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've provided prominent theologians who explicitly disagree with your sources. The problem is that you are asserting some sort of magic priority for your sources and your school of thought, and refusing to acknowledge that other significant schools of thought even exist. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "4 out of 5 dentists agree that sugar-free gum is the way to go" now translates to "There is NO consensus that sugar-free gum doesn't infringe on the human rights of hypoglycemic individuals, so that's the view we should present" -- King Öomie  02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we use the word myth when the word story is much more used and less contentious? Most theologians use 'creation story' when writing for a non-technical audience (as we are). Myth is explicitly listed as a word to avoid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because "Creation Story" also fails the Google Test which tells me that it is in fact much LESS often used than Creation Myth as a stand alone term. I found zero hits on the formal definition of the term "Creation Story" not to mention an decidedly Judeo-Christian slant on all the articles that did pop up in the first few pages while Creation Myth Returned a solid dozen definitions in the first few pages, academic articles, and no faith skewing since it is a faith neutral term.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DJ, I would suggest reading the above thread and Talk:Creation myth. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I tried Google "creation myth" got 303,000 hits and "creation story" 391,000, including some Hindu hits on the first page. Which Google were you trying? The Google test is not about definitions, it's about usage. And what precisely is your objection to a 'Judeo-Christian slant' when talking about Genesis? DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DJ, We're talking about a formal term, not common usage. I googled Define "Creation Myth" in my test to see how often it is used as the formal term for what we're talking about here.  If you do the same test against any other variant (Narrative, Story etc...) you'll find that none of them are, as a term considered the formal definition of a religious or supernatural account of how it all began.  Not to mention if you type "Creation Myth" in google search and don't hit anything the drop down that shows the most popular searches tries to finish the term out with the following: Stories, Ideas, Greek, Similarities, of Buddhism, Definition, Of Egypt, of Hinduism, Lesson Plan.  If you do the same test with "Creation Story" you get: Genesis, for kids, coloring pages, of hinduism, activities, bible, in genesis, for preschoolers, of buddhism, pictures.  Which is decidely more slanted towards Judeo-Christian accounts.


 * Now let's execute both searches. Creation Myth comes up with the following article on world creation myths, A listing of world creation myths, another, Aztec Creation Myth,  an analysis of various creation myths, Egyptian Creation Myths etc... you get the picture.  Do the same with "Creation Story" and the first link The summary of the bible Story of Creation, 4 more christian websites, an article titled Hebrew/Christian Creation Myth etc...  Looking at "related Searches" we find, "Creation Story old testament", "Creation Myth story", "Creation Bible Story", "Genesis Creation Story", "Adam and Eve Creation Story"
 * My objective to Judeo Christian slant is seen in WP:WTA which specifically states that we should avoid calling one faiths account a Myth and another's a Narrrative or a story or any other term. Additionally it's pretty clear that as a stand alone term Creation Myth actually exists and means something and has strong precedence here on Wiki and everywhere else while "Creation Narrative" and "Creation Story" alone and without context mean nothing as stand alone terms (hence their lack of any definitions as stand alone terms).  Not to mention WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV dictate that we don't slant any articles towards any particular belief regardless of their content.  I know it's hard for some editors to be objective when  you have faith in a belief but that's what's required in this case.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the results of '"creation story" and about 1 in 10 were kids sites. Even if we exclude them, that still means there are more hits for creation story than creation myth. I don't see why finding more definitions makes a difference - maybe creation myth is a term that needs defining (because it's technical) and creation story doesn't.
 * I agree with your point about equal treatment for faiths, but that doesn't mean we should violate policy equally for all faiths. Myth is still a term to be avoided, according to policy, and I see no evidence that pairing it with another word somehow makes it less so. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add WP:NPOV to the above list of recommended reading. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the account of creation in Genesis 1 is a "myth" in a technical sense. And Roman Catholicism is a "cult" in a technical sense too. But outside of technical discussions, using terms like "myth" and "cult" convey emotionally charged and somewhat misleading ideas to lay audiences. Why not simply use the phrase "creation story" in the lead and then include a fuller discussion of the appropriateness of the word "myth" in the body? "Story" is fully capable of indicating a non-literal narrative, but it lacks the connotation of "bull-crap" that "myth" often carries in the popular imagination. Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My mum used to yell at me if I told "stories" and so I disagree with your assessment of the connotation of the words. Theory has negative connotations too, you know, but I don't see science articles worrying about this. In the technical sense, to use your words, theory is correct. Furthermore, your suggestion seems to fall foul of policy (WP:RNPOV). Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked WP:RNPOV, you seem to be right.Eugeneacurry (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate Déjà vu
This is in essence a Déjà vu and a repeat/replay of the debate about the use of the word "myth" within various Wikipedia articles, which has taken place elsewhere, and usually takes place around Easter every year on the Good Friday or Crucifixion of Jesus pages. Here is a link: Talk:Good_Friday

There is clear precedent that the words "myth" and "mythology" are NOT to be used within religious articles in Wikipedia for that would render an opinion about the religion, making it POV. There is absolutely no point in pitting non-believing scientists against believing priests on this talk page for the debate will never end. Those interested in debates of that type should select a suitable bar/pub and continue the discussions there: Wikipedia is no place for it. The only way is to just say that: Book A on topic B says C. This debate is a waste of time and must end based on the precedents in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such precedent, and if there was on a single article talk page it would be in violation of our NPOV policy. Ben (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

THe problem at hand is "myth" vs the proper noun "Creation Myth". They don't mean the same thing. Creation Myth does not equal myth they have two very different definitions. Creation Myth is a widely accepted formal term that does not carry any of the negative connotations in the definition of "myth". Those against using Creation Myth base their arguements solely on appeals to sensitivity around the definition of "myth". This is as silly as saying the word assassinate is offensive because it contains the word "ass" twice. The fact that there is any debate at all on using the widely accepted and formal term Creation Myth in favor of replacing it with a non formal combination of words that as a distinct term mean absolutely nothing and have no unique definition in the name of preventing offence blows my mind. The concensus out in the real world among scholars and academia regarding the use of Creation Myth is so clear as to be undebateable. Nefariousski (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can scream that it's "undebateable" til you're blue in the face, but it fails to account for all of the debate... not just here, but in the sources... not just now, but ongoing for centuries and unlikely to be resolved by mere chutzpah or bald assertion.. "Undebateable" my aunt fanny. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no debate in the sources. All of your sources criticize the use of the word "myth" which is distinctly different from a Creation Myth  You can't pick apart the parts of a term and define them independently.  The Electoral College is not an institute of higher learning because it contains the word college.  Words have meaning and context, all of your arguements and "sources" are for the wrong context and essentially the wrong word.  Creation Myth as a proper noun has to be considered as if it was one word with a unique meaning that is destroyed if either of it's component words are changed.  Definitions about America or States are wildly different than the definition of United States of America.  Nefariousski (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments with Til are likely to go in circles, so I'd save your keyboard. We have presented sources and cited policy in favour of the term creation myth, and the article is locked for three days. I suggest we stop taking baited comments like Til's and just address any relevant arguments, assuming they appear. If nothing relevant has been presented in three days then I think it's safe to assume nothing will, and we can archive this. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just making this an either/or debate
Rather than just making this an either/or debate, at this point, a third way should be looked at. Also note that Explain jargon says, as its lead, "Words and phrases used as jargon by any profession or group should usually be avoided or explained." Consider the likes of this this:

Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis and the creation narrative (colloquially) or creation myth (formal term ) found there in.
 * User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Underhanded tactics
RfC isn't a numbers game, Afaprof01. Calling in a bunch of buddies who offer the same easily refutable arguments only makes it look like POV pushing. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh look, they even have a term for it: CANVASS. Ben (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is NOT canvassing, unless he tells people which way to vote. He did not say anything to that effect, hence no canvassing has taken place. History2007 (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't been told which way to vote and I think it was quite thoughtful to get my opinion on the debate. As it happens I think on balance that "myth" or "creation myth" is ok and the right term to use. I think the mistake is to assume that "myth" is a bad thing - implying it's a fairytale or something. Instead we need to get into the head of those in civilisations long gone who understood the role of myth simply as a way to try and explain or deepen our understanding of an underlying truth or an unfathomable mystery. In this case the mystery of where we came from as humans. Myth can therefore be a beautiful thing if considered in the right way. Empiricism is important but trying to explain every part of what we are as human beings through empiricism alone can leave us unsatisfied. Myth therefore is an attempt to make us make sense or order out of what can seem to be pure disorder or randomness. It would be a mistake to see the creation of the world in 7 days as true. It isn't - it can't ever be true - we are too rational for that. But it's someone's attempt to demonstrate that God was in some way behind this strange event called creation; beyond human comprehension. The greek and roman myths serve a similar purpose. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Ithink what each of us believes is beside the point. This article should summarize the contents of the book, not pass judgment on it. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse Afaprof01 of telling people how to vote, I accused him of "an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." --CANVASS  Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clear that there was no canvassing, as the article there states. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhh, which article says that? The text Ben quoted is directly from WP:CANVASS. You don't have to tell someone "Oh, and vote this way" for it to be canvassing. He went out and tapped the shoulders of people who'd argued here and elsewhere for his side of the argument, and no one else. That's canvassing. -- King Öomie  13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, anyone can quote, e.g. the next paragraph says: Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. And I had participated in similar debates on Good Friday. So it was not canvassing in my case in any case. As was fo rseverla other people who had participated in similar debates. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He only alerted people who'd previously debated AGAINST including the term "creation myth". I don't know how I can be more clear. He did not alert anyone who'd debated FOR using it. This is the definition of vote stacking. -- King Öomie 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No he didn't, he didn't alert me! I feel quite hurt. PiCo (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only alerted ≠ alerted all. Ben (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, he did alert me, only it wasn't by posting on my talk page – he sent me a wik-email.


 * Just to set the record straight, Afaprof01 did notice me. However, King Öomie  is wrong in stating "He only alerted people who'd previously debated AGAINST including the term 'creation myth'" and "He went out and tapped the shoulders of people who'd argued here and elsewhere for his side of the argument, and no one else." I have never taken a position on any talk page or RFC on this issue, or any issue related to Genesis or Creation Myths. Afaprof01 would have little to go on to divine what my position would be. I suspect he noticed me because I have edited several articles about Christian topics. This seems entirely appropriate. I would encourage  King Öomie  to verify the facts before making such attacks in the future and to consider WP:SORRY.   Novaseminary (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two cents

 * I have contributed to several of the Creationism articles, and to this specific article over the last couple of years. Here are my two cents. I am not a young earth creationist, I accept that the Earth is 5 billion years old. Nevertheless I object to the unqualified use of the phrase "creation myth". This is a religious text that is regarded as a divine scripture by about 30% of the Earth's population. As such it does not fit into the same category as Enuma Elish and other dead pieces of literature. I do not see why it cannot be called a creation account or creation story. These are neutral terms that can be interpreted as implying fact or fiction by those who wish. The insistence of calling it a "creation myth" seems to me to be a cynical attempt to imply that the story is fiction. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It need not be unqualified. Suggestions have been made above that a footnote is added so that the use of the term is clear.  Furthermore, we already hyperlink to creation myth, so any inquisitive reader can read up on the use of language here (and find out about all of the other, mutually exclusive creation myths that exist).  Regarding your alternative suggestions, "account" implies something written by a witness (which even the YECs don't claim; or do they?), while "story" clearly implies fiction to me.  Faced with this, and the fact that we're aiming to capture something of a scholarly subject here, we should defer to mainstream expert terminology.  That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't qualify with footnotes and hyperlinks to other articles that illuminate things further.  Anyway, that's my two cents (which I seem to have spent many times over on this particular topic).  --P LUMBAGO  10:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what each of us believes is beside the point. This article should summarize the contents of the book, not pass judgment on it. History2007 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Err, isn't describing it as a "story" passing judgement on it? You might think not, but I do (and vice versa, of course).  Hence why I suggested just using default academic language instead of importing "mainstream" (whatever that is) language.  I'm well aware that our views (yes, both of us) are beside the point.  --P LUMBAGO  13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let us just summarize the book without passing any judgment on it. Just say Book X says Y. As to whether Y is correct or not, we shall not judge. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, but you persist in interpreting the use of "myth" as passing a very particular judgement when, as is clear from its academic definition, it is not. This use is merely describing the nature of the contents of a particular book, and is distinguishing this (yes, in a dry, academic way) from fiction, biography, etc.  Said contents should be described as something, and since this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, I suggest that the scholarly "creation myth" fits the bill (not least because of our need to conform to WP:RS).  Among other things, I say this because I do not anticipate any description (short of "the Truth") being acceptable to some readers.  Anyway, it looks like agreeing to disagree is how this is going to wind up.  --P LUMBAGO  13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The public does not interpret it as an academic definition, but mostly views it as a term which means "untrue". Hence it is a label, assigned by one group. Best solution: No label, no judgment. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's irrelevant even with citations. Policy is clear, we go with the academic term. If you disagree with that policy, argue against it THERE. Violating it here is just that- a violation of policy (and possibly WP:POINT). -- King Öomie 14:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy does not say that at all, clearly or otherwise. In fact it says the opposite, requiring the lede to be written in non-technical language and discouraging the use of the word myth in cases where its meaning might be taken to be the informal one. Story, account and narrative are all much better terms here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RNPOV, the policy, trumps MOS:INTRO, the style guideline. The one that specifically points out that it will have exceptions. WP:NPOV is not optional.  -- King Öomie  13:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible." violates NPOV.  --agr (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors 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." -WP:RNPOV  The bolded section represents the reason this argument is taking place ("Our religious sensibilities are offended, think of the children"), and its refutation. -- King Öomie 15:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is saying the term "creation myth" should be excluded from the article. However nothing in the NPOV policy you quote says technical terms must be used in the first sentence of an article, while the LEDE guideline says they shouldn't. And as I've pointed out previously, there is scholarly debate over whether Genesis contains one creation myth or two, so the current version is inaccurate as well. --agr (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * People are saying that, and those that do are rightly referred to the NPOV policy. I disagree with your assessment of creation myth as a technical term. I think it's fine for this encyclopedia - at about the same level as the term theory, for instance. That the term is so fundamental and descriptive of this article is why I think we should use it straight up. That is, if I stumble across an article about a creation myth, I simply want to know that in the first sentence. In general, if I stumble across an article Y that is a representative of X, I want to know that straight away. Is this article about a book? A mathematician? etc. As far as the debate you're alluding to, you realise the version you quoted suffers from the same problem, right? Ben (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right that some editor does want the term "creation myth" excluded entirely, but my understanding is that the current argument is about the introductory sentence. I poked around the last 500 versions of the article and haven't found one where the term "creation myth" did not occur somewhere. Perhaps a good example is this version, which is the last before the lede was changed to its current form. It says "The Genesis creation story is comparable with other Near Eastern creation myths." It's also in an info box and the see also section. I would support mentioning the term in the intro, perhaps after the textual summary, say, "Scholars debate whether the story consist of one creation myth or two." "Theory" has both a technical and non-technical meaning and this can cause problems in a lede. Note that our article evolution does not use the word "theory" until the fourth paragraph of the into and then treats it extremely gingerly. Finally, I would assert: {people who know what a creation myth is} ∩ {people who don't know Genesis contains a creation myth} = Ø.  What does "the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible" fail to convey? --agr (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'current' argument morphed into the lede discussion, yes, after individuals realized they weren't getting the phrase removed wholesale (though some still fail to grasp this). -- King Öomie  17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the discussion page and I don't see that. Maybe it's in the archives somewhere. Perhaps this is a place where we can move forward. Can we at least all agree that the issue now is what the first sentence should say?--agr (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to change the wording from what it is now. The meaning of "Creation Myth" is self-evident, and per WP:RNPOV, the formal meaning is used. Changing it to something more... sympathetic would be nothing less than pandering. Confused or not, every single person who visits this page and sees "creation myth" knows what it means. (And no, that meaning is not "ATHEIST CRUSADE, RALLY THE TROOPS"). -- King Öomie  17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:AVOID: "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology,  mythology or religion." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add, your evolution example is not a good one since that article is not about a theory. It's why I chose the general relativity article as an example a few times - it's about a theory and it's an FA. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal
Let's be honest, I find the use of footnotes unwieldy. Let's not forsake simplicity and clarity. How about replacing the opening sentence with this (or some variation):


 * Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars, and as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews.

or alternatively


 * Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars, and has religious significance for Christianity and Judaism.

Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm,
 * General relativity refers to a culmination of ideas by Albert Einstein. The ideas are considered a scientific theory by scholars, and has scientific significance for people who like to debunk works of science fiction (damn you Phil Plait, damn you!!).
 * Yeah, I dunno, I think I prefer the current version. Look everyone, we're talking about a creation myth. This fact is indisputable and transcends the scholars (hello polarisation). The creation myth article is highly relevant and worth reading (and improving if you can) given that this article is a representative of that topic. Ben (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To make this a little more explicit, Wikipedia describes what things are according to WP:WEIGHT (another subset of WP:NPOV). As an example, we have general relativity. Another is the evolution article, which does not polarise itself by saying scholars think evolution is blah, it simply explains what evolution is per reliable sources. Nothing less can be expected from this article, and the sensibilities of a few editors do not make the slightest difference to that. Ben (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of this new proposal to remove the suggestion that says that peoples beliefs are wrong by calling it a definate myth. I personally would have been fine with the replacement of the word myth with belief. But ayway I personally will willingly accept this proposal. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a debate that surely will not cease as long as the word "myth" remains. Is it really absolutely necessary? Yes, I know that "creation myth" is a scholarly term and it is not the same as "myth". It is nonetheless always going to be seen as somewhat incendiary to certain people; particularly observant Jews and Christians. On one hand the term "creation myth" can be viewed as linguisticly correct, and therefore has every right to be used. On the other, leaving it in place is certain to provide debate, reverts, edit wars, and perhaps even vandalism ad infinitum. My opinion is that for the greater good of Wikipedia in general, the word myth should not be used here.Mk5384 (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reinstate article's original and title" Creation According to Genesis
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move the page. A personal comment, I'm not sure how to bridge the gap here since I'm not sure either title is appropriate. Maybe something like Genesis and creation or something similar could address the POV issues and still provide a neutral position that both sides could support. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth → Creation according to Genesis — This is the article's  original title. It was changed to its current title after being discussed by only a couple of editors. The old title, unlike the current one, is npov in many people's opinion. It also appears to be the consensus title (See posts above). — 76.253.103.218 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To the reviewing admin: please note that opposition has come in the form of  replies to what are essentially !votes in this section, and comments in  the preceding sections. Cheers, Ben  (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Yes. I support this move.''' Plus years worth of talk page discussions support this. The current title reflects only a short discussion that lasted only a few days. 76.253.103.218 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion lasted a week and was listed at WP:RM, which is standard procedure when requesting a potentially controversial move. Gabbe (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by "years worth of talk page discussions". The section Requested move (as a way to resolve every reasonable concern) seems to be the first time that moving the article to "Genesis creation myth" has been mulled. Regardless, consensus can change. Gabbe (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Yes. I support this move.''' --Templeknight (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. If you want to argue in favour of changing the title, that's alright. But this isn't the place to just say "yes" or "no". Gabbe (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I support the return move back to Creation according to Genesis. Debating if, when, where and how "creation myth" goes in the article leaves room for options, explanations, opposing views. Placing it in the title locks it in, in some ways virtually closing debate. Further, as is, "creation myth" occupies two-thirds of the title. It is a creation account-narrative that still is revered by huge numbers of living people. Two (maybe three) major world Abrahamic religions' theologies have strong foundations in the Genesis theology. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's necessarily wrong with "closing debate"? Per WP:MNA, we are sometimes forced to opt for a path in writing articles that's bound be controversial and contentious. Furthermore, the fact that the present day followers of the Genesis creation myth are more numerous than the present day followers of the Ancient Egyptian creation myths is not an argument in favour of treating the two differently. WP:RNPOV says that all religions should be treated the same. Gabbe (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Creation According to Genesis is and has been the correct title. Grantmidnight (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explicate why you think that "Genesis creation myth" is an incorrect title? Gabbe (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous that the title that is presently on the article negates the subject of the article. There can be points of view presented within the article, based on reliable sources, that the validity is highly in question. That would include the academic sources that use most prominently the term "myth" in connection with the story presented in Genesis. But nowhere in Genesis itself is there any indication that anything but a literal understanding of its material is intended. In the entire narration of the book of Genesis there is not one indication that a figurative or a metaphorical interpretation is expected.


 * Scientific evidence may cast an overwhelming amount of doubt on the veracity of the book, but the place for that doubt should not be in the title. The title should describe the subject of the article. I don't think the subject of this article is the "falseness" of the narrative contained in Genesis, or at least I hope that is not the subject of the article. If that is the subject of this article, then this article needs a major rewrite. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How is that relevant? Nowhere in Moby Dick is there "any indication that anything but a literal understanding of its material is intended", but we don't have to be vague over whether Moby Dick is literally true or not. Gabbe (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point is. Here is the title: Moby-Dick. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claim is that In the entire narration of the book of Genesis there is not one indication that a figurative or a metaphorical interpretation is expected. Likewise, nothing in Moby Dick indicates that a figurative or a metaphorical interpretation is expected. Perhaps you'd prefer Greco-Roman mythology, which also doesn't explicitly claim to be figurative or metaphorical?
 * The point being, the story in Genesis doesn't have to say it's a creation myth to be a creation myth. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that your argument is irrelevant. What's wrong with having the title of a Wikipedia article negating its subject? Even if it were true that Genesis lacks "any indication that anything but a literal understanding of its material is intended", so what? That doesn't mean that it would be wrong of us to write this article in a manner that contradicts this view. As per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, we should write articles in accordance with what reliable sources say, not what the subjects of our articles say. For example, it would be difficult to write an article about Kim Jong-il if we weren't allowed to contradict the subject. The only thing that matters is what academics, experts and scholars say about Genesis.
 * Regardless, this is a moot point. Talking about the "Genesis creation myth" does not "negate" Genesis in any way. Gabbe (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely concur with Bus stop's polemic comments. They represent the higher caliber of rational in-depth thinking and argument one would expect among well-read, scholarly-minded editors (which I hope we all are). ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope away, but you know otherwise. One could be forgiven for associating the word ignorance, and possibly willful, to one side of this debate. This is an encyclopedia folks, please at least act like that's what you're trying to build. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mythology" is used in a title when there is no logical alternative. In the case of Genesis, there is not only a logical alternative, but it is a contrivance to title an article this way: "Genesis creation myth." Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ... what? "Logical alternative"? This statement makes no sense. How is it a contrivance when we have Māori creation myth, Greek mythology, Aztec mythology, Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, etc. Perhaps you'd prefer we merge this article into Jewish mythology, then? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Yes. I support this move.''' The article is about the account of creation in the book of Genesis. The word "account" is NPOV. The word "myth" is not. Words have connotations as well as denotations. We don't go around labeling individuals who were born out of wedlock as "bastards", even though the word is technically correct, because the word has a highly pejorative connotation, and everyone knows it. To have that in the title is highly POV and should not be allowed.

Since there are some who will argue that "account" is POV as well (and you know who you are), I'm not suggesting that it be used in the title either. But Creation according to Genesis is completely NPOV to everyone. You can't get more NPOV than that. - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lisa, we agree for once!! Yeah! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * [A neutral point of view] is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. --WP:NPOV. We use the terminology used in reliable sources on the topic, not sanitize (read: bias) the topic. It's as simple as that. Please read the policy you're quoting from, ok? Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lisa: Neutrality (per WP:RNPOV) means treating all religions the same. Treating one religious document differently from others is not neutral. As such, calling this article "Creation according to Genesis", while simultaneously not opposing the article title Sumerian creation myth, is not neutral. Consistency is neutral, inconsistency is not. Gabbe (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please re-read─as openmindedly as possible─User:Bus stop's logic in the above comments. I don't know this user and her/his recent comments are my first introduction. There is a lot of logic and rationale to the appeals. No one has shown the courtesy or dignity to debate this user's points maturely. It seems to me that when someone tries really hard to get us back to points of practical logic, they might as well blow into the wind. I'm not calling for agreement with his rationale, but for rational, logical, polite, intelligent rebuttal, partial agreement, or consensus. We have become totally fixated on "myth" for so long that we cannot see the forest for the trees.


 * The insistence on taking up 2/3 of the title with "creation myth" strongly implies what the article is about, and "Genesis" becomes almost an afterthought. It seems to me that "we" editors have illustrated that even among sophisticated folks (like us), there is not general agreement or understanding of the definition of "creation myth." I read an article today that says it conjures up images of the Zû-Bird and Myth-Legends of "pagans manipulating their nature deities by their magical words and mimetic ritual of the creation myth." Another author says that despite similarity in literary form and in rudimentary content, the biblical account radically differs from the creation myths of the ancient Near East in its theological stance. The creation myths are stories about numerous gods and goddesses personifying cosmic spaces or forces in nature. They are nature deities.


 * We have put form over substance. We can smugly say people should just look it up in a dictionary, but they shouldn't have to. If it is a word that is not in our vocabulary, it is logical to stop and look it up. But both words─"creation" and "myth"─are very much in our English vocabulary (and this is English Wikipedia). Seriously, how many people would logically think that when the two words are put together, they have a unique meaning that neither of them has separately? And if they do look up "creation myth," they will immediately be confronted with personalities combining divine spirit and cosmic matter in an eternal coexistence. Thus the sun was a god and the moon was a god. Even Akhenaten, the so-called first monotheist, never conceived of Aten, the sun god, any differently. He distinguished himself by selecting only one force of nature and, of course, never could find a following. After reading such as that, what predisposition can we assume our reader might have about creation according to Genesis, something that whether it's literal or figurative or even fictional has become a major part of the theological foundation of three world religions: the Abrahamic religions.


