User:Nefariousski/sandbox/Creation Myth ANI

Page created for ANI content to request topic ban for Genesis creation myth and Talk:Genesis creation myth.

Draft
This Genesis creation myth article has recently gone through a long RFC (concluding thread here) since there was a concern that use of the term creation myth would give readers the impression that the events mentioned in Genesis did not take place. Throughout the course of the RFC it was found that there were problems with the old article title. As a result a Requested Move was initiated with a couple of suggested titles in order to foster collaboration, both in the article title and in writing a lead sentence that everyone was happy with. After a week of discussion the current title was settled on. A week and a half later an IP filed another Requested Move, which after another week of discussion was closed since it did not gain consensus for a move back to the old title. Throughout the discussion there have been several recurring problems, listed below.

While the intention is not to rule out future discussion, requested moves, etc, I do think it's time to move on from the creation myth discussion for the time being and continue developing the article in other ways. With this in mind I request that a general ban on discussing the inclusion/exclusion or usage of the term "Creation Myth" and further editing tendentious editing be instated including changing the title name, removing the term from the article or altering its wikilink to the main creation myth article.

Relevant Policies and Guidelines
Below are the policies and guidelines that have been cited repeatedly over the past 2 months to support the usage of "Creation myth" and to support keeping the article in its current state.


 * WP:WTA
 * (relevent sections) "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception...be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally." Being that the usage of "Creation Myth" in articles (and their titles) about creation myths is near unanimous across different belief systems changing this convention for Judeo-Christian related articles violates the word and spirit of WP:WTA.  A sample of the other articles are as follows:
 * Chinese creation myth
 * Sumerian creation myth
 * Ancient Egyptian creation myths
 * Pelasgian creation myth
 * Tongan creation myth
 * Mesoamerican creation myths
 * Creation Myth
 * Keeping in mind that this isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since WP:WTA makes a specific example for uniform usage and the usage of "Creation Myth" is clearly the dominant usage for Religious and Supernatural cosmogenical articles.


 * WP:RNPOV
 * Usage of "Creation Myth" is clearly in line with this policy. The policy states "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." The latter three almost unanimously use the term "Creation Myth" while the first describes it as a historical fact (which we should not use for a myriad of reasons that I'm sure everyone reading this understands).
 * At best if any reliable sources can be found that are critical of usage of the term "Creation Myth" (not myth as a stand alone since the Electoral College can not be classified as a College any more than definitions of myth, particularly the informal/colloquial definitions can be applied to the term "Creation Myth") a section disucssing this criticism should be added to the article and the main Creation Myth article but shouldn't contradict usage of the term per "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction."
 * Per the section that states "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." editors of this article have, in good faith, created a FAQ, cited formal definitions, wikilinked to the main Creation myth article (which also has a detailed formal definition) and added a footnote to the the term "Creation Myth" to further clarify formal usage. All of which meet and possibly exceed the due diligence required to ensure that the formal meaning is understood.


 * WP:UCN
 * Usage of "Creation Myth" in the title has been furthermore contested after the first article RM, another RM was started about a week later to remove the term from the title, that RM also was declined and closed (albeit with some arguement and complaint regarding it possibly being closed too soon). UCN tells us "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article", considering the vast majority of cited sources including archaelogical, scientific, historical and other scholarly/academic writings use the term "Creation Myth" as opposed to other colloquial variants the title meets UCN.
 * Furthermore the usage of "Creation Myth" abounds in reliable sources doing a quick google search shows that its use clearly meets the "common usage" section of UCN "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name"
 * UCN also tells us "Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. " alternatives such as "Story" or "account" imply value judgements regarding veracity one way or the other (Story most often being defined as fiction, account commonly being used in factual / historical context). Additionally changing the name causes a loss of precision (also discussed in UCN) since "Creation Myth" is the formally defined academic term and as such doesn't allow for any ambiguity (only one definition) whereas other alternatives do.
 * Some editors have brought up different variants of google tests that show "Creation Story" or some other suggestion to have more "hits" than usage of "Creation Myth" again we look to UCN for guidance and see "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." which tells us that accuracy should value accuracy above hit counts when colloquial and non-arcane formal terms are in consideration for a article name.


 * WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
 * Using terms and phrases such as Creation account/story or Creation according to... Violate NPOV policy since they either provide a value judgement regarding the veracity of the creation myth in question or they assume that there is only one interpretation of the creation myth (in the account of "Creation according to Genesis".  Being that even amongst religious circles significant interpretation and variation of Genesis exists usage of language like "according to", which implies a single interpretation invalidates alternative interpretations or opens the door for a myriad of alternative articles like "Creation according to Genesis (Mormon Interpretation)" et, al...


 * WP:NOT
 * Included for reasons already stated and re-stated above


 * Additional information regarding policy, context, sources etc... can be seen in the article's FAQ

Some problems

 * Repeated arguments (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)here's a particularly good one (more or less the first 150k of the RFC is rife with examples)
 * Constant invalid arguments
 * Votestacking you may have to open the archived RFC to view
 * Persisting with discussion after an RFC and two RMs. (last two or three current sections (These unfortunately include some unpleasant accusations and attacks)
 * Enforcing a lock down of changes to the article: User_talk:Swift_as_an_Eagle
 * Aggressive editing without discussion: Talk:Genesis_creation_myth
 * Confirmed Sockpuppets used in discussion: user:Templeknight

Some quirks (nothing necessarily wrong with these actions though they may be pertinent)

 * User:EGMichaels has invited every editor who voted against the current title ( etc) to a thread on User_talk:EGMichaels.
 * The second RM was almost a keep, but it seems the closer went with no consensus instead. The only reason given was that the closer didn't like the title either, which seems an odd move considering that the closing admin should normally be uninvolved and impartial, lest they appear to be motivated by their own opinion.
 * User:Weaponbb7 started User Conduct RFC as result of a conflict with an editor involved during the second move discussion.

Relevant reliable sources
For non-experts: About the state of scholarship:
 * Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible: The biblical myth of the origin of the universe.
 * Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible: In Genesis the Creation and the Fall are myths.
 * The Oxford Companion to World Mythology: The creation myth of the Hebrews, sacred also to Christians and to some extent to followers of Islam (Muslims), is found at the beginning of the biblical Book of Genesis.
 * Oxford's Dictionary of Creation Myths: Genesis contains the creation myth that forms the basis of the Judeo‐Christian tradition.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: 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.
 * Marcus Borg's note about Genesis containing mythical material being a mainstream view kk

Comments
I figure a brief history of the talk page and a summary of why the status quo is preferred will be needed since the discussion has grown too long to expect ANI folk to have to read through it all.