User talk:Professor marginalia/talk renames

Current version Genesis creation narrative

Chronology of the various name changes:

Book of Genesis on 2 October 2001 ''' and Creation on 06:23, 28 November 2001; the latter then forks to both:

A. Creation myth#Traditional creation myths of various cultures 14 May 2003

B. Creationism#The two creation stories in Genesis 22 September 2003 (note: before this there were a few other forks that went through a tangle of name changes, moves and double redirects: Creationism -> Creationism (theology) alternating with Creation (theology) and then Doctrine of Creation .  All of this was soon unwound, returning back to Creationism (theology)  plus Creation (theology) and Creationist (theology) - all eventually merged back to Creationism )

Variously - Creation; Creation (theology); Creationism (theology); Abrahamic creationism; Doctrine of Creation; Creationist (theology)
Note: See Discussion related to split from Creationism to Creationism (theology) in onceuponatime Creation (theology) that was then moved to Abrahamic creationism

Note: See Discussion related to article creation for Creationism (theology)

Note: See Discussion throughout related to merging or keeping Creationism and Creationism (theology) separate

Note: Short life as Doctrine of Creation (no discussion found yet)

Note: See discussion surrounding creating/deleting/merging/splitting Creationism, Creation myth, Creationism (theology); Creationism (evolution); Creation beliefs

Note: See Deletion Discussion for Creation (theology)

=Creation myth=

Iterations in in Fork A:

Title: Creationism#The two creation stories in Genesis
Creationism#The two creation stories in Genesis 22 September 2003

NOT two Genesis creation accounts
Stating unequivocally that Genesis contains two creation accounts is POV. Most Christians I know believe that these "two accounts" are both the exact same story, with no contradictions. Things people see as "contradictions" we see as different details that were either focused on or left out. IMO, Genesis is a continuous narrative; the creation is described in general, then a summary statement is made and the author goes into more detail about the creation of man.

The list of events this article gives from the "two accounts" aren't contradictions. For example, the fact that the "first account" mentions the Sabbath and the second doesn't is not a contradiction; it just means that the author already mentioned it and saw no reason to repeat it at that point. The fact that the "second account" begins with the creation of man is not a contradiction; it means the author already described the creation of the universe and the earth and is now focusing in detail on the formation of man. (In fact, if you'll bother to read it, the supposed "second account," that uses YHWH Elohim begins in verse 4 by summarizing the creation of everything, describing the state of the world, and then digging in in more detail into the creation of man.)

Statements like "This is important because many people are not aware that the Book of Genesis contains two distinct versions of the story of creation," come off as saying, "Some people are so stupid that even though they read Genesis over and over again in their religious studies they've never noticed that there are contradictions." You just can't state as fact that there are two accounts here. You need to contextualize it by saying many people SEE it as two accounts.

Now that I've looked a little lower in the article, I see that it does talk about how these can be harmonized. But it still isn't right to begin with a "statement of fact" that there definitively ARE two accounts here; that is only somebody's opinion. And it's even worse to have the statement about "some people aren't aware of it." I'm fully aware that some people see this different from me; the fact is that I disagree with them, not that I am unaware.

Jdavidb 14:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quite so, the statements in this regard should be NPOV. There is more general information on the proposition that there are two creation accounts in Genesis (specifically Gen. 1:1-2:3, "P," and then from 2:4-25, "J") at documentary hypothesis. Fire Star 15:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Titles disputes over "Myths", "Beliefs", "Stories" in the Creation myth stream

 * Creation myth#Bible-based beliefs 18 July 2003==


 * Creation beliefs#Bible-based beliefs 18 July 2003


 * Creation beliefs#The stories of Genesis - by 11 September 2004


 * Origins beliefs 8 April 2005


 * Origin belief 12 May 2005


 * back to Creation myth 27 December 2007


 * moved to List of Creation mythologies 26 September 2008


 * reverted back to Creation myth 27 September 2008


 * Multi-staged campaign: Creation myth article name is left intact as one-by-one the term "creation myth" is replaced with "cosmogony" in article body. . Creation myth#Middle East#Judaism and Christianity relocated to Cosmogonic beliefs from Middle East#Judaism and Christianity March 2010


 * reverted back to Creation myth#Middle East#Judaism and Christianity 30 Mar 2010


 * 2nd attempt to Cosmogonic beliefs from Middle East#Judaism and Christianity 30 Mar 2010


 * restored as Creation myth#Middle East#Judaism and Christianity 30 Mar 2010

Creation "Myths"
The use of the word MYTH in describing creation, puts down God and religion, which the majority of the world adheres to. Most of the world believes that a supreme being had some hand in evolution or entirley bypassed evolution. Only 800 million athiests exist worldwide, which is less than 1/6 of the population of Earth. Therefore I am removing "Myths". A minority of scientists are no more right than 80 percent of the earth's population.
 * it is true that the majority of the world believes that existence was created by a God. However, these beliefs differ, and their is hardly a majority opinion as to which creation myth is most accurate.

Obviously Science and knowledge are not democratical and within the 800 million of athiests we will find a much more amount of cultivated people.


 * Should we place this at the bottom of the page, like on the Noah's Ark article?

Horse feathers! Saying something and putting it in a box doesn't make it so. The only difference between "myth" and "religon" is the 1st is on that the speaker might believe, or at least show some respect to, the 2nd, not. Yes, they are two different words, and people may use them in differnt ways, but to have WIKIPEDIA use the distinction in THIS way, is pure POV, racist, ethonocentic, small minded, and just plan crappy. 193.11.246.156 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO, abiogenesis is just as much religion as the story of the creation. Both have to be accepted on faith as there is no proof for either. This article puts the two on unequal footing without any justification for doing so. I especially like how the subheading to the article says that if you want to read about scientific articles instead of this myth, go see abiogensis, et al. This is a horrible NPOV violation IMO. Of course, I'm probably wrong since I'm just a dumb theist, huh? :) --Rcronk (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote
Do you vote for or In the section heading for the scientific view of creation?
 * 1) Scientific Theories
 * 1) Science Based beliefs

Scientific Theories
 * 1) John D. Croft 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Samboy 03:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) 192.160.165.63 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC) unfortunately, Bible-based beliefs are not scientific, since science deals with empirical observations. Calling them science-based beliefs implies that they are non empirical observations, which would be POV
 * 4) Support the title Scientific theories. Beobach972 16:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Mike0001 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Science tends not to support religious beliefs of any kind.

Science-Based beliefs
 * 1) Philip J. Rayment 05:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) "Belief" means "accepting as true"; it doesn't have to refer to something uncertain or unknowable. "Science-based beliefs" is a suitable parallel to "Bible-based beliefs". Referring to one as "scientific theories" implies that the other isn't scientific, which is POV.

Discussion
Belief = Theory... is there really a need to choose? the statement "bible based belifes not scientific" ??? Arnt there Cristian Scientists? I think there is a whole sect that is devoted to the integration of bible with sceince...As a page dedicated to "creation origins" i do not think we should vote on anything.. i feel all views should be expressed equally...--Maa-Kheru 03:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Christian Scientists? There were also National Socialists but they were neither national nor socialist. lol Mike0001 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Belief does not equate to theory, just read the article about theory and you would find that out. Beliefs are random whereas theories have to have evidence and be testable.


 * A creation myth is a specific type of myth? which tells how the Universe, the Earth, life, and/or humanity came into being. A myth is just a story for which there is no documentary or scientific proof.

Is there a way to revise this paragraph to indicate that a 'myth' usually dates from antiquity?