 * Please let's consider (1) Creation according to Genesis; and (2) delay mention of "creation myth" to paragraph 2 where we fully explain what we mean by "creation myth"─taking all ambiguity out of it. To use something this volitile before we get a chance to disambiguate it seems really foolish to me. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus stop's comments have been thoroughly debunked, not just in this section but in earlier sections too. Your vocabulary argument has been debunked more times than I can count now, a quick search for the term theory throughout this talk page is likely to give quite a few such debunkings. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Afaprof01: If the problem with Genesis creation myth is that "creation myth takes up 2/3 of the title" and that "Genesis becomes almost an afterthought", then Creation according to Genesis would make "Genesis" only one quarter of the title. That's even more of an "afterthought". Also, I don't see why the word "creation myth" should be limited to describing non-monotheistic creation myths. And lastly, I think that most people can understand that when you put two words together you might get a new word, possibly with a different meaning. Few English speakers will think that "to understand something" means to be standing beneath something. However, I fully support you when you say that we should explain what "creation myth" means in this article. But that does not necessitate moving the article. Gabbe (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not in numbers: Just to summarise: the above comments generally rely on gross misunderstandings WP:NPOV, false claims on behalf of WP:NPOV, or appeals to emotion. Reliable sources have been quoted several times, including reliable sources on what is considered mainstream, and policy has been cited faithfully, all showing support for the status quo. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Yes. I support this move.''' I did not see any discussion at all on the article renaming. One editor just did it without discussion, as far as I recall. rossnixon 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I see the 3-4 day discussion section. It was not obviously titled as an article rename... maybe why I don't recall it. rossnixon 01:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the debate was open for a week (per WP:RM), and the section was titled Requested move (as a way to resolve every reasonable concern). Is your argument that we should move the article back because the move request was improperly conducted? Gabbe (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support this move. It seems certain editors are now developing a warped or slippery definition of the word "consensus". POV Litmus tests should not apply in determining whose views qualify as part of "consensus". Furthermore, there are many decades worth of published sources of many theologians objecting to any definition of "myth" being applied specifically to Genesis.  I realize that some editors here subscribe to Bultmann - who some decades ago proposed expanding the conventional academic definition of "myth" to include the Hebrew Bible, even while openly conceding the pejorative use of the term. But not all theologians have ever agreed with Bultmann on this by any means.  The POV of these wikipedia editors - partial and passionate as it is - cannot trump all those published sources who explicitly disagree that it is a myth. Rather according to NPOV policy we must use neutral or compromise terms, and then use the article to explain exactly who calls it a myth, who does not ,and why, without endorsing either party. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus title? Hardly. "only a couple of editors" have requested changing this back. I have a counter proposal: merge this article into Jewish mythology, which is what it actually is. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Til Eulenspiegel: Would you care to provide the names of some of these "many theologians" here? Gabbe (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What - again? Okay, I will start a new section below Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All of those sources seem to deal with the term "myth" rather than "creation myth" per se. Apart from that, a couple of the sources are more almost a hundred years old (hardly reflecting recent scholarship). A number of them reject the term "myth" because that would mean "comparing Christianity with other religions", which is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's neutrality policies say that we can't treat one religion differently from another. Several sources explicitly say that the term "myth" is common in biblical scholarship, and some of the sources seem to attack the term "myth" based on their belief in Genesis being literally true &mdash; a tiny minority viewpoint Wikipedia shouldn't be catering to. Scholars might have several reasons to object to the term "myth", but not all those reasons are valid arguments on Wikipedia. We can't base our choice of title on sources that base their arguments on principles that stand in contrast with WP:NPOV. Gabbe (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And once again, a significant POV of many theologians is sumamrily brushed aside and overruled by an authoritative-sounding wikipedia editor for a variety of specious reasons. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean be brusque, or to "brush aside or overrule" that list, and I'm sorry if it came out that way. Its an interesting and seemingly relevant list and I intend to have a more detailed look and a lengthier commentary on it when I get the time. Gabbe (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Scholarly term should be used. Consistent with Creation myth and Chinese creation myth. THF (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Scholarly term should be used. Consistent with Creation myth and Chinese creation myth. BTW "Creation according to Genesis" says that Creation is factual and that Genesis reports it. Such a claim is unacceptable as a judgment made by Wikipedia. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 04:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, that is the exact semantic opposite of what "according to" means in English. The purpose of "according to" is to ascribe the notion to where it originates, NOT to endorse it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Til. Cush's statement is nonsensical.  The Book of Genesis deserves the right to stand on its own as an opinion (surely its "age" and longevity deserves that).  That's what this article should present -- "according" to Genesis.  Underneath (that is, in the body of the article) comes our modern beliefs as to whether or not Genesis' "opinion" stands or falls.  That is scholarly, and that's what we need here on Wikipedia.  Cheers,  SAE (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Genesis is a primary source, and as such should only be used with care. "Genesis says so" can't really be invoked in a debate like this. That is, we can't use Genesis alone as a base for our decision on whether to title this article "Genesis creation myth" or not. We need to look at what reliable secondary sources say on the topic. Gabbe (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand this article. Genesis as a primary source was never used as a "reliable" source:  It is the source being anaylzed!  Therefore, "Creation according to Genesis."  That's the purpose of this article from the beginning.  Changing the title (as has been done) is completely nonsensical.  That's like having an article analyzing "Coke's view on softdrink's" (in order to analyze the company's view) and having someone later change the title to, "Coke's misinformation on soft-drinks." (in other words, make one half of the argument's conclusion of the article as the title)  The debate should be in the body of the article, and not the title.  As it is, it is pov. SAE (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Scholarly and mainstream term (supported by mainstream references likes Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible and Marcus Borg's note about it actually being mainstream) should be used. This is also in line with WP:NPOV (in particular WP:RNPOV) and WP:WTA and the various X creation myth articles this encyclopaedia has already established (for a list of some, see the above section). Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Yes. I support this move.''' --Templeknight (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a discussion, not a ballot. And if it were a ballot you would not be permitted to vote twice. Gabbe (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I Support this move. Some scholarly systems use myth to describe Christianity, but this is fairly recent.  Many scholarly systems still do not - it depends on the bias of the editor/publisher.  One thing is clear:  "myth" still has the definition in every dictionary that it is "an unfounded or false notion."  You can argue, however every person reading the word "myth" has this in their mind.  That's the tradition use of the word, and that's our cultural use of the word.  Until that is completely gone, the word does not work here in this title, or in the opening of the lead.  I stand upon wikipedia guidelines when I say this (in fact, the word "mythology" is given as an example right in this article): WP:RNPOV. Cheers, SAE (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."
 * But WP:RNPOV also refers to WP:WTA, which says that "Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. [...] Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception." Gabbe (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But that does not negate that which I quoted. There is by no means a universal formal sense of myth.  It continues to have a meaning of "untrue" and it is used this way in scholarly articles.  Last year (and I'm not going to dig them up again) I found quotes from New York Times, and other modern publications that contrast myth and truth.  Just because there is a fairly recent push to say that this dichotomy doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it actually doesn't.  It does. SAE (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't denied that the word "myth" has both formal and informal meanings. But I don't see why you conclude that the title "Genesis creation myth" must necessarily be an example of the term "myth" being used informally. Gabbe (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support this move Current title is POV. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explicate why? Gabbe (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done above, but happy to again. Calling something a "myth" is POV if there is a notable body of opinion that disagrees with that word being used to describe it. You may dislike it, but what is correct is not the same as NPOV. You may indeed by right that it's a myth, but as calling it that is to use a tainted word and to be choosing from one of two sides. Slapping on a FAQ that says that a group of scholars who hold that POV agree with that POV is not the Wikipedia way, this is not a science textbook. And if other pages have been badly titled, perhaps they should be changed too, so please don't use WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments as you have to the user below this. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So then your argument is that the term "creation myth" should not be used to describe any religion on Wikipedia? Regardless, WP:GEVAL says that we do not have to appease all sides in a debate, but only the sides most prevalent among reliable sources. If a group of scholars promoting one view comprise the majority of reliable sources on the topic, then the debate is settled as far as Wikipedia is concerned, even though editors here might continue disagree with the sources. Gabbe (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My using the word "myth", you are explicitly taking the POV that Genesis is inherently false. This title is effectively discrediting creationism as nonsense. Which is fine, if Wikipedia was a science journal. But it isn't. There are many (perhaps billions) of people who believe Genesis to be a real factual account, and this article title is an insult to their POV. Masterhomer 07:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support a move back to the original title. I see no reason why it was changed. No one can dispute the fact that "Creation according to Genesis" is a completely neutral and un-contentious title. "Genesis creation myth" is objected to as POV by many editors and will continually be challenged as such. This article will be bogged down in endless edit and move warring rather than being contributed to in a constructive way (as it should be, and as it has been for years before this "creation myth" dispute started up last month). Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, it's not a neutral title if it means treating Genesis differently from other religious documents. WP:RNPOV says that "editors 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." Gabbe (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank-you Gabbe for supporting reverting this article to its original title. And yes, you did.  You said, "editors 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" - the majority of people writing on Creation according to Genesis today use the term "myth" as a contrast to the word "truth."  Therefore we should not use myth in any other way, even (as you wrote), "out of sympathy for a particular point of view." SAE (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that "the majority of people writing on Creation according to Genesis use the term 'myth' as a contrast to the word 'truth.'" Gabbe (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never claimed you did. Please follow the ("") quotes. SAE (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither did I say you claimed I did. Your argument included the following two points:
 * I said "editors 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"
 * the majority of people writing on Creation according to Genesis today use the term "myth" as a contrast to the word "truth."
 * For your conclusion (that I support moving this article to "Creation according to Genesis") to be valid it would at least be necessary for me to affirm point #2. And I haven't said that I do. Gabbe (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume #2 as valid based on evidence, and therefore have inferred your agreement to revert to the original title. SAE (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If this article is renamed, I insist that all other articles where religious isues are called myth are renamed as well. Including all articles about ancient gods of the Greek, Egyptians, Hindus etc etc . We do not endorse one religion over another. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why is this even being discussed? The RM on this one was only closed a couple days ago. I oppose soly on the basis that revisiting RMs so quickly after they close sets a bad precedence. What new information could possibly be presented to show that things have changed or that the previous RM was conducted improperly? Baring either, I see no reason to overturn the conclusion of the previous RM. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read [WP:RMCI]. There it says, "sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name."  This is exactly the case here. Therefore your opposition here is not valid and should be ignored in the admin seeking consensus. SAE (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That part quite clearly does not refer to moves that are the result of a formal requested move. And you can leave it to the closing admin to decide whose comments should be ignored. Ucucha 04:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The request spent a full week in a formal requested move, permitting editors no shortage of time to comment. The conclusion was ultimately to move and was apparently convincing enough that the supervising admin. did not require a relisting to determine consensus. I don't see any indication that WP:RMCI was not followed (try reading the entire policy in context before quoting bits and pieces to me) nor has anyone argued that the supervising admin. acted improperly. As a result, I remain unconvinced about the validity of this new found discussion so soon after the previous one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, although "Genesis creation story" would be much better - see below. I agree it is very soon after the last RM, but that had very few comments, & fewer votes, and concerned a different alternative name. I am dubious that a story known from a single literary text can properly be called a myth, but in any case the term seems clearly POV here.  It does actually matter that most other ancient religions have no living adherents, but millions of people still apparently believe the Genesis story to be true. I'd have no objections to renaming other creation accounts to match, which is where "story" or "narrative" are useful.  Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What does it matter how many people adhere to a religion? Do numbers in adherence constitute accuracy or even veracity? I don't think so. What makes the story a myth is the supernatural agency used. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 05:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a POV position, as plenty of people believe it is not a myth, which is not the case for Sumerian creation myth. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose changing name violates WP:WTA by giving preferential treatment to different articles about different belief systems. creation myth is a distinct and precise term that is near universally accepted and used in scholarly and academic articles across different belief systems.  The sole reason a request to move has been made is on the basis of some editors taking offense where none has been offered despite this being explained multiple times (see the FAQ).  There is no value added to the article by changing the name.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the move to Creation according to Genesis. Our article should be steering a wide berth around religious and secular questions and nowhere is this more important than in the title of the article. WP:AVOID wisely councils us to avoid titles that imply a viewpoint. ("Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint.") Just as it would be out of the question to use "sacred" and "holy" in the title it is almost as out of place to use "creation myth." "Creation myth" can be used deep within the bowels of the article but it belongs nowhere near the title. This article is not actually about "creation myths" at all. This article is mostly a recounting of the details of the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. In point of fact very little is said in relation to "creation myth" in the entire article as it presently stands. There is the statement that Genesis would be considered one of the world's many "creation myths." But nothing further is said about that subject. That one statement occupies less than ten percent of the article's content. If we were to mention in the article that some segments of some religions contend that God spoke the words that we read in Genesis, would that justify giving the article a title that included a term such as "sacred?" I think not. The article as it presently stands does not devote an enormous amount of wordage to how sacred or holy or religiously important Genesis is. There is little space devoted to addressing Genesis vis-a-vis its religious identity or its secular identity. That is not what this article is about. Obviously the problems found in the titles of other articles should not be carried over to this article. Concerning those articles where possible they should be given titles that specifically identify a body of thought found in another culture. That should be done without implying in the article's title whether these accounts are literally true or not unless of course the treatment of that question occupies an important place within those articles. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is sacred and holy is subjective, while creation myth, so far as reliable sources go, is an objective descriptor. If you think this article is missing some information, WP:SOFIXIT? Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Creation myth is not an "objective descriptor." Creation myth is "subjective." Creation myth is one possible characterization of Genesis. Reliable sources use "creation myth" in relation to Genesis. This point should be made within the body of the article. While making this point, close adherence to sources should be observed. The title should not include unnecessary material however well-sourced. The subject of the article is "Genesis chapters one and two." That in fact would be my first choice for the title for this article. I feel there is no need to characterize it (Genesis) in any way, as far as the title is concerned. By calling it Genesis chapters one and two we would even be bypassing the questions involving some of the other terms that have been discussed such as "account." The title should simply identify it in a "bare-bones" sort of way. Certainly no hint whatsoever of editorial opinion should be contained in the title of this article. But that is besides the point because the subject is identified adequately without appending the term "creation myth." Bus stop (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a flawed understanding of WP:NPOV. A neutral point of view is not a lack of viewpoint (vis-a-vis [b]y calling it Genesis chapters one and two we would even be bypassing the questions involving some of the other terms that have been discussed) it is an editorially neutral point of view. That is, when choosing a descriptive title for this article we choose a title that is consistent with reliable sources on the topic. Reliable sources on this topic use the descriptor creation myth and so we remain editorially neutral and use the same descriptor. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But I didn't even mention WP:NPOV, so how do you derive that I have a "flawed understanding of WP:NPOV?" I don't believe that the policy of WP:NPOV arises in relation to the problem of what name to give this article. Not all Wikipedia policies are applicable to all problems and all situations. The problem of what name to give this article is solved by describing, minimally, the subject matter of the article. The subject matter is "Genesis chapters one and two." There is no need to elaborate on that. "Creation myth" is superfluous as far as the problem is concerned of what title to give this article. "Creation according to Genesis" and "Genesis creation story" also provide adequate names without over-elaboration. WP:NPOV would only come up if we found some reason why we had to elaborate on what we already had on hand for a title. But no argument has been presented that the title is somehow lacking without "creation myth" appended to it. It would be a contrivance to add on "creation myth" because the problem of solving for a title is accomplished by using less material in the form of words and ideas. Why would we weigh down the title with nonessential material? Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're telling us:
 * The problem of what name to give this article is solved by describing, minimally, the subject matter of the article. The subject matter is "Genesis chapters one and two."
 * That's great, but of course there are many solutions to the problem of what to call this article. No small number of solutions has been suggested on this talk page, and we need to do a little better than just picking one out of a hat, or worse, choosing the least helpful, from a reader's point of view, of the bunch. The article should be helpfully descriptive, it should give the reader some idea of what this article is about. This is also where, contrary to your assertion, NPOV certainly does arise in relation to the naming of this article. When it comes to a choice of title we are to write from an editorially neutral point of view, from the article title to the last sentence of the article.
 * Now, some arbitrary division of a book is not a helpful title. Creation and the Book of Genesis are the central themes of this article. Reliable sources on this article's topic and the term creation myth go hand in hand. The current article title is consistent with our many other similar articles. With all of that in mind Genesis creation myth is, in my opinion, a suitable title for this article.
 * Finally, the "Show preview" button is your friend. Modifying your comments as often as you do is rude almost to the point of being disruptive. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have an online source for Genesis being a creation myth? Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a strange request at this point in the discussion. The Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible has an online version available if you have access. Under creation we have:
 * The biblical myth of the origin of the universe. There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation by God.
 * Under the same entry it notes that:
 * Although there is a revival in fundamentalist works of ‘creationism’ which regards the OT creation myths as in some sense historical and to be preferred to scientific theories of the evolution of species over immense eras of time, most modern readers of the OT reject this as incredible since it rests on a misunderstanding of the genre of the Genesis narratives, which is deeply theological.
 * Which may be useful to quote in this article (and the creationism article). Under myth we have as the first example:
 * In Genesis the Creation and the Fall are myths
 * The first example of a creation myth in Encyclopedia Britannica, also available online (a free trial is available iirc), is:
 * Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis and of the new creation in Jesus Christ.
 * I'm certain these sources satisfy any reliability, relevance and representation of the "general state of scholarship on the matter" constraints. I don't know of any sources that are entirely web-based that discuss the issue, but I'm sure they exist. Have you had a look around? Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming back. I wasn't unhappy with the previous name, but now that a more standard name for this particular creation myth article has been chosen, (1) it is too early to revisit the decision without any new arguments at all, and (2) undoing the decision merely because a large number of followers of a fringe theory (creationism) have been canvassed would be completely inappropriate. Let's not forget that excessive POV pushing by these fringers was what drew attention to the unusual title in the first place. Hans Adler 07:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I am not a follower of "creationism." Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fringe theory that is the basis of some of the largest world religions followed by billions? If anything, the fringe theory is the academic/athiest one this POV title is trying to push. Masterhomer 08:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Believing in Genesis on the figurative level on which it was written in the first place is fine. But insisting that a story is literally true, just because it is so old and has been repeated so often, is fringe nowadays. (It wasn't 150 years ago.) The number of followers of Christianity is relevant to notability, i.e. whether to have this article or not. It is relevant for deciding whether to discuss a particular aspect or not, per WP:UNDUE. It is not relevant for the question whether we present facts as facts or not.
 * Moreover, the equation between Christians and creationists, which you are implying, would be offensive to most Christians. E.g. look at this. Do you count the Pope as one of your "billions" of Christians who apparently are creationists and against "academic/atheist" POV? Hans Adler 08:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Church was a big proponent of the "Big Bang" theory before it was even considered science. Masterhomer 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You say, "Believing in Genesis on the figurative level on which it was written in the first place is fine." What indication do you have that it (Genesis) was ever intended to be understood "on the figurative level?" Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly support move. The current title is trying to assert an atheist POV on a fundamentally mainstream religious topic. This title is a clear violation of RNPOV. Masterhomer 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Anthropologically there is no difference between the big bang theory and Genesis. The only difference is one is secular myth and one is considered religous myth. The myth label on big bang theory would imply falsehood, similarly myth label implies false hood here. i would think it would be wise to change other labels of myth and religious Belief in wikipedia. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ENOUGH. @Weaponbb7: That is a statement coming from complete scientific illiteracy. The Big Bang theory is a scientific model based on tons of evidence while Genesis is just a story in a book. We will not have this kind of talk here out of the creationism corner. This is not YouTube but an encyclopdia and we use reliable sources, and not the bullshit coming out of the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, or any other such organization that will twist and turn everything to make creationist teachings appear scientific and real science appear as uncertain or false. This is no platform for creationism and biblical literalism. So take your wrong comparisons elsewhere. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 00:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That comparison came from a Anthropology textbook statement. Secondly i find you blantantly using Uncivil behavior. thirdly i am not a Creationist if i was then it would require my major of Anthroplpogy to be 99% false, which it is not. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the "Big Bang" an entirely secular theory, since it's regularly used by religious institutions (including those affiliated with Judaism, Christian and Islam) as affirmation of the divine nature of the Universe. I would personally consider the Big Bang is at least originally, a religious theory. However unlike similar attempts like intelligent design, it managed to get mainstream scientific acceptance (but only after decades of battle and proof finding). Masterhomer 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think the current title is trying to assert a POV - myth is a neutral technical term (its only in some modern colloquial uses that it has negative connotations). Its unfortunate that some people view the term negatively, but there are many cases like that. Queer theory, for example, contains what many would view as a strongly prejudiced slur, but its just the standard technical term. The standard title for articles about this topic in other religions seems to be ....creation myth...., and changing this title would be giving preferential treatment to one religion over the others. Additionally, its important to link the title to the general article about this topic - which happens to be called creation myth. IF THAT article is changed, and ONLY if that article is changed, to something like creation narrative or cultural creation concepts, or some such wording, then there would be a case for changing this article, but it currently isn't. Newman Luke (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the term can be taken as an affirmation of POV regarding it's accuracy, means it shouldn't belong in the title. The original title is inherently NPOV, it doesn't try to classify Genesis in a way that many people would disagree with and even take insult to. But at the same time, it doesn't promote the idea that Genesis is factually accurate. Therefore, the original title is superior. Masterhomer 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support this move. There are negative connotations to "myth" despite the specific denotation in this case. What makes it worse is the connotation here is the denotation elsewhere adding credence to the subtext of "false" when using "myth". The former title is accurate, representative, and does not carry with it subtexts of either truth or falsehood. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Opppose. Let's look closer at some of the arguments listed above:
 * Some, such as Templeknight, have only said that they support the move, without providing any rationale. Per Polling is not a substitute for discussion, this is not a valid argument.
 * The assertion that the majority here support the move is similarly, per Polling is not a substitute for discussion, not a valid argument.
 * Some have asserted that using the term "myth" in the title is offensive. Regardless of whether this is true or not, per policy (WP:CENSOR), offensiveness is not a valid argument.
 * Some have asserted that using the term "myth" in the title takes a stand on whether Genesis is literally true or not. Regardless of whether this assertion is true or not, the position that Genesis is literally true is one held by a very small minority. Per WP:MNA, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, etc. we shouldn't take such minority positions in regard. If this article takes a stand and says that Genesis is not literally true, that would not be against policy. Rather, it would be in line with policy. Articles tangentially connected to the question of whether Genesis is literally true (such as Creationism, Young Earth creationism, Evolution, Earth, etc.) all take a similar position (ie. that Genesis is not literally true). But comparing with these articles is not by itself, of course, a valid argument.
 * Some have asserted that "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common way to refer to the topic of this article. If true, this seems to be a valid argument, since WP:UCN tells us to use the most common titles. I will not go into detail here, but rather point to other discussions on this page regarding what the most commonly used name is among reliable sources.
 * Some have asserted that using the term "myth" in the title is inaccurate. If true, this assertion seems to be a valid argument, as WP:AT tells us to use names that are accurate. But apart from those that maintain that Genesis is to be taken literally, it seems to be widely accepted here (as well as in sources) that the term "creation myth" (when used in the formal sense of the term) is an accurate description of the article topic.
 * Some have asserted that using the term "myth" in the title is not neutral. As above, if this is true, then it seems to be a valid argument, as both WP:NPOV and WP:AT tells us to use names that are neutral. To examine it, we must ask ourselves, what does "neutrality" mean with regards to religion? In the context of Wikipedia, "neutrality" is defined by WP:NPOV, and WP:RNPOV explicitly. RNPOV is pretty clear in that "neutrality" means not giving any religions special treatment, and that we should take care to note that words which have informal as well as formal meanings (like "myth") are only used in the proper context. So, if we decide that it's unacceptable to use "creation myth" in this article, it should be unacceptable to use in other articles as well. I think such an eradication of the term "creation myth" is not going to be particularly helpful, nor supported by WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA. What we should instead focus on (as was the case before this move discussion started), is making crystal clear in the article text how the word "myth" is used in this article. So doing would be in line with policy.
 * Some have asserted that this article should be titled "Genesis creation myth" because similar articles are titled the same way. This argument is invalid, because other articles may be incorrectly titled as well. A related argument, however, is that if this article does not include the word "myth", then neither should other similar articles. This is not invalid, because WP:RNPOV specifically tells us to use the same terminology in dealing with all articles.
 * Some have asserted that by titling this article the same way that we title Pelasgian creation myth we are implicitly taking a stand in favour of atheism. This argument goes against WP:RNPOV, which tells us to treat all religions the same.
 * Because of what I've written above about the arguments that have been brought forth this last week, I believe that consensus (backed by policy) in favour of moving this article away from its current title has not been established on this page. That is why I oppose moving the article at this time. What I believe should be done is to continue the debate over how to explain the term "creation myth" in the lead of the article. Gabbe (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gabbe — You left out that using the term "creation myth" is irrelevant. It constitutes a larding of the title with extraneous material. It does not have sufficiently enough to do with the title to warrant inclusion. Similarly "sacred," "holy," and "the word of God" would be irrelevant. The title does not need commentary. The title of this article need not tackle the issues that you think are important, although there certainly is a rightful place for addressing the issues you raise within the body of the article. The article (title) needs identity. That is what is required of a title in the case of this article — identity. The title does not need commentary. Commentary belongs in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gabbe, the sources explicitly disagreeing that Genesis be categorized as a "myth" ARE reliable for purpose of establishing that this is one significant POV - just like the opposing POV that it be categorized as a myth. There is a logical fallacy known as "circular argument" that tries to apply a POV litmus test to the sources, saying only the ones that match your POV are termed "reliable".  The more sources found from theologians who disagree that Genesis is a "myth", the more blatantly obvious it becomes that it is merely a highly contested point-of-view that calls it a "myth".  The scholars and theologians who disagree are not to be excluded as "unreliable" when taking the viewpoints into account.  Neither can you proclaim a "consensus" by excluding all viewpoints you don't like.  The view that Genesis does not match the nebulous genre of "myth" is widespread and significant, even if - get this, this is the important part - even if you personally disagree with that significant viewpoint. And if you continue to endorse the "myth" POV over neutrality, believe me, you are never going to hear the end of it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank-you Til for hitting it right on the head. One side is continually dismissing reliable sources because they diagree with it. Huh??  At least Cush is honest about his dishonesty.  Some others are not.  SAE (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support an alternative (sorry folks). There's just way too much overhead between these two choices.  I think someone suggested "Genesis Creation Story" (or "Genesis Creation Account").  Although I personally prefer "myth" with the understanding of the term to mean "story with meaning", there is too much charged emotion on both ends.  I do not personally believe the Genesis account to be literally true, but I do not believe that my opinion is relevant to the problem at hand -- which is ease of use for both editors and readers.  Those who believe in the literal account and those who do not should agree that there is too much disagreement and too much potential for disagreement with either of the suggested choices.  We have too much to do on Wikipedia than to get snared by true believers and true disbelievers who are trying to make Wikipedia do something it was NEVER intended to do: establish absolute truth.  "Creation According to Genesis" bears an assumptive connotation that creation literally occurred, while "Genesis Creation myth" bears an assumptive connotation that it did not.  No one is going to become a theist or an atheist because of our title, but we DO want a title that is accessible to both theists and atheists alike.  The very extent of this argument, whether in people involved, length of time involved, recurring nature of it, or heat of emotions, means that neither proposed title is acceptable.EGMichaels (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quotes from dissenting theologians, specifically mentioning Genesis.

