User talk:49.190.139.118

Hello. I have been an ardent fan of Wiki since its 2001 inception, a vocal champion of it among family and friends as a site of excellence, and a donator when asked to support the good cause. When i grew up, the best knowledge was vested in encyclopaedias which my family could not afford, particularly the amazing early Britannicas (I’m talking waaaay back many decades:) So when Wiki was born on the internet, it was, in my view, nothing short of an incredible and precious gift to humanity in which knowledge would be available to all and not only be the province of the wealthy (albeit there were/are public libraries, these invariably at the grassroots level were/are not capable of containing the knowledge often sought by thirsty readers). Up until this year, some 18 years later, I have had no issue with the Wiki content. I have always particularly respected the way Wiki has handled topics concerning different religions and their beliefs and texts; it is inclusive, it does not take a stance, and it presents both the pro and con and alternate views in balance. In essence, the reader can make up their own mind. Today, I was interested in the Adamic Language concept; I am simply a mother and enjoy finding out about things; I am not a scholar, I do not have a degree and I am not qualified to take on any mantle with the word editor stitched onto it! Hence please forgive me if I am simply writing to you rather than "editing"! I have two simple suggestions in relation to this article, and one that it links to. In the first paragraph, there is a reference (and link) to the “second Genesis creation myth (Genesis 2:19)”. May I suggest that in line with the respect and impartial Wiki stance, this be amended to: “the second Genesis creation account, or creation myth” Or some way acceptable to the author that will allow two links - because the current link only goes to an article with a strong position against the account view, and a strong position for the myth view. Secondly, when one arrives at the link page, the title of the article is "Genesis creation narrative". This is a neutral headline for what is not a neutral article. Perhaps a more accurate title would be Genesis as a creation myth Lastly, perhaps a link should be created in this second article also, in the first paragraph where the words Genesis creation narrative are presented in bold font, which would carry readers through to articles that present the range of views about this subject, including the perhaps secularly unpopular but nonetheless legitimate and supported view of the historic stance. And in doing so and as always Wiki allow the reader to make up their minds based on the excellent content available to them. Thank you very much for your consideration. Cheers, 49.190.139.118 (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Mara