And that the authorship is always untraceable? I mean, it's too late for anyone to create any new myths, because the rest of us would know who wrote it -- or at least when.
 * If that were true, the Book of Mormon would not have had the success it has had.
 * The real problem in this opening paragraph is that the universe does not figure in creation myths, which describe the creation only of Earth, Sky (with its visible sun, moon and stars), and Sea. What is the 'life and/or humanity' here? Humanity always figures in any creation myth. Part of the definition of Creation myths must express the fact that they often include imaginary beings but never include dinosaurs or bacteria. User:Wetman


 * Yes, but that kind of detail should go into the myth article, not here. That's why I linked to it. :-) --Dmerrill

--Ed Poor

-- The term creation myth is used, generally disparagingly, for a story with deep explanatory or symbolic resonance... Why disparagingly? What's disparaging about 'creation myth'? People spend their whole careers studying them. Wetman 01:53, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * It implies that they are not true, which disparages those who believe them. Anthony DiPierro 02:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't like that sentence ... I think that a lot of people use "myth" to refer to any belief of that particular sort, true or false. Besides, it's not quite disparaging to claim that some one believes something false. Could it be rephrased to "often implying that the beliefs are false" or something? Paullusmagnus 15:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I myself don't consider the term "myth" to be disparaging. For mythologists, the essence of myth, what makes a story a myth, is not whether it has a factual basis in history or not. Rather it is a matter of how much meaning the story has for a given culture, whether in terms of explaining how or why some aspect of the world or the universe got to be the way it is, or in terms of describing an archtype for things or people that we encounter in life that one might (or might not) emulate, etc. In this sense, the term is simply descriptive, and not disparaging.


 * But that is just one meaning of "myth", and as far as I know its use in that sense tends to be limited to mythologists. In more popular usage the term "myth" is more commonly used to mean a "false belief" or something along those lines. In this sense the term probably is more or less disparaging, as when someone says "That's just a myth."


 * I think the article tries to make this distinction, but apparently it is not quite succeding? Or perhaps the "disparaging" phrase should be stripped out of that sentence and placed in proper context elsewhere in the article? Grizzly 22:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried expanding it a bit, but I could use some help with my wording. Anthony DiPierro 22:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Call the article Creation Beleifs or some thing. Man, some people just refuse to listen to reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Page name
This page includes beliefs not only about creation but also about other origins, so it would be better titled origin belief. Either that or limit it only to those beliefs involving creation. Bensaccount 16:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you've renamed the page, could you please immediately fix the large number of old links and double redirects so they link directly to it. -- FP 03:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure the "Origins beliefs" is an ideal page name; it seems clumsy. Any other opinions? -- FP 06:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the article creation linked here. It needs its own article (I will move some of the content of this page there). Bensaccount 15:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Origin vs Origins
Since JOke137 just changed all mentions of Origin to Origins, thought we should get on the same page. Is it origin? As in, the origin of species, the origin of life. Or is it origins, as in differing theories of origins. Writing this, it seems silly, of course it's origin. But I'd like consensus. -- Ec5618 22:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

In general, as described by, for example, NASA, it is correctly considered to be "origins" since there are a variety of origins for the phenomena we're interested in (the universe, life, humanity, etc.) Joshuaschroeder 22:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Switch
I am new to wikipedia so correct me if I am overstepping my bounds. I would really like to rewrite a lot of this article. I think it needs to be either a hub article with lots of little articles or two articles, one about scientific creation beliefs and another about religious/mythical beliefs. My vote is make into two separate articles.

Would I be stepping on anyone's toes if I did this? hdstubbs


 * I vote no to splitting. This article is one that defines "origin belief" in general, and then goes on to briefly describe/refer the reader to more specific articles concerning origin beliefs. I'm talking about this now, too, at Talk:Human evolution.

Creation myths
I simply do not see this title as being NPOV - whatever the strict definition most readers will relate to myth as an untruth. I should like to retitle this section Creation stories which, though it still carries baggage, is somewhat more neutral. May I have views, please. BlueValour 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this thought. "Creation stories" feels a lot more respectful towards those who hold them as more than "myths".

Do either of you find the terms "Norse Mythology", "Greek Mythology", "Egyptian Mythology" etc. disrespectful toward those cultures? These are special category of stories - they are myths in the academic sense of "a traditional story used to explain the worldview of a people". Read previous commentary on this in this talk page. It's been discussed. The correct term is "myth", though I could see using "mythology" also. *Spark* 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if I do not mind calling stories of Zeus as mythology, that should not matter. If someone who actively worships Zeus did not want me to call what he believes in as mythology, I would grant him that courtesy. Petercksun 01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)petercksun


 * Myth: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people. That is an accurate description of the issue at hand. If it offends you, you might do some "soul"-searching to determine why. In any case, it is the role of Wikipedia to be accurate, not inoffensive. You may also note: Christian mythology. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic - remove?
I'd suggest that either all creation myths should be included in this article, or the "Abrahamic" section should be removed to "Creation within belief systems". Otherwise the majority of this article is an advertisement for, essentially, Judeo-Christianity.

Personally, I think this article would be better served by replacing the Judeo-Christian section with a creation myth comparison section - say, highlighting similarities and differences between the creation myths of different people. The "Creation within belief systems" article is okay on its own, but comparison I think would look great on this page.

Yes/no?

Davidicke 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do whatever you have to do to make this article not suck so much :) Triggtay 17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Creation within belief systems
It is difficult to understand the basis on which Creation within belief systems has been given a separate article. It looks like a very ad hoc decision, including the rather strange title.

Several people above have also noted the scrappiness of the Origin beliefs article, and the unfairness inherent in the fact that Origin beliefs mentions Abrahamic religions but not others.

For that reason, I suggest that the article on Creation within belief systems should be merged into the article on Origin beliefs.

Bathrobe 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Having checked the history of the article, the split-off of Creation within belief systems was done by User:BlueValour on 26 November 2006. The split was not unmotivated as the original article was overly long and was crying out to be split up. No matter how well motivated it was, the actual split was done rather poorly. We now have two articles: the Origin belief article, which is now a mere rump of the original article and is undeniably biased and scrappy; and the Creation within belief systems, poorly named and without a decent general introduction.


 * Well, do we reintegrate the two articles? Or do we rewrite the Origin beliefs article to remove the current bias, and add a short summary on Creation stories that links to Creation within belief systems (the latter preferably renamed)?


 * Bathrobe 01:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I say we merge for the sake of simplicity. One subtopic, one resource. -- WolfieInu 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * support merge back into Origin belief no reason to have two. Chris 08:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this? with Creation within belief systems being a redirect to this page. ornis 09:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge back and support second option. It was a poorly executed split (I was a bit inexperienced in those days :-0) but merging back is simply going to resurrect the problem of length. Put together the article would be miles too long. It is quite normal, when you have a lot of material, to have a general article and then a list of specific instances, which is what we have here. BlueValour 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pity ornis scratched his scratch page. I had a look before he did; it didn't seem too bad. It probably even addressed BlueValour's criticism that merging the two pages would have been too long. The only real problem with merging the two pages is that the sections on Abrahamic religions in the current Origin beliefs page would have to be deleted. This would be a pity as there is substantive material in there.


 * sorry bout that, just assumed there wasn't much interest in a merge.. I've moved it here. My view on the Judeo-christian section, is that really, those topics are covered elsewhere in much greater detail, and all that's needed here is a quick overview and link to their respective main articles. ornis 00:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Should never be hasty :) It takes a while for everyone to express their views. It's nice that you've suggested specific action rather than just expressing a view from the sidelines.