 * "In these four NT passages one encounters myth in its best-known definition. What is mythical is not true. What is true is not mythical. If one is told that the flood of Noah's day is a myth, or that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth, the hearer will assume that what is meant is that these two events are really fictitious narratives, invented stories... The reason why the stories of Gen. 1-11 in particular are often labeled as myth is that they reflect a prescientific or nonscientific worldview... Myth is not only a figurative expression of truth, but a false expression of truth as well. In this definition, myth becomes, essentially, any story about God or gods or any kind of supernatural powers... The above definition of myth has at least three problems. First, it is so broad in its definition that it reduces any kind of theistic statement to a mythical statement. Second, it suggests that such stories about God(s) reflect a naive concept of truth which science has dismantled. Third, such a definition of myth does not grow out of a study of mythology but from the opposition of myth to science. Bultmann did not arrive at the above definition by probing the myths of oriental and classical literature. He has given us a rationalistic, philosophical definition of myth rather than a phenomenological one. Many scholars would be content to interpret the Creation story or the Fall as neither history nor myth. It is not history, according to them, in the sense that Gen. 1-2 or Gen. 3 describes past events that actually happened. But neither are they myths, at least in the historical-philosophical definition of myth. The truth is that scholars disagree about the definition of the word. One recent writer (G. B. Caird) has isolated nine definitions of myth and another [J. W. Rogerson] documents twelve aspects of myth. This proliferation of definitions of myth is the reason why one scholar would look at Gen. 1-11 and say it is free of myth, while another scholar would look at Gen 1-11 and pronounce it entirely mythical." -- The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (part of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament) by Victor P. Hamilton, 1990, p. 56-58.


 * "As Giovanni Miegge emphasizes, "the supposed neutrality of those who offer only a formal definition of myth itself conceals a presupposition, and... this involves bringing Christian faith down to a level of pagan forms of worship, treating one as commensurable with the other. This is exactly what the New Testament itself refuses to do." (''Gospel and Myth in the Thought of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 101)...
 * Many scholars deplore the ascription of mythical language to Scripture as entirely unjustifiable and arbitrary. G. Ernest Wright observes that "the absence of the modern scientific view of the universe scarcely makes the literature in itself mythology." (God Who Acts p. 128). Wright stresses that myth is characteristic of the polytheistic, and of nature-worship religions in which man, nature and the gods blend into a single continuum; it is not, he insists, aptly descriptive of biblical religion (p. 125)...
 * "Since pagan god-stories concern not history but nature", writes James I. Packer, "and since Scripture recounts nothing of Yahweh like the celestial goings-on of these god-stories, it seems clearer and sounder to follow Scripture's own usage and reject myth as a non-Biblical category."...
 * The classic treatment of the New Testament attitude is Gustav Stahlin's essay on muthos in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Stahlin here emphasizes the evident New Testament disdain for myth. The Bible approves no role whatever for myth, whether as symbolic or parabolic or as direct impartation of religious truths.... "No matter how the term is understood, and no matter how it is extended", Stahlin writes, the concept of myth involves "an inherent antithesis to truth and reality which is quite intolerable on NT soil."...
 * Philip E. Hughes emphasizes the incompatibility of myth with the biblical emphasis on historical and rational revelation. The use of myth in the framework of untruth or unfactuality in contrast to the truths of the Christian revelation "is in complete harmony with the term which from the time of Pindar onwards always bears the sense of what is fictitious, as opposed to the term logos, which indicated what was true and historical.... The Christ of the Bible is The Logos, not a mythos."...
 * If the category of myth is a form of expression for events occurring outside the limits of human history, then to apply the term to the Word made flesh inverts not simply the traditional sense of the term, but all linguistic usage as well, and all customary linguistic associations and implications. The notion of myth is not native to the Bible, and those who seek to superimpose the concept upon revealed religion are motivated neither by biblical precedent nor by any indrect encouragement that Scripture supplies...
 * The term myth has therefore acquired a bewildering ambiguity of connotation with respect to religious thought. It has, in fact, become a "tramp" word of uncertain identity and even contradictory nuances...
 * When a scholar insists, as Bultmann does, on religious myth as a basic comprehensive category beyond cognitive knowledge and truth, and then deplores particular elements as prescientific and therefore fanciful and outmoded in contrast to modern knowledge, and moreover insists on the actual ontological reality of what transcends the experient although it is cognitively inaccessible, he obviously weights the discussion of religious myth with multiplied confusion. Bultmann is, in fact, triple-minded about myth... Bultmann thus violates his primary definition of myth...
 * Bernard Ramm has recently proposed an evangelical redefinition and relocation of the concept of myth. He... laments the fact that Strauss and Bultmann have given the concept of myth a bad name in the theological arena..." -- All excerpts from God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations by Carl F. H. Henry, 1999, Chapter 3.  [NOTE: Several other scholars who have deplored the confusion of "myth" with "scripture" are also peer-reviewed, and he discusses the entire issue at length from all angles, but it would take up too much space to quote the whole chapter.]


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


 * [After a lengthy discussion of the important differences between Genesis and "myths"] "...Since the Hebrew worldview in Genesis is a theological history and not mythology, the question of the relation between creation and history is thereby posed." -- Creation-Covenant Scheme and Justification by Faith: A Canonical Study of the God-Human Drama in the Pentatech and the letter to the Romans‎ p 47 by Mary Sylvia Chinyere Nwachukwu, 2002


 * "The Old Testament makes a radical break with this philosophy of the ancient world. One does not do justice to the Old Testament by saying that Israel borrowed myth, or used mythological language to describe its faith. To the Hebrew, an absolutely sovereign God brought them into existence as a nation. Their concept of time was not cyclical but eschatological; their ritual at the temple was not cosmic and magical but an enactment of their redemption; and their concept of space was not limited to the primeval world but was actualized in history. In a word, reality to Israel was within her concept of history... Therefore Genesis is not myth. The Hebrew faith was a radical departure from the characteristic mythical thought of the pagans... [etc.] -- The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Dallas Seminary, 2004 ed.) p. 18


 * "While they do not teach science, the early chapters of Genesis are history and not myth. -- Genesis: Part 1: God and His Creation Genesis 1-11, Gayle Somers, Sarah Christmyer, 2004, p. 102


 * "...Others have suggested that the Genesis narratives are "myths". But "myth" is a slippery term, witness the fact that scholars use at least nine different definitions of "myth" [Cite to Hamilton]. According to McCartney and Clayton, "the common meaning of the term myth in popular parlance is 'a fabulous and untrue story'." This denotation, they say, makes the term "myth" totally inadequate for Genesis, for "biblical history is not myth, but a true story, told with theological purpose and vantage-point. It may use the images and linguistic forms of its environment, but slipping in the term myth by redefinition really results in a reduction of the uniqueness of biblical history.   Moreover, the Genesis narratives demythologize pagan mythologies [Cite to Ross]. Surely the label of "myth" is inappropriate for narratives that demythologize pagan mythologies." -- Preaching Christ from Genesis, 2007, Sidney Greidanus, p. 23.


 * "It would be very difficult to classify the material in Genesis as myth. Israel had one God, not a multitude. The nation of Israel had a beginning, a history, and a future hope. They saw God, rather than gods or other supernatural creatures, as the primary actor in the world. Their worship was not cosmic, natural or superstitious, but a reenactment of their own rescue from Egypt and a celebration of God's factual intervention in history and their hope in his promises. If Genesis uses elements of mythological language, it is to display a deliberate contrast with pagan concepts and to show that the Lord God is sovereign over such ideas. For example, the ancients worshiped the sun as a god, but in Genesis the sun serves the Creator's wishes (1:14-18). The book of Genesis is a cemetery for lifeless myths and dead gods. Genesis is not myth.-- Commentary in newest edition of NLT Study Bible, Tyndale Bible Publishers (2008)

More ambivalent scholarly or secular views over the past centuries

 * "...Even legend, however, is not mythology, and, despite recent attempts to revive a mythological interpretation of personages and incidents in the Old Testament..., there is very general agreement that the Old Testament religion is non-mythological. This absence of mythology is another marked feature of contrast with other religions. We may, if we please, speak of a tradition like that of Eden as "mythical", as others may discuss whether it contains symbol or allegory. But "myth" in this case must be distinguished from mythology proper, i.e., such weaving of stories about the gods in their relations to each other and to the world as are found in other religions, and generally have their origins in nature-phenomena (e.g., sun-myths, dawn-myths, myths of growth and reproduction, etc.) From this element, as most scholars recognise, the Old Testament seems remarkably free. See the remarks of Professor Robertson, Early History of Israel, pp 188-9, 299. Professor Robertson quotes from an interesting article by Mr. Andrew Lang in The New Review, Aug. 1889, and also quotes Stade, Geschichte, i., pp. 438-9. Gunkel may also be referred to, Genesis, pp. 113 ff. He thinks  traces of an original mythological basis are to be discovered, but contends for the absence of mythology in the proper religion of Israel." -- The Problem of the Old Testament Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism‎ by James Orr, 1906, p. 486


 * "Gen. i.-ii. 4. A Priestly Narrative about 550 BC. This chapter is not "a story" is the ordinary usage of that word, it is not "a myth", nor is it in the strict sense a poem." Ancient Hebrew Stories and Their Modern Interpretation, W. G. Jordan, 1922, p. 73.


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


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


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


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


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


 * "...There certainly are [surviving traces of mythology] for those who regard all language about an act of God... as mythological. But this is not mythology in the traditional sense, not the kind of mythology that has become antiquated with the decay of the mythical world view." -- R. Bultmann, 'New Testament and Mythology', p. 43, as cited in Liberating Exegesis: The Challenge of Liberation Theology to Biblical Studies‎ by Christopher Rowland, Mark Corner, 1989, p. 83.


 * "...The Bible Is Not Mythological but Uses Mythological Ideas. Biblical thought should not be called "mythopoeic," neither should any of the resultant biblical narratives be termed "myth". The OT uses ancient Near Eastern mythological ideas figuratively and symbolically without any commitment to the underlying theology of the mythological world from which they have been borrowed. Biblical narratives, such as those of the Creation (Gen. 1:1-2:3), Paradise (2:4-25), Fall (3:1-24), and Flood (6:5-9:17), may appear to be of the same type as Ancient Near Eastern myths, but are different due to the impact of the transforming forces of Yahwistic faith." -- International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article entry "MYTH", 1994 edition.


 * "...There has been in recent times a broadening of the understanding of myth; the scope of the adjective "mythical" now knows no limits (besides, there is often no clear distinction between "mythical" and "mythological".) Further, the alternative which would describe reality either as myth or history is questionable..." [lengthy discussion follows of history of the term and its various newer, nebulous meanings]... "It follows that the patriarchal stories have no relation to myth in the proper sense of the word. There can be only points of contact where folk stories are designated as "myths" or where an older form lies behind the myth." -- Genesis 12-36, Claus Westermann, 1995, p. 54.


 * "Genesis' story is not a myth, for it does not in fact tell us anything about what things were like when there were no things. Its tohu webohu is not an antecedent nothingness-actuality like the Great Slime dismembered by the Babylonian Marduk, nor yet an eternal egg or womb or pure potentiality of primal matter..." -- Systematic Theology, Robert Jenson, 1997, p. 11
 * "The story told in the third chapter of Genesis is not a myth; it does not describe what always and never happens. It describes the historical first happening of what thereafter always happens; moreover, had it not happened with the first humans it could not have happened at all, since then the first humans would have been omitted from an "encompassing deed of the human race".  -- ibid, p. 150


 * "Consider next the Bible's account of the Flood in Genesis 7:17-24. Sound interpretation shows that the text is describing real events and a real person, Noah. It is not myth. But the text describes things as they would appear to a human observer like Noah. Everything within range of human observation was covered with water, and all the animals within human range died." -- Three Views on Creation and Evolution (1999), various authors, p. 92.


 * "Myth, Mythology. In popular usage the term myth connotes something untrue, unimaginable, or unbelievable; or, in older parlance, "a purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons or events" (OED). (Deferring to this usage and to the Christian religion, standard Western encyclopedias of mythology omit from their discussion any reference to the narratives of the Bible.) However, in the realm of biblical studies and theology, just as in contemporary anthropology, philosophy, and literature, the term myth is often used in a less pejorative fashion to describe an important if provisional way of perceiving and expressing truth. There is, however, no agreed-on definition, whether in terms of its form (that is, its relationship to fairy-tales, legends, tales, epics etc.), or in terms of its content and function.
 * "Hermann Gunkel defined myth as a story involving at least two gods and on this basis denied that the OT contains true myths but at most, "faded out" myths or "mythic torsos"... -- Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Richard N. Soulen, 2001, p. 115.


 * "Genesis 2 is not a myth about how things always are, but a story about something that happened." -- Old Testament Theology: Israel's Gospel, John Goldingay, 2003, p. 119.


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


 * "The Bible itself is perfectly aware of its opposition to all mythological religions. It brands them as idolatrous, and I think that the revelation of scapegoat delusion in mythology is an essential part of the fight against idolatry. Here we could go, for instance, to the story of Cain and Abel, and compare it to the myth of Romulus and Remus. In the story of Cain and Abel, the murder of one brother by the other is presented as a crime that is also the founding of a community. But in the Roman story this foundation cannot be viewed as a crime. It is a legitimate action by Romulus. The point of view of the Bible about such events differs enormously from that of myth." -- Oedipus Unbound: Selected Writings on Rivalry and Desire, by René Girard, Mark R. Anspach, 2004 ISBN 0804747806, 9780804747806 p. 112


 * [The following commentary and analysis in this book on the social effect of the Bible is also exceedingly interesting, and may be summed up with this concluding statement:] "Not only is the Bible not myth; it is the source of whatever "demythologization" has occurred in the world and will occur in the future. (ibid, p. 112)


 * "The creation story is not a myth but neither is it a modern scientific textbook... The Genesis creation story may be a parable, written for the understanding of the ancients. But in no way is it a myth." -- The Patterns of New Ideas: 300 Ideas for Products, Inventions and Improvements, Mark Meek, 2004, p. 186-187 (Category:Science)


 * "...The great diversity of the scholarly works on myth shows that, although being one of the most studied subjects in the history of the social sciences and the humanities, it has not yet been entirely understood. At the crux of this confusion is the simple and straightforward question of whether or not the storyline content of myth has any basis in historical events and processes. A disdainful view of myth is easily demonstrated by a simple citation analysis of the editorial use of the term 'myth'... in the generally well-respected journals Nature and Science during the ten-year publication period of 1996 through 2005... The few times that 'myth' is used are virtually always in a pejorative sense, such as "time to bury misleading myth"..." -- Myth and Geology, 2007, p. 10, session held at the 32nd International Geological Congress in Florence, Italy, in August 2004.

Note: This is only a selection of the supporting material on my user page, quoting a significant POV of prominent scholars of all stripes, who dispute that the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, and/or Bhagavad Gita are "myths". This POV is significant, and it has only been brushed aide by asserting some sort of magical priority for the nomenclature of the opposing POV - as if the controversy has now suddenly been settled to everyone's satisfaction. It has not, by any means. We are called to describe the situation neutrally - not take sides. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

this is a rather impressive exercise in cherry-picking. The entire point you are making, and it is one I am willing to concede, is that it isn't very usual to talk about the "Genesis creation myth". It is de facto more usual to say "Genesis creation narrative" or similar, which is why I would support a move back to the original title. This does not, however, change the obvious fact that Genesis contains a record of a Hebrew creation myth. --dab (𒁳) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, so much effort to make Genesis true. But where are the quotes from Hindu theologians? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 18:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand how any of the points brought up in your post isn't solved by the wording of this article, the FAQ and lengthy talk page discussions. If someone jumps to conclusions and assumes informal use without looking at the FAQ, clicking on the wikilink to creation myth, reading the sources cited/referenced etc... is not the fault of the editors of the article.  Due diligence has been more than met to establish formal usage of the term, this article's use of the term creation myth meets every relevent policy time and time again, the RFC shows this, precedent from other related articles shows this as does consensus.  There's no reasonable assumption that any reasonably intelligent reader who's not out to push their own POV or dig up trouble would have any grief with the wording of the article.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: There should be two articles
I know some people are going to jump on this calling it a POV fork, and maybe it is, but it's a fork that's so deeply ingrained in the editors here and in society as a whole, that I think it has merit in this case.

Let me quote from WP:Content Forking:

Articles whose subject is a POV

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.

I think that pretty much describes the situation we're in right now. The views of the Genesis account are so polarized that having one article called Creation according to Genesis and another called Genesis creation myth seems to be the only way for us to stop spinning our wheels.

The fact is, one side can push its view on the other today, but in a month or two, the dispute will be back. There is no consensus, and there will be no consensus. I think we all understand that. Anyone who doesn't needs to sit down and read through this talk page.

I propose that we split the article. That each article after the split should contain a brief section summarizing the opposing view along with a link to the other article. We can put a stop to the incredible waste of time and resources that's happening here and let that energy be used for more productive purposes. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you predicted, I call WP:CFORK. This is the article discussing the creation story in Genesis.
 * That is, the Hebrew creation myth. The section you quote does not apply to the situation at hand. If there must be an "article about a pov", it would be "Creationism in US Christian fundamentalism". The Creation according to Genesis and Genesis creation myth would not be affected by this at all and still point to the same article. Within WP:DUE there can at best be a brief "in US Christian fundamentalism" section in this article, pointing to the "article about a pov" you propose.


 * That there is a "dispute" among editors, i.e. among people who happened to feel called to click "edit" and comment on the article, is supremely irrelevant. The question is, do we have a bona fide dispute among Wikipedians, based on content issues and informed by policy. Such a dispute can be resolved constructively.
 * In cases where "disputes" cannot be resolved constructively, as you suggest is the case here, it is usually due to the "dispute" not being about Wikipedia or writing articles at all, but about some ideological hobby-horse dragged to Wikipedia in violation of project aims and policies. Such "disputes" (for the purposes of Wikipedia, non-issues) are resolved by WP:IGNORE.