 * In fact, it might be an idea if interested parties could express their views on Ornis's suggested edit, including suggestions, problems, and points of concern.
 * Bathrobe 06:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well OK, here is my view from the sidelines :) about ornis' idea. I think it's a good merge, and no elaboration on Judeo-Christian creationism is required since there are links to the main articles, as ornis said. We're discussing a Definitions of creationism article on Creationism's talk page, so keep in mind that if it goes through there may be implications for the Judeo-Christian (and others?) section. Perhaps we could move the material on Abrahamic religions in the current Origin beliefs article to a temporary page until Creationism has settled down. -- WolfieInu 10:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And so it has come to nothing. Sad. -- WolfieInu 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The topic doesn't seem to attract the same interest as Creationism. Should we let Ornis go ahead?
 * Bathrobe 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one question. If I do, what if anything should I do with the talk page of the other article?. ornis 03:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to check up on the procedures for merging article, which entails wading through About Wikipedia to find the guidelines. I'll try and get around it in a couple of days :)
 * Bathrobe 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I would make the other article a redirect so its history and talk are intact obviously, but I was wondering if i should perhaps leave a note there and copy over (relatively) new discussions from there to a subpage perhaps, of this talk page. ornis 10:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, scratch that last bit, there are no recent discussions on that talk page. ornis 07:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done now. creation within belief systems is now a redirect to this page. In terms of the length I think a lot of this should be farmed off to more appropriate sub articles, for instance, I notice there's nothing about creation myths of the ainu on the Ainu people page. 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Now wait for the reaction (although I don't think there will be too much reaction, at least for a while)

Bathrobe 10:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No I don't think so either, but I'll keep my asbestos long-johns handy none the less ;)  Ornis  (t)  10:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation Myth
Anyone searching for this article is going to search for "creation myth" not "origin beliefs". Compare results for the google search "origin belief" verus the result for "creation myth". Why does one return more results? Because that's the term that people actually use, in conversation as well as academic channels. This sort of semantic rubbish is exactly the reason people laugh when you use wikipedia as a reference. Furthermore, the word "myth" does not imply "false". I'm sorry if it offends people, but wikipedia is a collection of facts not an outline for a more PC world. If it is called "creation myth" THAT should be the name of the article. If you'd like that term to be retired, do it in the correct forums, not on wikipedia.

66.152.196.34 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well argued, and important. Stellenbosch (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I could see arguments for using 'origin' in place of 'creation' (since 'creation' implies volition, which might not be appropriate for everything here), but 'myth' is definitely the most appropriate word. 'Origin belief' is just clumsy and idiosyncratic. Ilkali (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move: Creation myth

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Hits on Google:

The latter is more familiar and more descriptive. Wikipedia shouldn't shy away from using the 'm' word to describe people's beliefs. At most, we should have a box explaining what the word does and doesn't mean, like on Christian mythology and Islamic mythology. Ilkali (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Origin belief": 13,200
 * "Creation myth": 245,000
 * Origin myrh might be a useful compromise; but the cases in which it would apply (in which the world is portrayed as deeply continuous) are quite rare. Support as usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Google scholar is worth looking at too. "Creation myth" with 6,160 hits vs. "Origin belief" with 112 hits. Ben 08:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Creation myth is the common term, and there are no compelling reasons why it should not be used. EuroSong talk 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . 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.

It does not matter what people search for, the term "myth" is politically incorrect and offensive. --72.80.43.67 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CENSOR. Ben (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia need to use the the loaded term Myth?
Why should Wikipedia use the derogatory term myth? Why is creationism necessarily an "invented story, idea, or concept"? Certainly much of it is, but to arrogantly assume that at *all* is myth (imaginary) is not NPOV. Why should ideas like singularities, big bang, and dark matter be treated in fair, neutral language, but creationism gets paternalistic discussions of themes, motifs and symbolism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.121.36 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not about any one creation myth, it's about creation myths in general. It seems to me you want to describe "much of it" as a myth, but not some of it, which is certainly not a NPOV. The term myth is not, in general, a derogatory term. Some people use it in a derogatory manner, but regardless, 'creation myth' is the commonly used term both colloquially and academically (see above). Some people do equate myth with imaginary, but some people also equate theory with conjecture or idea without evidence, yet I don't see any complaints of the use of the word 'theory' in the singularities, big bang, and dark matter articles you mentioned. In both the myth and theory cases the standard term is used, and Wikipedia can't choose to abandon standard usage because some people don't like it or other people use it in a derogatory manner. Ben (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Theory connotes positively as a part of intellectual exercise: it might be true. Myth connotes negatively as only a story that will always be just a story. Theory is in the pursuit of truth, myth isn't. The smart people use intellectual processes to understand the truth. Religionists just rely on voodoo stuff that somebody made up a long time ago. The scientific road is littered with some of most foolish ideas wreaked on the side. Yet it isn't typical to use religionist terms when describing science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.121.36 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about creation myths. If you don't like the words, it's the rest of the world you need to convince, not a few editors on a wikipedia talk page. Ben (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So how many of these "creation myths" do you feel are getting unfair treatment? Let me take a guess. Is it the Christian story of creation that you don't like being lumped in with all those other heathen myths? Am I right? Well, if that's the case, I'm sorry, you have no basis for expecting your particular beliefs to be privileged over the creation stories of other religions or other traditions.


 * If you actually mean something else, please feel free to tell us about it.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article represents the beliefs of some, that everyone else's beleifs (that are not measured within emperical science) are wrong, and their belief in the measurable world is the only thing that isn't a myth. It's a highly subjective bias that definitely takes away from the integrity of Wikipedia.

I know for a fact that the actual traditional Christian (Catholic) 'creation' is much more of a teaching on humanity than it is an historical account. It wasn't just Maimonidies that said it shouldn't be taken literally, it's written in the Church doctrine. I don't want to know what other projections were made on different religions in this 'article' but I think that people should keep their biases to themselves and stay out of articles they know nothing about.

This article's title and content should be changed immediately. Black Slacks (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, I believe in leprechauns too, and I demand that the words Irish mythology should be taken off the article.


 * In fact, if the Christian account of creation is, as you say, "much more of a teaching on humanity than it is an historical account", why are you complaining about the use of the word "myth"? If it's not a historical account, please tell us what it is. A "story"? An "allegory"?


 * If you read the Wikipedia article on myth, you'll note that it says "In the academic fields of mythology, mythography, or folkloristics, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be in their present form". It also says that "In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false." You are just touchy about it because you subscribe to the pejorative popular use of the term "myth" rather than the academic use.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is an aspect of my faith a MYTH?
I'm sorry, but I am a practicing Church of England Christian, and have faith in the Genesis One passage, and to me, my faith shouldn't be put down in this way. It was actually quite offensive when I first read it. Myth definition:

a widely held but false belief

a fictitious person or thing. 

It isn't the role of Wikipedia to decide on my faith. St91 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With regards to the question asked in the section title: yes. Jefffire (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And with regards to the rest of it...?
 * St91 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are picking two definitions out of three on that page. How about the first one listed?  "a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural"?  Why aren't you considering that definition?  &mdash; the Sidhekin (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a God-inspired passage as a " traditional story "
 * St91 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The greatest story ever told, not a story? Er... Sheffield Steel talkstalk 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he insists on a clear division between scripture and tradition? Though I don't think that kind of jargon will fly in a general-purpose encyclopædia. ;-) &mdash; the Sidhekin (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I too find the article title highly POV. It's not enought to note in the article that some people think that the term myth is pejorative. Just don't use the term: call it "Creation accounts" or maybe "Creation narratives." Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I find that Creation Narratives would be less controversial we have to remeber that the average user who looks at this page probobly hasn't sceen the wikipedia page on myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpc100 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this NPOV?
This refers to Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and other religions as myths... I believe there's a difference between a myth and a religious belief? -- H  A YSON1991  11:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it refers to certain beliefs of Christianity etc as myth. Slight difference.  :)


 * Religios beliefs might be referred to by many names. Dogma.  Truths.  Accounts.  The fact that one name can be applied does not mean others cannot.  The beliefs examined here are, I believe, traditional stories.  Hence, the name of "myth" applies.


 * That does not mean the current version is fixed. Got any suggestions for change?  I'll listen.  &mdash; the Sidhekin (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest "creation accounts" or "creation beliefs". Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between "accounts" and "stories" (as previously suggested)? Per WP:NAME we should prefer the far more common "creation myths" or "creation stories", so I'm inclined to ignore "accounts" and instead consider "stories" as a possible replacement.  (Of course, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I may be missing something here.)
 * Against "beliefs" I would hold the following, from the lead of our article: "creation myths need not be religious in nature, and they have secular analogues in modern cultures". In that respect, "beliefs" seems as NPOV as "myth".  Oh, and far less common, too.
 * I guess that means I could get behind "Creation stories" as the NPOV alternative. Thoughts? &mdash; the Sidhekin (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Difference between "account" and story"
 * Account - a description of an event or experience
 * Story - an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment
 * source: http://www.askoxford.com/
 * St91 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "myth" has a blatant secularist POV derogatory tone, implying that the belief is about as legitimate as the tooth fairy. Some NPOV alternative must be found. I'll accept "creation story" or "creation belief." Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction is made more in the minds of theists than atheists. You have no problem with describing elements of Roman or Egyptian religions as mythology, but demand special nomenclature for describing your own beliefs. "Creation myth" is the dominant term for the material listed on the page, as confirmed by searches with Google and Google Scholar, and 'myth' is not an inherently derogatory term. Ilkali (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, just change it to "creation story". These thin-skinned Christians won't give it a rest until you remove any soupcon of a doubt that their sacred beliefs are true. The fact that they are prejudiced in favour of their own faith (and against others) doesn't matter. Just stop the constant and selective (as seen in the person who doesn't even know how to look up a dictionary properly) moaning. Next thing they'll be demanding that Christianity (and Christianity only) should be removed from the Portal:Mythology.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Myth" is the correct term. Why should we not use it?  (Incidentally, wouldn't it be an NPOV violation to disparage the Tooth Fairy as Yehoishophot Oliver apparently did?) --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, as a believer in the tooth fairy I am deeply offended.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the word "Myth" highly POV. According to WP:WTA, the word Myth is not to be used. I would suggest "Accounts Of Creation". Shlomke (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:WTA. That's not what it says. From a sociological perspective, the word "myth" is the correct one to use.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From that very source: "Myth is perfectly valid in its technical sense, for example in an article about religious beliefs". Ilkali (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I still feel Myth has a negative connotation insinuating that the story's are not true. WP:Words to avoid does show that the word is problematic, even if not in every case. Can we use another word like "Creation Accounts" or "Accounts Of Creation"? - Shlomke (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, from WP:Words to avoid: "Myth is perfectly valid in its technical sense, for example in an article about religious beliefs" Since this is an article about religious beliefs, I guess that makes the answer a No.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a myth box template to explain to readers the meaning of the word "myth." I believe that it is fairly well-established to use the word "myth" in reference to mythology on Wikipedia, rather than some other less precise term such as "account."  So, I really don't see any reasonable precedent for changing the title of the article.  Hopefully the template will resolve some of these issues.  silly rabbit  ( talk ) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Title Suggestion
Perhaps we could change the name of this title to "Creation belief" rather than creation myth. While I have read the explanations above, the word "myth" sounds very negative and to me implies that it is a lie, which is how most people interpret it without any explanations. As a Born-Again Christian and a Young-Earth Creationist, I find the title offensive and biased. I feel that the term "belief" would be more NPOV and would not cause as much controversy or offense. SouthJerseyConservative (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed dozens of times now. If you want to start a new discussion, at least tackle the opposing arguments made before. Ilkali (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary defines myth as "A story of a great but unknown age which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient story of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin." At first I thought the title was POV, but the based on this definition of the word "myth" I'm content with the title.--Urban Rose  23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation Beliefs
Using the word "myth" with the "broad description" used on the page is utter sophistry. The universally accepted definition of the word is a story or legend that is not *true*. I don't see why we simply can't change the article label to "Creation Beliefs", or "Creation Theories". The word "creation" is clearly evocative of religious beliefs in and of itself, we don't need to label it "myths" to insult the majority of our world's population.

Don't we want to be a 'pedia for everyone? Is changing the word to "beliefs" in *any* way changing the accuracy of the article? I simply don't see the need to be contentious by applying such a broad meaning of the word "myth". Lets not be coy, we all know what the word conjures up in our minds; read three of the four definitions of the word "myth" from dictionary(dot)com:

3.	any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth. 4.	an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. 5.	an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

We can be true to science and ethical in our treatment of the creation beliefs without stirring up rancor and insulting the majority of people who believe in God. I respect atheists who do not subscribe to a belief in a "god creation", and we're not attempting on the page to equate the creation beliefs with scientific theory. All we are asking for in naming the page, is that... respect. Wikipedia is already getting a really bad "rep" in the religious community for other reasons (for example, the Intelligent Design page), why should we further alienate persons who believe in God by applying the word "myth" to the title? This really isn't the place to bandy with "broad definitions". This simply lends credibility to the assertion that Wikipedia is "LiberalPedia". In my opinion, how we treat and/or respect those whom we disagree with defines our character. Thoughts? Supertheman ( talk  ) 09:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "I don't see why we simply can't change the article label to "Creation Beliefs", or "Creation Theories".". Then go back and look at the reasons previously given. Ilkali (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, and just for completeness, in the listing of definitions above you missed out the first (presumably most widely recognised) one:
 * 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
 * Note that this doesn't cast judgement on the veracity of the myth. Anyway, as Ilkali notes, this has been thrashed out time and time again above.  Please read this.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thoughts? Well, for one, scientific explanations does not in any way mean the same thing as atheist. There are lots of theists who believe in the scientific creation theories. Actually, most theists probably do. Labeling something as what it is (eg. a myth, see countless explanations above that clearly defines what a myth is) isn't POV. Obviously Wikipedia isn't something an ID would recommend to other people, since their lies (seen from a scientific viewpoint, not necessary an atheist one) can't be upheld if someone actually checks them out (and wikipedia is a good place for learning more about anything, including unscientific myths). Wikipedia does not strive to become a censored puppy of fundamentalist Christianity, so obviously there is no reason to write factually incorrect things just to please some few fundamentalists. Ran4 (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not, "Creation stories"? --69.243.242.58 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This topic has been discussed dozens of times now. Go back and look. Ilkali (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding all the controversy surrounding the phrase "myth"
Should we have a notice box at the top of the page to explain to everyone why exactly we chose "myth"? Because apparently the big box in the article explaining what Wikipedia's definition of "myth" isn't working. I don't particularly like the term, but I also think that explaining over and over why we chose the term myth is a huge waste of time, and this way the objectors won't have to search through the entire talk page. Honestly, it's been a little tiring hearing those same objections. --Sapphire Flame (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the most democratic thing to do would be to change it back and forth between "belief" and "myth" every four or eight years like we Americans do to represent our contradictory culture in our presidency. That might happen organically here too, but at a much more rapid pace, and I think that would be within the spirit of Wikipedia. I am a lifelong athiest myself, but I don't really like the term "myth." I would vote to keep it, because it is clearly the accepted term, but it is unfortunately also a loaded one that is generally only applied to everyone *else's* myths, even when the definition being used could apply to your own as well. This may not be true among Wikipedians, but it is, in my experience, true among the populace. Blame language for being, once again, inadequate to convey human experience. You suck, language. My computer said love (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only neutral to call something a myth when no known group seriously believes in it. Creation "stories" or "beliefs" would be much better. --69.243.242.58 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are confusing being neutral with avoiding offense. Ilkali (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

-

Not same as origin myth
When I search for "origin myth", I get redirected to this article. But "origin myth" is not equivalent to "creation myth", at least as the latter term is used in this article. This article seems to equate creation myths with cosmogonic myths. In other words, it limits the term "creation myth" to stories that describe the creation of the universe. But surely there are origin myths (for example, a myth that tells how a certain animal got its tail) that are narrated separately from the creation of the universe.

See this passage from Mircea Eliade: "Every mythical account of the origin of anything presupposes and continues the cosmogony. From the structural point of view, origin myths can be homologized with the cosmogonic myth. The creation of the World being the pre-eminent instance of creation, the cosmogony becomes the exemplary model for "creation" of every kind. This does not mean that the origin myth imitates or copies the cosmogonic model, for no concerted and systematic reflection is involved. But every new appearance—an animal, a plant, an institution—implies the existence of a World" (Mircea Eliade, Myth and Reality, Harper & Row, 1963, p. 21). I suppose this passage could be interpreted either as implying that origin myths are simply part of the cosmogonic myth or as implying that origin myths are distinct from the cosmogonic myth. However, I think it's fairly obvious that "origin myth" is here being used to refer to any story about the origin of something ("I call you Peter, and upon this rock I will found my church..."), whereas "cosmogonic myth" is being used to refer only to stories about the initial creation of the world ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...").