 * Let me be very clear: there are several valid choices for the title of this article. This does NOT mean that there are several articles in there.
 * The topic here is the Hebrew creation story as recorded in Genesis (Bereshit), and the history of its reception. That this is about a creation myth is completely undisputed. People who keep harping about the semantics of "myth" haven't even begun to grasp the issue and can be safely ignored in any serious debate on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * your arrogance is not helpful here at all and at the very least you have shown yourself to be incapable of a scholarly debate. 76.249.20.127 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So Dab posts 8 paragraphs, and instead of talking about that, you handwave it away with an "I don't like your attitude in the last sentence you wrote"? -- King Öomie  15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm.. Yes. But don't point your finger at me, point it at him.  He wrote (my paraphrase):  "If you disagree with me, I don't want to hear you."  So, guess what?  I didn't give him a reply.  Makes sense, no? 76.249.20.127 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Paraphrasing" is generally understood to mean changing one's words without changing the meaning, which you have failed to do here. Dab is saying "People who continuously argue irrelevant topics, while ignoring the actual issue, can be ignored". And he's right. -- King Öomie  16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, let me write this: People here who continue to harp on the fact the myth does not mean "false story" in our current culture have failed to grasp the real issue and can be safely ignored here. Is that you?  Because I am right.  76.249.20.127 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If not that, then what is the issue? Or rather, what issue is preventing the use of that term today? -- King Öomie  16:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you mind arguing this in one of the other sections? This section is about a specific proposal.  This isn't only about the term "myth".  It's about the entire direction of the article.  There is an article about Creation according to Genesis, which deals with Genesis as such.  And there's an article about the Genesis creation myth, which is about scholarly dissection of the Genesis account.  Two articles.  A simple split.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Creation according to genesis redirects here. It was moved to maintain consistency with the other 10 "X creation myth" articles. -- King Öomie 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that. That's why I'm proposing to make them separate articles, rather than an article and a redirect.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dab, the section I quoted is pretty clear. This is a case of something that speaks for itself, and criticism of that thing.  You want to switch it around and say that the criticism is primary.  I won't even argue with that, since it doesn't matter.  The fact is, there's an article about the Genesis creation story, as such.  And then there's an article about criticism of that story.  And since we're ignoring connotations and sticking purely with denotations (as you insist with the word "myth"), criticism can be positive or negative.  In fact, secular biblical scholarship is often called biblical criticism.


 * You talk about ideological hobby-horses, but don't you see that each side here thinks that's what the other side is doing? Just because you hold one view on that doesn't mean that your view is fact.


 * To narrow the quote I brought further:


 * "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.


 * I don't understand why you prefer to keep arguing. There will not be a consensus here.  Maybe you're hoping that if this drags on long enough, the side you disagree with will tire first and that you'll achieve "consensus" by default.  That's not what consensus means, however, and I can promise you that it isn't going to happen.  You know it isn't going to happen.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me also address your statement that "If there must be an 'article about a pov', it would be 'Creationism in US Christian fundamentalism'." I'm not a Christian; I'm a Jew.  And I think you're displaying more than a little bias by stating things the way you did.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does he call you a christian? He's referring to biblical literalism, which really only exists in US christian fundamentalism. -- King Öomie  16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Really. So the view that every word of Genesis was dictated to Moses by God doesn't exist outside of Christian fundamentalism?  That's certainly not true.  The fact that Orthodox Jews don't read any of the Bible as literal in the way that US Christian fundamentalists do doesn't mean that we don't consider it to be true, and the literal word of God.  Dab knows that, which is why I wrote what I did.  And now you know it as well, so we've all profited.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Creation myth" is one characterization of Genesis. Genesis is also a cornerstone of several religions. Is it a "creation myth" in that capacity? No — Genesis represents veracity in that context, at least to some. Again — the account of creation contained in Genesis does not provide a clue that its material is merely allegorical. No hint is found in Genesis that its contents are merely to be understood as metaphor for something else. Genesis does not suggest that its readers understand its material as a figurative account of what transpired at the beginning of the world. This point can be easily overlooked. In the clamor to apply scientific and pseudoscientific categorization it seems that some editors are giving short shrift to the Wikipedia principle of WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Some editors in this dispute find justification for the "spin" that they wish to put in the title in the overwhelming scientific evidence debunking the account of creation found in Genesis. But the core requirement of a title does not involve some test of whether or not the subject matter of an article will hold up to rational scrutiny. The relevant facts that come into play in choosing a title for this article involve what the subject matter is about, not what big sticky label scholarly or academic sources may choose to slap on it. There is a place for reporting on the big sticky label reading "Creation myth" that academics may choose to adhere to Genesis. That place is within the article. Concerning the title, priority should be given to the article's essential identity, not to add-on identities, however popular, fashionable, or even rationally justifiable they may be. There is respect shown not only to the article but to Wikipedia itself to not bend to current fashion in the way some editors are advocating. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This reads like a study of how many irrelevant and incorrect sentences someone can put together without hitting "enter". A creation myth is a supernatural story of the creation of the world and/or man. This is supported with near-unanimity by scholars. It is not a characterization, any more than you are characterized as a homo sapien. (That damned binomial nomenclature, infringing on my religious right to call myself a god-buddy...) We are not trying to call the Book of Genesis, itself, mythical.  -- King Öomie  16:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any WP:V issues here, here's how Enclyclopedia Britannica describes it, under a big section heading Myths: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/307197/Judaism/35340/Sources-and-development#ref299709
 * "Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendancer (talk • contribs)
 * I'm saying it's an irrelevant argument, because no one is actually trying to present it that way in the article. -- King Öomie  17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, I really wish you'd drop this nonsensical argument. You're saying that unless Genesis calls itself allegorical, we have no right to? By that reasoning, we can't claim any myth to be mythological. It's totally backwards and I'm surprised you're still advocating it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand That Feeds You — such claims belong in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? -- King Öomie  20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, please look up the definition of the term "creation myth" and explain to me how genesis doesn't fit. Is it not a religious account of how life / earth etc... was created?  Just because you don't like the formal term  for a concept doesn't make it any more or less the formal term.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nefariousski, that is one characterization. But we don't have to lock the article into that characterization. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the other characterization? Would you propose we add a statement saying "The hebrew bible says that the hebrew bible is a literal cosmogenical account"?  How else can it be defined?  Nefariousski (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — there are an indeterminate number of other characterizations. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a characterization, any more than you are characterized as a homo sapien. Next I'm wrapping it with . -- King Öomie  21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you could come up with an alternative characterization that actually had some sort of reliable sources supporting it. The usage of "creation myth" would still outweigh and be preferable per WP:UNDUE.  To King's point if people are called 4 different things but one of those things is overwhelmingly used by academia, scholars, etc... then that is what we use.  If I find a reference to prehistoric reptiles being called "Jesus Horses" that's not a viable "characterization" to replace the word Dinosaur.Nefariousski (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying it's not a characterization at all. It's an expert-supported classification. -- King Öomie  21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I wasn't replying to you on that last comment. Just trying to state that just because there are a few people out there that disagree with a specific "Characterization" or "Classification" that is near univerally accepted doesn't lend strength to an arguement that we shouldn't use said near universally accepted term.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you and I (and gabbe and cush and dab and etc etc) are right on so many levels that it's hard to keep them straight. -- King Öomie  21:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To repeat, Bus Stop: A creation myth is a supernatural story of the creation of the world and/or man. This is supported with near-unanimity by scholars. It is not a characterization, any more than you are characterized as a homo sapien. (That damned binomial nomenclature, infringing on my religious right to call myself a god-buddy...) -- King Öomie  20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As Gabbe stated above, Genesis is a primary source, and thus we must defer to the majority of secondary sources (scholars). -- King Öomie 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean archaeologists, historians, astronomers and biologists. To evaluate such claims you need experts, not scholars. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, this isn't about Genesis being true or not true. This is about the term 'Creation myth' having widespread usage and approval amongst relevant experts (theologians). -- King Öomie  20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing by experts you mean Theologans? Would you be shocked to find out that the term creation myth is widely used in the theological world as well?   We even pull our primary definition of the term from the Oxford dictionary of the bible.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nef, Cush is in agreement that the article should stay were it is, but has been arguing from the standpoint of science and strong atheism. I've been making the point that those arguments are simply not required in this case (though in my personal life I expect we agree quite closely)- and those arguments tend to accomplish nothing but rile up the religiously-motivated editors here. -- King Öomie  20:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Religiously motivated?" Give me a break… Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that seemed like an insult to you. I wasn't talking about everyone not on my side. I meant a specific few who Cush's arguments have actually pissed off, like Templeknight, who said "Right now you gave the proof we needed ..... so you call it myth because you dont think its true !".  -- King Öomie  20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. We do not have to bow down to the Sherri Shepherds in the world. How could the Genesis story be true when it is not even original? But that is besides the point. The point is to treat all religions equal around here and to not give in to the judeochristian proselytizers. If these folks are offended that's their problem, I am certainly a lot more offended than that, so we are even. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Proselytizers?" For which religion would we be proselytizing? The "Judeo-Christian" religion? Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If by that you mean adherents of the Hebrew bible then yes. But that's beside the point.  Unless someone can come up with a rational reason to fork the article that doesn't involve some appeal to hurt feelings or offensiveness and shows some sort of value added then the point is moot and as such this whole section should be archived.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski —  I didn't say it. Cush said, "The point is to treat all religions equal around here and to not give in to the judeochristian proselytizers." Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore it, to be honest. I've been clear with Cush that this line of argumentation is only minutely connected to the issue at hand, and that it tends to derail the discussion into bouts of "Say WHAT now?". The opinions of Cush are "not necessarily those of NBC or its affiliates', etc etc, and it is not the line of reasoning driving the rest of us (that I know of). -- King Öomie 04:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore yourself. If the word "myth" is changed to "account" then Wikipedia claims truth for the Genesis text. And we all know why certain people want this in Wikipedia. There are many instances around here where articles were changed to support positions of Christian fundamentalists. That is proselytizing and is unacceptable. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 12:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually there is merely emphasis on stripping away any "spin" from the title, and that would include the anti-religious spin of "Genesis creation myth."


 * This is about treating Jewish mythology as any other mythology. And to do that you need historians who can evaluate and do comparisons of the various creation myths. This is what an article on the first part of Genesis has to be about. WP does not endorse one religious POV over others. An NPOV can only be achieved by drawing the whole picture and including the context in which the creation myth was created. It was assembled out of bits an pieces of much older (mostly Mesopotamian) traditions. That it is a made-up story in any way you view it is beyond question anyways. Otherwise we would seriously have to include the Silmarillion as a valid creation account as well. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 20:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

King, you make a valid point that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. If Genesis becomes "Creation according to Genesis," then the Xylohaedics' article and 999 others should become "Creation according to the Xylohaedics," or the actual name of their sacred book if applicable. Each article should still say internally somethere in the lead that it fits the technical description of a "creation myth."

There is a pending proposal to split the Creation myth article into separate articles, or alternatively into an article called "List of creation myths" which instead would become "List of creation stories/accounts/narratives" (choose one). That would leave the main article open to extensive development about the concept of "creation myth." Presently it is simply an overly brief dictionary-type definition.

The issue here is the ordinary commonly understood meaning of "myth." There's no way we can run the two words together to make them somehow unique, so to (I dare say) the vast majority of English-speakers (at least), they read it as creation ''MYTH" . It's not unlike saying to someone, "You're a bastard," and as you're picking yourself up off the floor you try to clarify: "Uh, I don't know why you're so upset. I meant you are like a sweet Spanish wine like muscadel in flavor."

It boils down to what's more important to us: to communicate effectively (shared meaning) or to stubbornly approach it legalistically just because it's technically correct and "they" should know better. And if some readers misinterpret it to mean─as one dictionary clearly says─"the use of the word myth in everyday speech which basically refers to any unreal or imaginary story"─then many editors might conclude: "So much the better!" POV? I think so. Thanks, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting find. An article on Mythology opens this way:


 * Interesting that an areligious article about myths believes it behooves them to define terms to disambiguate the word "myth." They take the guesswork out of what myth means to the author, with or without a prefix word. Does that mean the author is unscholarly? What it does confirm is that even experts on mythology recognize and acknowledge that the term "myth" has a meaning "in everyday speech which basically refers to any unreal or imaginary story." Look, folks: this is not coming from a theologian, fundamentalist or otherwise, nor from anyone religiously motivated.


 * I realize that the term "creation myth" is here to stay, and I don't complain about that. I'm just appealing that we be judiciously helpful to the ordinary encyclopedia reader, exactly like Bernard Doyle does in his Mythology article, starting with the clear fact that he acknowledges, but which for some reason many of us are afraid to acknowledge: "myth" has a meaning "in everyday speech which basically refers to any unreal or imaginary story" ─ and explain that's NOT what this article is about. I now believe some (certainly not all whose views are different from mine) authors want this article to imply that it is an unreal or imaginary story and are hiding behind Wiki policy either correctly or incorrectly to achieve that sinister POV purpose.─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean their mythology article explains the term myth? How innovative of them. Meanwhile their Judaic mythology article is in need of a touch up, AFA Prof01, if it is to reach the standard you're holding this article to. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ben, I don't get your point. I cited one article, not the whole Website. I grant your observation of "Judaic mythology." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They have an article about mythology that explains the term myth, and so do we here. In fact, we have creation myth (and others like it) too that explain related terms. I'm certain that everybody thinks that is a great idea, and we already attempt to do the same. With those articles as a basis, we are being "judiciously helpful to the ordinary encyclopedia reader" in this article by remaining faithful to reliable sources on the topic, offering wikilinks to those relevant articles and supporting an introductory sentence of the form The Genesis creation myth is the <expansion of the term creation myth> ... (in this article) so that readers will not even have to click a wikilink.
 * Suppression of relevant and mainstream terminology is not considered "judiciously helpful to the ordinary encyclopedia reader", it is likely considered by many people here to be an attempt to project scientific reliability, or at the very least reduce a perception of scientific unreliability. You may not agree with that last statement, but you must at least acknowledge the perception given the articles religious significance, the rise of biblical literalism in the US, the propensity of biblical literalists to use the Internet as an outlet (projects like Conservapedia and Answers in Genesis, and literalism POV pushing on Wikipedia, come to mind), and the general form of argument in opposition to the term creation myth on this very talk page (arguments whose basis is the association of myth with untrue seem uniform).
 * I'm sorry for the length of the reply, it's not generally my style. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No length-of-reply apology necessary. I very much appreciate your in-depth, objective reply to my question. I'm still unclear as to what are your objections to starting the article with an approach similar to the one I cited from [Mythology|pantheon.org]. It comes across as scholarly; it is disambiguating and clear; it's an approach that seems to me would meet the objections of all but the few who do not want "myth" to appear anywhere in "our" article. If we would agree to restore the CATG title, that would salve many open wounds. Then, after a very brief opening paragraph, the entire 2nd para. could be devoted to the myth issue, labeling this a creation myth but explaining what that means, à la the pantheon article. This deadlock isn't helping anyone or anything.