At any rate, either "origin myth" should not redirect here, or this article should treat cosmogonic myths and origin myths as distinct types of creation myth. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article isn't much more than a list at the moment, so any improvements will be most welcome. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I tried to fix things by creating a separate article for Origin myth. I also added a notice at the top of this article that gives a link to Origin myth. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias
I know this is likely not the first time it has been suggested, but as an open-minded person, I think myth here is a derog term. Negro is not defined as a derog term either, but how it is used can speak volumes. To most people, despite it's Webster's defenition, myth means B.S. So either do a better job of re-educating the general public or take some action. I suggest that the article be simply Creation. Perhaps even Creation theory. You will get less people up in arms, which, I assume, is what someone is trying to do.Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Creation means lots of things (see the disambig page) and the words myth and theory both have specific, different, meanings in the context of an encyclopedia. This isn't the page to argue over the bias of a term (many, many pages use the term, and this page is not special in some way), so your best bet is to take it up at WP:NPOV or something if you think there is a bias problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ben, you are right, the word theory would not work. That's not what this article is about.  I am not claiming to know what the proper title to this page is, but if you have to explain TWICE in the beginning of the article why it is not biased.... then it likely is biased.  It's like saying "I am calling you a Wetback in the nicest possible way."  It's crap.  This article touches, as it should, on many different creation theories from many different orgins, but the title, Creation myth, is singular, meaning it only talks about one.... and the one most will assume is Christianity, which is covered in a seperate article.  Again, I don't know the answer, but if it looks like a rat....  How about Creation mythologies?  That would not be too specific. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the myth box on the top right? I don't think it's very encyclopedic, so if you remove it I won't object. I'm not sure what others will think though, since at best it does help some people understand why the article title is what it is. Maybe it should be incorporated into the notice at the top of this page or something. Anyway, the article title isn't biased since it uses the standard term, and Wikipedia guidelines suggest article titles should be singular (which makes sense - Book talks about all books), so Creation mythologies is out. If you're objecting to the title because you believe a particular creation myth, and take offence at your belief being labelled a myth, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Wikipedia isn't censored. Myth is the proper term, but as I said, if you feel it somehow violates a NPOV, then this is not the place to take up that problem since the term is used throughout the encyclopedia. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My beliefs, and yours, are moot on Wikipedia. I'm only struggling to find a word that will make everyone happy.  That may not exist.  I don't have a problem with the infobox, I simply have question that if the word myth were replaced with something more subtle, we will no longer need the infobox, becuase nobody will be offended.  I understand your argument on singular verbage, but I think it's a bad fit for this article, and a few others.  One example is the page Chicago Cubs futility theories, which tells of a few theories for the Cubs 99 year title drought.  A singular term would not work there, and I think also not here.  Thanks for you time. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 68.74.125.58 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing is wrong with the term myth. This is established terminology by far in the relevant academic fields. I have linked to Google scholar in support of this contention several times already on this very talk page, as well as to the Britannica article "Creation myth". The non-myth crowd continues to regurgitate the same tired arguments all thoughout this talk page. My response is: do a little research, please. Search for some scholarly precedent for calling cultural cosmogenic narratives something other than "creation myth" or "cosmogenic myth". Then we can discuss the merits for a name change on the basis of those sources, and the others weighing on the other side. Until that time, however, all of this discussion runs completely counter to WP:NPOV, which says that we should go with whatever the majority of sources use. And so far only pro-"myth" sources have been given. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk ) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you do a little research yourself. You are arguing something completely different than what I am.  I'm not a religious zealot that is offended by the term myth.  This article is not even really about the Genesis version of Creation, rather a list of different "myths."  Notice there.... I did not writh "rather a list of different 'myth'."  Why?  Well, that would make no sense.  Perhaps the proper title for this article is "List of Creation myths," since that is exactly what it is, whether YOU like it or not, you are wrong, and based on the tone of your reply you are CLEARLY biased. Two examples;
 * If you go to the Wiki article on Dialect it is a singular term, since it explains WHAT dialect actually is, which is in contrast the the article List of Chinese dialects, which explains many different subtopics all based on different dialects. Why use the plural term?  Why does this (and all articles like it) not violate your sacred policies?  Likely because it does not fit your PRE-Determined agenda.  If you read Ben's comments further up this page, he, a supporter of the title as it currently is, admits that this page is actually only a list.  Should this article only explain what a creation myth is then you may title it as is, but once you use this page as a forum to list the actual mythologies or beliefs in specific, it's no longer valid, unless it is an extremely minor subtopic, such as Burger King being a footnote in the article on Hamburger.
 * Have you been to the actual article on Myth. Not only does the article CLEARLY say that myth means falsehood (see the See also section), but it lists Mythology as a main article.  So that makes the proper title of this page Creation Mythologies.Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about this below. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Myth"???
I don't understand the use of the word "myth". By definition, a myth is something which is untrue.
 * Exactly ... 123.255.38.129 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up the word "myth", and I see that it doesn't always imply falsehood or improbability. But that meaning of the word (a false historical story) is gaining strength, and I don't think the word "myth" should be used to describe things that might be true. I would much prefer a word like "theory", or some other similar word. "Creation Theories" would be a better name for this articles.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Caleb, there is a note at the top of this page with some relevant info. Ben (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we need a notice to clarify the meaning, then why don't we just use a word that better reflects the intended meaning? Why not call the article "Creation Traditions" or something similar instead of "myth" that implies falsehood (even if unintentional)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article uses well-established anthropological terminology. There are thousands of scholarly articles employing our current word-choice versus just a few hundred using "creation tradition".  siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthropology is not exactly an ally of the Church. Bad argument Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that there is a note at the top of the page explaining the use of the word "myth" and that it does not automatically indicate falsehood, however, the word does tend to carry a negative connotation (see Myth). I therefore second Caleb Murdock's suggestion of "Creation Theory".  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Theory carries a conjectural connotation in popular culture too, but we don't let that get in the way of our scientific articles using standard terminology. Likewise, this article should use standard terminology. Ben (talk) 19:03, 23 August (UTC)
 * We cannot call it a "theory" - that would be confused with the scientific term "theory", which creation certainly doesn't fall under. "Myth" is fine; you're talking about an old story with no proof, and the guidelines state that the best word for such a case is "myth". 217.44.32.250 (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible alternative: "stories"? Looking up and down the talk page, this one word "myth" seems to be the focal point of controversy in the entire article. Are we so attached to a word? I don't see any particular reason to take offense at "List of creation stories" or something of the like. Perhaps if this issue were resolved once and for all it would be possible to focus on improving other aspects of the article. »S0CO ( talk 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, I have seen no compelling reason to change, except that certain folks take offense to the established terminology in the relevant field of anthropology. References aplenty have been provided to substantiate the choice of "myth", but no (or very few) rebutting references have surfaced.  I vote no change until a good reason, firmly rooted in reliable academic sources, is given.  siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This objection will probably continue to keep bobbing up as long as the article is not merely about defining "creation myth" but also includes a list of various beliefs that have been identified as creation myths. A sizable portion of the items in the list don't fit the definition as given in the lead (and the lead doesn't fit the EB definition cited).  According to EB, a creation myth is religious and symbolic (among other things).  Several of the listed items are not either, or at least are arguably not one or the other. A content fork could aid in clearing this up, at least in this article.  Leave this article to lay out what a creation myth is, and fork the list into something else, which may or may not include "creation" or "myth" in the name.  Editors can get on with making this a quality article. I know that renaming the article as a list has been suggested (and tried) but then the defining portion is as out of place as the list currently is. At least a fork will separate the contentious portion out and leave the rest to be developed without the ongoing disagreements.LowKey (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti religion?
Why do i get the impression that nearly every word in this from the opening title to what i have read is extremely anti religion?

The fact that it's called a "Myth" should be prove enough to overhaul not only the title, but the contents. The only area in witch i have read (Judo-Christan) is extremely inaccurate, and more or less calls it a lie.

List of changes i propose

- 2nd paragraph 1st sentence   original "The second story reiterates the origin of humans."
 * proposed change  "Starting on the 6th day, God makes clear the origins of mankind along with the land animals of the Earth"

Why it's important: It's a little more than a simple 'story' for those who believe it, it is much more neural as a story infers something else to many people as well as being accurate as God had made Humans during his week of creation, and it elaborates in greater detail.

2nd paragraph 3rd sentence. original " He puts him in a garden called Eden, and brings the created animals to Adam for him to name"


 * proposed change "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Why it is important: God did not just put Adam in the garden, God designed it after he made Adam. It also explains it from the Bible itself taken a direct quote.

2nd paragraph 4th sentence. original "This task shows that none of them was a suitable companion."
 * proposed change "God then brought animals into Eden for Adam to name, when Adam had named all of the kinds of animals he realized their was none of his kind witch saddened him"

Why it is important: It was Adam who felt down because he had none of his kind, so God made Eve ( a Female Human) to be his companion.

2nd paragraph 8 sentence. original "God then expels them from the garden so they do not also eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal in their cursed state."


 * proposes change " God then expelled them from Eden for committing Sin, for God can not be in the presents of Sin and thus Adam and Eve where cursed with death and the whole of creation became in-perfect prone to disease mutation and overall unpleasant things"

Reason why it is important: I have never heard the tree of life be described as a literal tree with fruit, in everything i have read it was a metaphor of God himself. I believe this change would be a much better re-wording of it.

The last sentence and paragraph  Original   "Biblical commentators throughout the ages have remarked on the degree of literal authority that is granted to the accounts of Creation. Maimonidies, in particular, commented that the account of Creation should not be taken literally"

While this is true, it should also be noted that many scholars insist that it is to be taken literal (in particularly the Hebrew original wording, not tainted by translation into English) Ken Ham CEO of Answers in Geneis ministry and research teams is a staunch defender the literal interpretation of Genesis.

That is why i believe much of this needs to be re-written. I Would be glad to, although i have no idea how to go about it.