 * One more question, please: The Creation myth article is pitiful, which doesn't help when the Genesis creation article Wikilinks to it. I am interested in pursuing the suggestion that has been posted at the top of that article. If we split the article into into "Creation myth" (singular) and move the specific myths to "Creation myths (list)" or something similar, we can have a CM article that will help people understand the technical/academic/literary term. Presently, I think it hurts more than it helps with thepresent objections re: Genesis. What do you think about this? And BTW, you are clearly the expert in using the WP:policies links, and also knowing them extensively. I clearly am not, so I apologize for not making good use of them in my comms to you. Thanks, Ben. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I'm sorry Lisa but I can't see the argument for 2 articles. The idea that Genesis 1-2 is literally true because the Bible is the Word of God should of course be covered, but so it is - there's a section or subsection called Creationism, and there are a few other references to the basic Creationist argument at various points.

Somewhere between 550-450 BCE someone sat down and wrote Genesis 1-2, along with a great deal else. How he did it nobody can agree - separate documents (Wellhausen's view), an expansion on an existing document (Van Seters), or the collation and editing of lots of fragments (Rendtorff). Certainly he had a limited number of Babylonian creation-myths in front of him (not my personal view, the general scholarly one). What did he believe about his sources - did he think they were the Word of God, did he simply view them as the theological enemy? Nobody knows, and probably we never will. I doubt very much that he would have called the result of his effort a myth, in the sense of fiction. Very likely he would have regarded it as true - but in what sense? "True" can be a slippery word. PiCo (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "True" is only a slippery word to those better versed in magical thinking than logic. It's not relevant whether the mortal author (or penman) of Genesis considered the creation myth at the front a myth. By today's definition, it is most certainly a creation myth. Which is, and I find myself driven to restate, "a different animal". -- King Öomie  04:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I must be guilty of magical thinking, since I've always felt Shakespeare's plays to be true.PiCo (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, given there's basically no debate that they are works of fiction. -- King Öomie  05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fiction doesn't exclude truth - in fact bad fiction is bad precisely because it doesn't ring true. PiCo (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ringing true", or seeming realistic- verisimilitude- is not the same as 'being true'. If something is fiction, by definition, it cannot be true. That's non-fiction. -- King Öomie  05:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain use of "myth" in header, not footnote
I moved footnote 1 to the top of the article and made it a header - it explains how the word "myth" is being used in this article.

Incidentally, what's with the big box at top-right saying this article is part of a series on Creationism? It sure don't read that way to me. PiCo (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you dispute the claim that the creation myth found in Genesis 1 and 2 is inextricably connected to Creationism at its very foundation? -- King Öomie  04:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also switched the definition in said hatnote to that present at Creation myth. It is implicit biased to deem any given creation myth "sacred", as it would be to use any other praising adjective. -- King Öomie 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you dispute the claim that the creation myth found in Genesis 1 and 2 is inextricably connected to Creationism at its very foundation? I think Genesis 1-2 is far more important to Creationism than Creationism is the Genesis - very few biblical scholars are Creationists. I don't think the article should assume that Creationists somehow have a greater claim on the bible than anyone else. Your switch of the definition is fine by me. But note that I don't use the word "sacred" as praise, but purely as description - relating to the gods.PiCo (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think some mediation might be useful here. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We just went through an RFC that resulted in the above consensus, followed by a successful page move request. Since then the only thing that has happened is a series of !votes that were all pretty much in line with WP:JDLI, and since meditation generally requires all parties to agree, perhaps you can be a little more convincing? Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see considerable discord on this page, with people unhappy with the RfC. (I for one didn't even know it was occurring, not that that proves anything about anything, just saying). I see an article that had to be protected to stop move warring. I see people arguing but not listening. This is everything Wikipedia should not be. I don't see why you're assuming that all parties wouldn't agree to it before anyone has even responded to my suggestion. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is considerable discord here. Considering the number of times we've had to repeat ourselves or explain the simplest things to editors here (voting achieves nothing, for instance), I think we've all managed to remain quite well composed.
 * Your not knowing about the RFC does not effect its outcome in the slightest. The RFC was requested by an editor opposed to the term myth, AFA Prof01, and publicly announced according to WP:RFC. AFA Prof01 didn't like the way it was going though and started WP:VOTESTACKING in a big way (using talk pages and e-mails), so perhaps if you make friends with AFA Prof01 you'll get a personal invite next time. Nevertheless, consensus was still achieved in spite of the votestacking.
 * The article had to be protected because a single editor decided to start move warring. Obviously that sort of behavior is unacceptable, but you explain that to the editor not use it as an excuse to request mediation.
 * You are completely right that some people aren't listening (as I mentioned above). I don't know how to deal with that outside of simply ignoring their comments. My guess is mediation isn't going to make anyone listen either, and I doubt that's the purpose of mediation anyway.
 * I didn't assume anything about any parties, I simply noted that all parties should agree to mediation before it can begin and I thought you could be a little more convincing in order to secure that agreement. For my part though, I don't see the value in mediation after a successful RFC, a successful page move (that was also publicly listed according to WP:RM), and second open page move request (also publicly listed, see above).
 * Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume the RfC was widely publicised to a range of interested WikiProjects and on WP:CENT? --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would a content issue be listed at WP:CENT? Ben (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. As Ben stated above, plenty of people knew about the RFC. It still came out in favor of Creation Myth being used in the article. Astute readers will notice that all but I think one of these users has previously argued against the term creation myth. Despite the RFC being inundated with people called to task to oust the term, there wasn't a single reasonable argument in the bunch.  -- King Öomie  14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben — why would you or anyone else argue for a title for an article that is unnecessary? There is ample space within the body of an article on the first two chapters of Genesis to characterize it any way reliable sources support. Why are you so insistent that one characterization grace the title? That is unnecessary. It could be named Genesis chapters one and two. Even the article Book of Genesis is ludicrous in that in the intro, literally the second sentence, the reader has to be treated to:


 * "After the Genesis creation myth found in, trace the continued spreading out of humankind and the development of human culture."


 * It is the way of speaking that is so ridiculous. "Genesis creation myth" is first used in a sentence before referring to its use by scholars. This probably belongs in the body of the article — not the intro. And the notion of a "creation myth" would first have to be presented, along with the assertion that the first two chapters of Genesis would fit the definition scholars use for the term "creation myth."


 * It is damaging to Wikipedia that Wikipedia has not yet learned to place material spin-free in a purely logical layout that does not attempt to promote a point of view. Also, be aware that you are not going to change the world one iota by what you present on Wikipedia. The only aim should be to present material in a crystal-clear format that does the least to tell people what to think. Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your problem with this literary genre? It's not a 'point of view' any more than calling Dune science fiction. And again:
 * "'This probably belongs in the body of the article — not the intro'"
 * Why? -- King Öomie  14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What "literary genre?" Are you referring to "creation myth" as a "literary genre?" Even if "creation myth" was a "literary genre," Dune is not entitled Dune, science fiction.
 * This article isn't about the book of genesis on the whole. That's Book of Genesis. This specialized article would be more akin to Science fiction elements in Dune. -- King Öomie 14:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even in the body of the article it would not make sense to use "creation myth" in a sentence before first explaining how it is used, its origin, the sort of environment in which it is used (an academic setting), and anything else pertinent to the term. It is to be assumed that the concept of the "creation myth" is a new concept to the reader. First it has to be introduced. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am, because that's what it is. What did you think it was?
 * Are we really circling back on ourselves with the "get it out of the lead" arguments? How long until someone starts arguing the informal meaning of 'myth' and pointing at an atheistic plot? The term doesn't need to be explained before it's used. It should probably be done at around the same time. -- King Öomie  14:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is in the sciences, not in the humanities, that the term "creation myth" has its greatest applicability. "Creation myths" are not pop novels that hit the booksellers' lists every Spring. Anthropologists and sociologists and anyone else studying the cultures of people around the world, and their reservoir of thought on the origin of that group's place in the world, and/or the world itself, tends to encounter these "myths." They are commonly encountered, they are a feature of mankind, thus they are given a name for easy reference and for purposes of comparison. The name that they are given is apparently "creation myths."


 * But the existence of the term "creation myths" is not a reason that an article on the first two chapters of Genesis has to be entitled "Genesis creation myth." Using such a title limits the subject matter of the article. If you look at the article as it presently stands you will see that very little reference is made to the first two chapters of Genesis as a "creation myth." The term "creation myth" is prominently displayed (in the title, in the intro), but the bulk of the article is simply about the first two chapters of Genesis. "Creation myth" in relation to the "first two chapters of Genesis" is scarcely given any mention at all after the intro and the title. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm searching, but I'm not seeing any instance of me saying Genesis was required reading in schools (well, not public schools) or a member of Oprah's Book Club. Literary genres aren't restricted to the bestseller list at Borders (though they certainly sell a number of texts containing creation myths- does the Bible still hold the title of #1 best-selling book?) -- King Öomie 14:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three edit conflicts, followed by a router hiccup during POST. This is going to be a good day, I can feel it. -- King Öomie  14:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"'Using such a title limits the subject matter to that title.'" You might have a point with this. It's not often you see a Wikipedia article with limits on its subject matter. On a related note, someone keeps removing the plot summary of Aliens I'm trying to add to the Alien article. Perhaps an RFC is in order. -- King Öomie 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to point out the same thing. Encyclopedia articles are inherently limited in topic, because they're summaries of the sources, not essays of their own. This article is precisely about the mythological creation story in Genesis 1 & 2. That's it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand That Feeds — but couldn't an article expand to a great extent based on the availability of a large number of reliable sources relating to it, and touching on a number of issues related to that topic? Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously yes, given circumstances. You have to take care to not end up with a very large article that covers several distinct issues, obviously, or the article will be split. I'm opposed to renaming an article to allow for expansion into less specific topics, except in the case of stub articles for which more sources are not forthcoming. It seems a slippery slope to deliberately lower the bar of specificity for an article of reasonable size. -- King Öomie  16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Creation myth" is just one characterization of Genesis chapters one and two, and it is not even a characterization that is treated in any depth in the article in its present state. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. No, it isn't. It is not. And I said I'd do it.
 * This is supported with near-unanimity by scholars. It is not a characterization, any more than you are 'characterized' as a homo sapien. -- King Öomie  16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that "creation myth" is a valid characterization, nor that it may be supported by reliable sources, but Genesis chapters one and two can be considered in any other way as well. Reliable sources can characterize Genesis chapters one and two in other ways, and the scope of this article should allow for other characterizations, especially because the article in its present state does not even treat the material of Genesis chapters one and two in terms of those two chapters being a "creation myth." The moniker "creation myth" is merely hung on this article in the form of its title. But that title does not reflect the article's contents. It is there for no apparent reason. Except of course to promote the rational approach to creation, which science does not even have conclusive answers to. The present title has an "ax to grind." It is like hanging a sign out in front of your house that reads "I am opposed to religion." That is your prerogative, but Wikipedia articles shouldn't be abused in this way. Genesis should be given the respect it deserves. It deserves to be presented simply as "Genesis chapters one and two." Deep within the the article is the place to develop the theme that academics categorize such tales — regardless the part of the world they are found in — as "creation myths." Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop, King Öomie just stated in bold letters that his argument is it's _not_ a characterization: 'creation myth' is the formal scholarly term identical to what's used in e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/142144/creation-myth/33934/Nature-and-significance and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/307197/Judaism/35338/Jewish-myth-and-legend#ref=ref299700.  By saying "I'm not denying that 'creation myth' is a valid characterization.", one could've construed it as you are somewhat twisting his words.  I'm sure you are probably unaware, just pointing it out because these kind of things can lead to frustration and heated circular arguments when one camp responds without actually responding--because then it's really not as much a debate, rather just two camps directing soliloquies at each other that has weak chances of reaching any agreement.  Tendancer (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Describing Genesis as a creation myth is merely putting it on a level playing field with all other creation myths (which are similarly described). It is emphatically not saying "I am opposed to religion", merely "I call a spade a spade".  And it is ridiculous to describe this use of creation myth as an "abuse" of Wikipedia.  If an encyclopaedia can't be based on our best understanding of a subject (= careful study), what should it be based on?  Or should we be pandering to "political correctness gawn mad"?  --P LUMBAGO  17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Plumbago — no one is denying "Genesis chapters one and two" is a "creation myth." If reliable sources confirm this, then that should be in our article. But why should the title be "Genesis creation myth?" That is totally unnecessary, or at least no one so far has presented a reason why it should be named in that way. Naming this article that way is making a statement — a statement that need not be made. Titles are for identifying subject matter — not for making assertions concerning that subject matter.


 * Putting "Genesis chapters one and two" on a "level playing field" with similar entities is a virtuous intention. But the place for explaining that to the reader is in the body of the article. "Creation myth" is not common terminology and its use in a title is gratuitous. Titles should identify general subject matter, and should leave open specifics to be worked out in the body of an article where countervailing and simply other views can be presented too. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because that's what it is. That's what the article is about: the creation myth contained in the book of Genesis. You have yet to explain how this is a "statement" when we're presenting the facts. Furthermore, how is the title not "respectful?" &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand That Feeds — anything beyond the minimum amount of description in a title is unnecessary. Titles are not for making assertions. Titles are for identifying the subject matter covered by an article. An actual examination of the subject matter covered in this article will reveal that very little reference to Genesis as a "creation myth" is found in this article at all. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The creation myth described in Genesis is the subject matter. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because Sumerian creation myth exists. Why have it different for Judaism and its offshoots? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — it is perfectly possible that "Sumerian creation myth" needs a title change too. I don't know about that — but it is possible. Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop, in the spirit of wp:npov can I pose this question for the pro-creation-myth camp? Is it a fair characterization to say your main objection is that the title of the article is unnecessarily provocative?  (and I believe the pro-creation myth's camp chief argument can be summarized as--correct me if I'm wrong King Oomie et al-- "'creation myth' is the terminology used in scholarly circles, and per WP:RNPOV: Conversely, editors 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").

Per the "Avoiding Constant Disputes" section of the WP:NOV FAQ.

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal.


 * I'm not trying to mediate and don't consider myself remotely qualified even if I wanted to. Just wondering if each side takes a step back and make a good faith effort to fully understand the other side's position, the debate would be at least more "efficient" so as to speak. Tendancer (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tendancer — you are talking about article space. The issue involves the title. Secondarily the issue involves the intro, the part of the article preceding the table of contents. There is also a way of speaking that I object to, which involves using the term "creation myth" in relation to "Genesis chapters one and two" without any prior explanation or background or rationale provided for the term "creation myth." The much more open-minded way of presenting this material is to first explain that scholars find a certain type of story in a variety of groups spread around the world, and that they all tend to have certain qualities. It is only then that the assertion should be made that indeed Genesis fits this same pattern of tales that describe origins of people and things. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:TITLE-
 * "The ideal title is:


 * Recognizable – Using names and  terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be  recognized, for the topic of the article.
 * Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most  naturally link from other articles).
 * Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
 * Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that  part brief.)
 * Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles."

While there are several caveats to this that would appear to be relevant, they all mention that we should defer to the reliable sources- a road that leads to 'creation myth'. -- King Öomie 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * King Öomie — Unnecessary additional restrictions should not be added to titles unless the articles associated with such titles are prepared to adhere to those additional restrictions. This article does not treat Genesis as a creation myth in 90% of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Treating something as a creation myth means what exactly? A creation myth is a religiously motivated story about the origin of the world. I what way does the beginning of Genesis not meet this definition? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of articles on fiction write about canon topics as though they were factual (comic books and sci-fi being the worst offenders). This is an editorial problem that needs to be fixed in the article, not by renaming said article to allow for it. -- King Öomie  19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Break it down for us
I'm starting to get the impression that Bus Stop wants us to prove, in the article text, that Genesis qualifies as a creation myth before we could name the article "Genesis creation myth." Is that accurate? If not, will you please spell out clearly what your contention is, Bus Stop? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not deciding whether or not "Genesis qualifies as a creation myth." We go by what sources say. But we need not entitle our articles in unnecessarily restrictive ways. WP:NPOV provides for all significant views to be represented. But WP:NPOV does not say that all significant views should be represented in the title. As King Öomie pointed out above, Genesis is also a "literary genre." Should we name the article "Genesis literary genre?" Obviously not. Why not? Because it would be too restrictive. You would have a hard time writing an article on only Genesis as a literary genre. Similarly — as it stands right now — the article does not treat Genesis as a creation myth. That is mentioned in the title. And that is mentioned in the intro. But the rest of the article — 90% — is a straightforward accounting of that story. Nowhere else in the article is another mention found to this particular notion concerning "creation myths." Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oomie did not say that Genesis was a literary genre, but that creation myths are. So, that's your misunderstanding there. And we've established that the story in Genesis is a creation myth. What, then, is your dispute with the title? What would you say needs to be different to treat Genesis as a creation myth in the article? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Genesis fits into a literary genre, was King Öomie's contention. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand That Feeds — we don't "establish" anything; we go by what reliable sources say. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We merely report what can be supported by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely disengenuous. We have established via reliable sources that this is a creation myth. And we are reporting that. Are you done playing word games yet? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were to write an article about the creation of the world according to ancient Greek religion, that would be an article about the Greek creation myth, even if neither word appeared in the article except in the title. What is your point? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 19:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source to support whatever it may be that you are considering in such an article, Cush? That is the primary question, in my opinion. But I'm not sure I really understand what sort of article you are considering or suggesting. Each situation varies slightly from every other situation used as a comparison in these discussions.


 * You say, "What is your point?" My point, as succinctly as I can state it, is that the title should be appropriate to the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But it is. It says exactly what the article presents. It presents the origin of the world as imagined in Judaism and derived religions. That is exactly what "creation myth" means.<span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The addition of "creation myth" to the title is merely gratuitous; it is not at all essential. What is essential to this particular article's title is the term "Genesis." Since that is not specific enough to differentiate this article from other articles with "Genesis" in their titles, a good name for this article might be "Genesis chapters one and two." Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. You expel the trailing "Creation myth" from the title, then claim the remaining part, "Genesis", too general. It now needs disambiguation. Well, I agree. I suggest adding "Creation myth" to the title, to make sure people know that the article is specifically about The creation myth in the Book of Genesis. You are pushing me to a level of detached bewilderment so pure, that the only answer is dripping sarcasm. -- King Öomie  20:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That is too little information in the title. The issue of the article is how the world came into being according to religious teaching (here Judaism). The title must reflect that. "Genesis creation myth" does that comprehensively. There is no way to take out religion. Genesis is not a rational explanation of the world's origin, but one that involves the supernatural. Hence "myth".<span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">CUSH 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Genesis creation myth" only addresses religion. Genesis has relevance in realms other than religion. Have there ever been paintings made deriving from the events described in Genesis? Have songs ever used wording relating to that particular series of developments? Those treatments fall under other headings — for instance popular culture. Is not popular culture a distinct discipline from religion? Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From the outset, the article Genesis creation myth should explain its subject, touch on relevant analysis in secondary sources, and discuss the cultural impact of the subject. None of these are outside the scope of this 'restrictive' name. -- King Öomie  20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

x2
 * Now we're getting to the heart of it. You're trying to change the scope of the article, but all of what you just mentioned still falls under this title. There's already a Biblical criticism article, treating the Bible as a whole as a literary work. This article has always been about the creation story in Genesis. If you can cite specific literary or artistic criticism/inspired works about the story, fine. But that's still not going to result in a change in scope, or name change. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand That Feeds — I am only giving hypothetical instances. In the absence of any known studies or reliable sources on Genesis in relation to anything other than religion, there is still no reason for a title advertising its opposition to the religions that take it seriously. That is gratuitous.


 * It is in poor taste. It is the slant that makes Wikipedia seem ridiculous. Some articles will slant the other way. So you could argue that the "slant" evens out across the expanse of Wikipedia. But our goal is to make the individual article we are working on "level." Our goal should not be, in any particular article, to argue for our "pet point of view."


 * There is an unnecessary, anti-religious spin in the title that presently adorns the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are entirely wrong. Want to know why? Scroll up to any of the 50 times I've explained why the term 'creation  myth' does not disparage its subject.
 * "...Editors 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".  This is EXACTLY what you are asking us to do, to the letter. -- King Öomie  21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the body of the article, King Öomie, not in the title. I don't care how extensively you or other editors choose to discuss the "creation myth" dimension to Genesis, but that should be done in the body of the article. Titles and articles have different requirements. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, that's the fifth time you've made the distinction without significant explanation. What  do you have to say to my post about the policy on article titles, above?  Or will it just be ignored?  -- King Öomie  21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded to your post on article titles. Did I respond to your 5 bullet points? No. Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not MY bullet points. Copied and pasted from policy. And I answered your response quite succinctly- your comment was mistaken. -- King Öomie 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understood that — pasted from policy. Forgive me for being a slow typer. Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * x4!
 * Its very much becoming clear that the only "pet point of view" is that you take personal offense to the title. You're really grasping at straws now, and I don't see this discussion being productive at this point. We didn't back down on the Muhammad images, I see no point to rename this article based on your own religious sensitivities. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Muhammad images? Aren't we going a bit far afield here? Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. There was quite a row on Wikipedia from some folks that because images of Muhammad are offensive to followers of Islam, we shouldn't have them. That argument was soundly refuted by WP:NOTCENSORED, and was a major impetus for WP:RNPOV. The fact that you find the title offensive isn't sufficient to rename it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say I found the title offensive? I never said any such thing. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've made it quite clear that you find the title "disrespectful," however. Nice try at another word game, BTW. And you might want to stop editing your posts after-the-fact. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I am not arguing out of personal interest. Please understand the distinction. I am not personally offended. An article should treat its subject matter squarely. It shouldn't set up an unnecessarily negative context in which to consider the subject. Again — the article itself is the place where, based on reliable sources, all relevant material gets to be presented. Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And we have multiple reliable sources that define this concept as a creation myth. These sources are from a wide range of places including theologians, a dictionary of the bible etc... so the issue of negative context shouldn't be valid, we've written an FAQ to clarify context and intent, we've wikilinked to the creation myth article for further understanding.  You're basically saying that we shouldn't use a term like prehistoric because some people believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that there is no period in the history of the earth where man and written accounts didn't exist and therefore using the term prehistoric isn't sensitive to their beliefs.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The comments on this talk page are starting to look like they've been written on a Möbius strip. We've had our debate, we've had our RFC, we've reached clear consensus.  Small numbers of POV pushing editors who plug their ears and repeat the same tired complaints doesn't revive the issue.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — I'm just trying to be helpful. I have no POV to push. If you want the article to look like propaganda then I'd say you've got a good title. And bear in mind that other similarly named articles, from very different cultures, are also probably named in poor taste, especially since in the case of those articles we are writing about cultures that we know even less about. In my opinion we should be endeavoring to give all of them titles that are more respectful of the underlying cultural stories being studied. It also comes down to objectivity. Do we really know the forces at play that led to the particular stories concerning creation that have been found in other cultures? The title of the article is not the place to be slapping labels on those stories. It would be far better to simply name the story with an appropriate title if possible. They could all be linked together by a Wikipedia category of "Creation myths." Why isn't there a Category: Creation myths? Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Using a formally defined term that is almost universally used to describe religious accounts of cosmogeneis is not propaganda. It's nothing more than conforming with what 99% academia, scholars, historians etc... use.  There is no respect or value criterion to be given or removed by using a formal and correct term for this or any other article.  In fact by not using the appropriate terms we dumb down the article and do readers a disservice by not introducing them to new concepts and helping them be "in the know" with what  proper terms and phrases are used to describe/define certain concepts.  All religious / supernatural cosmogenical accounts are creation myths by definition, that's what gives them their common thread.  Search for creation myths and you get a wealth of information across different cultures and beliefs at your disposal.  The alternative is searching for the preferred wording of each group and hoping you've gotten it right.  But I digress.  The main point here is that no matter whether we like it, you like it, the pope likes it etc... the term "creation myth" is unquestionably the proper term to use in this case.  If there were a question on Jeopardy like "The term that describes a religious or supernatural account of how life, the earth or the universe began" you better believe that the correct answer would be "what is creation myth?".  Nefariousski (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — It is gratuitous. Unnecessary. The article is not "dumbed down" if the material is contained in the article. You are not addressing the issue of the title. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just, like, your opinion man (too obscure?). We went through the debate and came to consensus regarding the title and how to use the term creation myth.  I understand that you disagree with the consensus that was reached and having been on the opposite side of consensus a few times myself I understand how frustrating it can be but it doesn't change the fact that consensus was reached and still seems to be holding strong.  Stronger convictions or beliefs dont translate to increased validity of a point.  If you spend the same amount of time researching historical viewpoints and different interpretations of Geneisis to add to the article that you have spent debating this one issue you could have done a lot more for the article.  But then again, that's just like, my opinion man. Nefariousski (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban time?
It looks as if it's time for topic bans. The disruption by people who play some kind of Three Card Monte with a small number of absurd claims that have all been shot down dozens of times can't go on forever. I don't know if we are dealing with bad faith or with a severe lack of competence, but this must stop. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do a well-prepared ANI report. Hans Adler 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see threads that are handled by the FAQ (or threads that degenerate into something that is handled by the FAQ) kindly point to the FAQ and a hat/hab template applied to the section. This works perfectly well on other "drama attracting" articles like evolution and intelligent design. Debunking the same couple of arguments again and again isn't helping the project.
 * My time will be pretty limited today and tomorrow but I'll have some time to help with this over the weekend. I also don't think it should be me to introduce something at ANI since Baseball Bugs seems to flare up at the sight of my name. That doesn't bother me, but it will drag out the ANI thread, and I think we've all had enough of things dragging out for no good reason. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We'd also need a q and a about why the article about the creation myth in Genesis is called Genesis creation myth, and why accurate titling isn't "gratuitous." Auntie E. (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no other takers I'll submit the ANI. If you have any particular comments or points you think I should include just drop them off on my talk page and I'll make sure they get incorporated.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say to post every diff where someone called creation myth 'POV' immediately after being told it wasn't, but that might crash the server.   -- King Öomie  14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to get this ball rolling again. I can't even make an edit to the article any more without being reverted for no reason. See User_talk:Swift_as_an_Eagle for example (diffs at that link). Furthermore, EGMichaels is attempting to open up another new round of discussion on the term myth after an RFC and two RMs (see Talk:Genesis creation myth below, his talk page and recent contribs that look suspiciously like canvassing). Ben (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I'm canvassing -- and I want BOTH sides included. There's been too much argumentation here.  What I want to do is list what and why for each option, and I'm not allowing either side to step on the other.  It may be that no consensus is possible, or it may be that it is.  But there's been too much argumentation and too little brainstorm to find out.  In any case, let's please table the discussion on this talk page and move it to my own talk page.  This talk page is at an impasse and it's only cluttering the page.  Leave the clutter to me, and if I'm not fair and impartial, then you can blast me and leave this poor article talk page in peace.EGMichaels (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I meant canvassing of the inappropriate variety. You were very selective of who you sent talk page messages to. Ben (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah from what it seems everyone who he did not perceive as uncivil. that does not seem terribly unreasonable Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (I'm not succeeding in staying offline, but will try again after this) -- Ben, (don't know why I keep calling you Bill, sorry), you were ALREADY on my talk page, and I was very vocal about inviting you to participate. I merely contacted everyone I thought may have been driven off to come back and be included.  Again, I canvassed EVERYONE who was here and everyone I thought had been driven away.  That's about as inclusive as it gets.  Night now.EGMichaels (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)