75.179.172.189 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Jade Rat
 * I believe that the current wording is clearer and more straightforward than the proposed changes. As to your last point about the literal interpretation, that viewpoint should certainly be mentioned and cited.  Plazak (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. The changes you propose are not ones which would make the article more encyclopedic - it would completely skew the article from being NPOV to a Christian point of view. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to propagate any religion. 217.44.32.250 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's Wikipedia, not preachipedia.64.7.147.20 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How has this not been marked as politically biased?
The rabid cynicism is overtly present and needs to be adressed. Wikipedia is meant to be about the unbiased exchange of information, not the enforced beliefs of certain individuals. This page needs to be renamed to something less pejorative than "myths" and can somebody please explain what "allegories" can be found in any of these Creation stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.66 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out above, there are thousands of articles available on Google scholar, showing that the terminology "creation myth" is well-established in its present sense throughout diverse fields of cultural anthropology and theology. There is even an encyclopedia Britannica article, which actually does somewhat of a better job of summarizing the philosophical aspects of creation doctrines. siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 02:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does that make it right? Because some people think so? Besides which why is that the section on the Big Bang keeps getting removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.74.189 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to be consistent with reliable sources, Wikipedia should not, will not, and does not, invent its own terminology. As for the big bang section - why would you think it satisfies the definition of a creation myth? The suggestion you were given the last time you edited it in still applies - if you can't see the distinction then perhaps you shouldn't edit the article. Ben (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask that Wikipedia create it's own terminology, I suggested it use terminology that already exists, and don't even try to tell me "Creation Myth" is the only know or accepted term. But hey if that's what they are calling reliable these days then so be it. Apparently Wikipedia, what was meant to be a place for the open-mided discussion of facts, is under the charge of a select close-minded group who have simply accepted things like The Big Bang as irrevocable fact instead of looking at these things from a scientific or intellegent perspective. At the very least if "Myth" is to be the title of this article and "Myth" apparently does not imply that something is untrue then The Big Bang Theory, as an unverified theory, does belong on this page along with all the other "Myths" and should not be removed. How can that be disputed?
 * Wikipedia is "closed-minded" by design in that sense. It can only represent what reliable &mdash; usually academic, journalistic, or scholarly &mdash; sources say in proportion to the weight of those views.  Our job here is not to right great wrongs, or to give all viewpoints an equal representation, but only to represent those published by reliable sources.  Calling the big bang a "creation myth", while interesting, would need some fairly solid sources backing it up.  In fact, if this is going to be here at all, it should have the form: "In the context of the creation-evolution debate So-and-So has drawn parallels between the adherence of the scientific community to the big bang hypothesis, and the fundamentalist cristian doctrine of biblical inerrancy."  Or whatever.  At any rate, in the scientific context the big bang hypothesis is not a dogma or myth, although it could be argued that it has taken on the status of a cultural myth (a view which I would endorse, provided the text can suitably distinguish between the scientific and mythological aspects of it).  As a scientific theory, the big bang hypothesis has been repeatedly assailed by competing hypotheses (such as the steady state universe), and turns out to be the one which best supported the available evidence, in particular the cosmic microwave background radiation.  Your proposed addition, as far as it goes, is facile and unencyclopedic.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, you have answered my question. I was mistaken in thinking this site was here to give all viewpoints and equal representation without bias. It was not a religious claim I assure you, more so a nihilistic claim that all theories on the Universes beginning remain entirely unproven, and that to refer to a group of peoples genuine, rational beliefs as nothing more than myth is close-minded and arrogant. That being said, I am satisfied and I graciously rescind my appeal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.5.180 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it doesn't have to give "all the viewpoints", it has to give correct information. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to push religion into places it doesn't belong - this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text. 217.44.32.250 (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a myth
Creation is not a myth so I'd like the title changed. If anything is a myth its evolution The C of E (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are all the creation stories in the article non-mythical, or are you referring to one in particular? Plazak (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Evolution does not fit in this article or any dealing with creation as none of its postulates provide information for it, but rather changes in biochemical composition and its effects on populations. Bob is my Uncle (talk 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The creation myths listed here are legends from various cultures, each equally implausible given modern scientific knowledge. Cosmology and the theory of evolution are hard science, backed by evidence. Bubbha (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can ignore this, it's some annoyed fanatic who doesn't like it when we don't take their rubbish as fact. Evolution isn't a myth, it's a fact, with evidence proving this, and a theory to explain it. Note that theory doesn't mean "guess" - it's explaining a proven phenomenon using the available evidence. Creation, on the other hand, is an old story with no proof: it's a myth. Wikipedia can't change the fact that it's a myth, and it's certainly not going to misrepresent it by calling it anything other than a myth. 217.44.32.250 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Myth means false
It is obvious to anyone who reads the title of this article that “Myth” means false and that it is not written from a Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV would have the title as something like “Creation Stories”. The common usage of the term “myth” in the English language means false. You can say that it means something else but it does not mean anything else to at least 95% of the people who read it. If you don’t believe that then you are fooling yourselves. If you don’t believe in creation by a supreme being, that’s fine. Write whatever you want to. But don’t say that the “myth” in this title means anything other than false. If you do you’ll be lying. Personally, I don’t think you can have an entirely neutral point of view. But, if you say that Wiki has a NPOV and you are dedicated to that fact then you must change this title. Otherwise you’re just another bunch of hypocrites. I cannot even believe that you editors actually think this title is not derogatory and biased. You can have your little postings saying that isn’t what it means, but nobody (except maybe you) believes that. The fact that it hasn’t been changed speaks volumes about your real intent. You want to insult people and then tell them that you didn’t mean it that way. After the first few thousand people were insulted you should know that it is an insult whether you mean it that way or not. The fact that it remains demonstrates that you don’t have a NPOV and you think it is okay to insult millions of people. If that is what you want to do then that’s fine. Just don’t lie about it.Oceanberg6 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe call it "Creation lies", would that be better? After all one meaning of "story" is lie: "don't be storying now Johnny." I know rename it "Creation lies - 'cept one" ... and you know which "one" that is, no?
 * You might read WP:AGF and not be maligning all the good editors here by calling them liars, how 'bout WP:Civil. Vsmith (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your response clearly demonstrates my point. You do not have a neutral point of view. I've read both of those links that you mentioned and I want to apologize if you truly believe that the "myth" in the title does not mean false. However, it seems from your response that is not the case. Also, if you do not believe that a large majority of the people that read this article understand it to mean false then I think you are lying to yourself. So, do you believe that the "myth" in the title means false? Do you believe that a large majority of readers believe that it means false?Oceanberg6 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The neutral point of view
 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks, please, the term myth has more than one meaning. The popular "myth => false" definition is clearly not the definition being used here, just like the popular "theory => conjecture" definition isn't used when using the word theory throughout the encyclopedia. Academia, not popular opinion, reigns supreme here. See WP:UNDUE if you want. Ben (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia for then? Is it for Academia? I don't think so, they don't need it. It's for normal everyday readers, right? If the huge majority of normal, everyday readers define "myth" as meaning false (and they do) then it means false. Your unwillingness to accept this fact is perplexing. If Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of the people and for the people, then what is it? If a word is commonly understood to mean something by a huge majority of people, then that's what it means. You can edit and say it doesn't, but it does! By leaving the title of this article as is you are saying that all of these stories and/or beliefs are false. That's what you are saying to virtually every reader that comes along. Is that Wikipedia's intent? If it is, just say so. If not, change the title to "Creation Beliefs". Thank you 64.73.243.90 (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is in real danger of being archived on the basis of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT if the anti-"myth" folks are just going to continue to rehash the same tired arguments without responding to the points that have been already been made. As I have said before in every other thread treating this topic, give sources for other terminology, and then the relative weight of those sources can be discussed.  But without any sources, there is no discussion.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 00:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to give references for commonly understood terms. Do you dispute that 90% of the people that read this article understand that "myth" means false? If you dispute that then you do not know people. Your talk about sources of terminology, etc. is just a bunch of smoke that means you don't want to admit the obvious = the word "myth" in the title means false. I think the title is derogatory and it is meant to be derogatory. If that is your intent, then it worked. If not, change it. It's not a complex issue. If the title stays then the editors are aware that it means "Creation Falsehoods" or something like that and that is precisely what they intend it to mean. If that's what you want then that's fine. At least, admit that. Where I come from we have the guts to say what we mean. We do not insult people and then tell them that it wasn't an insult. Would you go out on the street and ask somebody which false religion they believe in? If you wanted to irritate them or you were crazy you would, but otherwise that is not an acceptable form of behavior. Why would the editors of Wiki allow this to happen here? It doesn't make sense and it is not right. Please change the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanberg6 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Oceanberg6 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already given many references on this very talk page that the nomenclature "creation myth" is broadly used in the relevant fields of anthropology, in addition to having enough currency for the Encyclopedia Britannica to have an article on the subject, by this name. It is true that you don't need references to have an opinion, but to have a voice in matters of content for an article on this encyclopedia, you need to adhere to the policies and guidelines that govern that content.  One of those policies advocates that we should adopt a neutral point of view.  The relevant part of this guideline as it applies to the present discussion is WP:WEIGHT.  If a majority of relevant sources use the disputed terminology, then that is what the encyclopedia article should go with.  So far zero references (let alone reliable sources) contesting the "myth" term have been provided.  I do not object to a serious discussion in which all sides are presented (with references backing them up), but to engage in a debate on whether the term myth as it is used in cultural anthropology is or is not appropriate potentially runs afoul of the policy against original research.  So, if you are making a point that has some textual support backing it up, please present the text.  Otherwise, please stop filling up the talk page with the same old arguments.  It is not going to get anywhere.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to waste my time digging up sources for what 95% of the people that read this article understand the term "myth" to mean. Either you are realistic about it or not. Either you insult people or you don't. It's obvious what your choice is. I was just hoping that being practical was something that those that edit Wiki would be. Obviously, that is not the case. I should have known better. I'm sorry I wasted my time.Oceanberg6 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As providing sources is one of the core policies at Wikipedia, I find your admitted aversion to doing so somewhat puzzling. Perhaps you should consider contributing to other projects, such as Conservapedia or the CreationWiki or similar project which does not require that you provide sources for your statements, rather than Wikipedia which does require sources.  The fact is, no one has yet proposed any viable alternative to "creation myth" which is backed by good, reliable sources.  As far as Wikipedia policy goes, that's the end of the story.  Any other discussion is just noise.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 02:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried contributing to to these without sources? Have any of such contributions gone unchallenged? LowKey (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While personally, I would call them myths, there are still millions if not billions of people who believe some of these creation myths to be literally true. This does create an issue regarding neutrality, since the term "myth" basically means falsehood or lie. A possible alternative would be "accounts of creation", which avoids the negativity associated with the term "myth". Accounts of creation is a phrase used in literature, for example
 * google book search
 * google scholar search
 * Shambalala (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that a google scholar search holds the ultimate authority on this, though it can give a good indication, but with 421 references with the term "creation myth" in the title, versus your 51, the indication (by a margin of nearly 9-1!) is that the article should stay where it is. I've lost count of how many times people have had to repeat that the word myth does not imply falsehood on this very page. Read the link at the top, read the info box on this articles page, read the talk page, read its archive, whatever, but just stop wasting everyone's time here by regurgitating the same ignorant crap. There is no neutrality issue because you don't like it (or think others might not) - I don't like a lot of things, but to ask for everyone else to be sensitive to this by working around my dislikes has got to be the height of arrogance. Grow up, read up, and lighten up. Stop wasting peoples time. This goes out to everyone in the IDONTLIKEIT crowd. Thanks for stopping by! Ben (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have lost count of how many times your position has to be explained, you should maybe be thinking that it is because it is an unlikely position The fact "myth" and "lies" have been suggested as practically equivalent shows that even those who are ostensibly subscribing to this notion of "Myth does not equal untrue" actually apprehend myth to imply untruth. The info box etcetera are conveniences to justify retaining the word myth, and this retention is not because it is precise or accurate but because it implies falsity.  It is bait switch, using a formal definition of one meaning but a common understanding of another.  "Creation Accounts" would be prefectly acceptable to those wishing a NPOV article.LowKey (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Literally millions of people don't like it, not just one. It gets regurgitated because the title is ignorant crap. You can always justify anything in your own mind, but that doesn't make it right. And talk about being arrogant, you basically think that you have the right to tell everybody that doesn't agree with you (and there are billions of them) that they believe in "myths" because you are so smart and you know all of the answers about life. Boy, it must be nice to be so superior. I can see that being practical and realistic doesn't work here. That's too bad. It doesn't surprise me though.Oceanberg6 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks, no need to get angry, these are just suggestions. The terms "creation account" or "accounts of creation" are essentially synonym s, though based on google scholar, creation myth is used more as a title. But creation account and its variations may ultimately be used just as commonly. What I do suspect is a bias in usage towards western religions. When referring to western religions the term 'creation account' and its variants are used. When referring to indigenous or tribal religions the term creation myth has been applied. The implication being that these tribal religions were somehow less credible and could be classified as myths even by people who were religious. Pascal Boyer refers to such biases in Religion Explained.Shambalala (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Fang people [a present daytribe in Africa] say that witches have an animal-like extra internal organ that flies away at night and ruins other people’s crops or poisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimes get together for huge banquets where they devour their victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell you that a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying over the village at night, sitting on a banana leaf or throwing magical darts at various unsuspecting victims.

I was mentioning these and other such exotica over dinner in a Cambridge college when one of our guests, a prominent Catholic theologian, turned to me and said: “This is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe in such nonsense.” Which left me dumbfounded. The conversation had moved on before I could find a pertinent repartee—to do with kettles and pots. For the question: “How can people possibly believe all this?” is indeed pertinent, but it applies to beliefs of all hues and shades. The Fang too were quite amazed when first told that three persons really were one person while being three persons, or that all misfortune in this vale of tears stemmed from two ancestors eating exotic fruit in a garden.
 * Shambalala (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oceanberg6, please, my argument doesn't rest on what I think at all, and you know that. It rests on that fact that the term is the established standard term in the relevant literature. If that somehow makes me arrogant, then so be it, I really don't care. Shambalala, I don't disagree with anything you said, and I think it probably has a lot to do with the same old objections that appear on this page every now and again. But I don't see how this argues for a change in the article title? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of all these RS's that use "Creation Myth", how many do NOT treat the subject matter as inherently untrue or unsupported? The answer to that may be an indication of whether the term is POV or not.  I assume that a signifanct number a dealing with accounts in a manner that would label them unfactual.  If there are also a significant number that deal with accounts in a manner that labels them factual, then maybe the term may be considered NPOV.LowKey (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article title reflects the term used in majority of the reliable sources. If the reliable sources take position 'x' on the topic, then that is for the article content to reflect. Ben (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why does it disclaim exactly that reflection? It is bait and switch pure and simple.  Under the radar POV; the common understanding is the "impact" desired, but the uncommon definition is pointed to when this is questioned.LowKey (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of these "reliable sources" view them as being false. That's why they use the term "myth". That's the problem. Just because the majority of articles on this subject are written by atheists or agnostics and they believe them all to be myths doesn't make it right to insult people about their personal beliefs. And that's what this title does. If you don't believe that then take a little personal survey and it will become clear to you that most people believe the title means false and is derogatory. Personally, I think that is the true intention of the title and I don't think it will be changed.Oceanberg6 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A suggestion, open an RFC with suggestions on possible names, alone with the current name. Shambalala (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would rather see some kind of "internal" consensus check first, as RFC seems to bring in "drive by" comments by those who may or may not appreciate to-date discussion (and frankly probably don't wish to devote the time to reading through it all).LowKey (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the internal consensus is to keep the present title. Unless there is some legitimate reason, backed by sources, to overrule the vast majority of sources in this matter. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested to avoid the RFC for now. The legitimate reason is the cognitive dissonance of using "myth" based on sources that use "myth" to mean "untrue" and then have a box saying that myth DOES NOT imply untrue.  Well, that's my reasoning anyway.  You'll find the majority is not that vast, and that there is a systemic bias at work here.  "Account" in the title is more neutral, but unlikely to ever actually happen.LowKey (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Myth seems neutral to me. How is the majority not that vast?  Here is a google scholar search with over 6500 hits.  Here is a scholar search with 451 title hits.  Also, as I have repeatedly noted above, the Encyclopedia Britannica includes an entry on Creation myth.  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 01:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral to you, and probably to many others, but decidedly negative to many others and apparently to many sources (at least according to editors here). The fact that the search includes "myth" excludes results that don't use the term, which is what I was getting at regarding systemic bias.  I can't offer a simple solution to that.  But like I said, my problem was with the dissonance between the usages of "myth".  I see you pulled the box, which takes care of that, at least as far as I am concerned.LowKey (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article Creation according to Genesis was initially titled Creation accounts in Genesis. If Wikipedia is to be consistent by the standard we apply here then the article should be "Genesis creation myth". That probably won't happen. This in my opinion is where we have consistency problems. Its acceptable to have a Sumerian creation myth but probably not acceptable to have "Genesis creation myth". Shambalala (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Account" instead of myth really should be acceptable for all of these, but I think is unlikely. Too many seem attached to the word "myth" in this context.  I for one definitely do not believe the Sumerian creation account per your example to be factually true, but I have no trouble calling it an account. LowKey (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Myth means false section break

 * Neutral to you .. but decidedly negative to many others -- LowKey (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone here argue that term is neutral to themselves as a reason to keep, the argument is to keep since it appears to be the neutral term with respect to the reliable sources. On the other hand, everyone here arguing that the term isn't neutral feels it is personally offensive (to themselves or others). Personal feelings or biases are no argument for or against using the term. Can everyone please read Naming conflict before continuing? There are particular points worth noting: Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
 * Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
 * Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

You are not addressing the point that all of these "sources" are writing from the point of view that "myth" means false. That's what they say and that's what they mean. You will not find one article written about creation accounts by a Christian or Jew or Muslim that has "myth" in the title. So, of course, someone that believes all of these accounts to be false will label them as myths. So now what do you do? Just add them all up and see if there are more stories with myth in the title than stories about creation that don't have myth in the title? That's a popularity contest. Is that what Wiki is all about? It is obvious that anybody that wants to keep this title believes in the evolution of man. There are some who believe in that way but still think the title is biased and derogatory and believe that it should be changed. Thank you to those people. Then there are those who believe in some sort of God. 99% of those or more would take offense at the use of the term "myth" in the title. They see it for what it is and what it is meant to say. The title says that these are false beliefs and that is what the intent of the title means to say. A huge majority of people, except for some of you editors maybe, understands that this title means false creation accounts. The question then is does Wikipedia want to continue to say that there is no God and that everybody who believes in one is a fool. Because that's what this one word in the title implies. It's your choice. You can say that if you want to. But I want you to know that is what it says and nothing less. If you don't understand that then you are fooling yourselves and are very unaware. I've got to believe that most of you are very aware and thus you choose to make derogatory comments towards people that don't believe in atheism.Oceanberg6 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, atheism is a religion or philosophy of life just as Christianity or Hinduism is. You just believe that we are here by accident and there is nothing beyond when your body dies. How do you find unselfish purpose in life? Or is there even any unselfish purpose in your life. If I believed that this was all there is then I don't think that I could be happy. It would be really depressing to think that my life amounts to nothing and when my body dies nobody except for a few people are going to know or care. Being a biological entity here on Planet Earth existing by accident is a very depressing thought. How do you deal with that? I guess maybe you write articles telling people that. I don't know.Oceanberg6 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oceanberg6, you're just repeating yourself, so I don't think you're going to get much of a response. Until you can address the arguments that have been put forward for keeping the title as is in terms of Wikipedia policy, and stop drivelling on about personal offence and atheism, this will be my last comment to you. Ben (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ben, maybe the repetition is because nobody is addressing or apparently getting the point. You certainly don't seem to, as you have missed the point that Oceanberg6 (and others) have addressed the arguments, quite soundly and definitively. And being uncivil and insulting about discussion of atheism does not change the fact that it is relevant.  Big Bang belongs in this artcile as much as any other account.  Apparently it has been excluced on the basis either not being religious or not being myth.  Of course it is always ironic to see how defensive and dogmatic atheists get when atheism is called religion.
 * To address the arguments (once again). The term "myth" is not neutral and does not appear neutral from RS because the sources that use it at all use it negatively. Those treating the subject neutrally or affirmatively do not use "myth" in their terminology.  A google search of "creation myth" returns instances of the the term "creation myth" (well knowck me down with a feather!).  The search term specifically excludes other usages such as "creation account".  Finding a lot of articles with "myth" in the title or body indicates nothing about neutrality, it only indicates a lot of use of the term "myth", and therefore a lot disbelieving sources. But then this is not a neutral article, but at least it no longer specifically claims to be.  "Myth" is only in common usage by those that disbelieve the accounts, and it's usage as the name of the article declares them to be false. "Creation Account"  is not a WP invention, but is a term used by sources.  Unfortunately they will generally not be considered reliable by most WP editors because they do not declare the accounts to be myths.  Circular reasoning to be sure but that's life on WP.LowKey (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Defensive and dogmatic? I have no interest in defending atheism at all. Bash away. However, since my "beliefs" seem to have caught the eye of a few of you, let me list a few more of them for you, with respect to this article and Wikipedia's policies:
 * The Big Bang is not a creation myth and so does not belong in this article, since, among other more obvious reasons, no reliable sources can support that claim.
 * The majority of the reliable sources out there use the term "creation myth", and so should we per the Naming Conflict article I mentioned above.
 * Neutrality is described in detail at WP:NPOV, and I am certain that it does not claim "Neutral = LowKey likes it". For that reason, what you can show in terms of this article adhering to or violating WP:NPOV, and not your opinion on what is neutral and what is not, should influence this article and its title.
 * This talk page is not a forum, go whine about atheism and the big bang somewhere else.
 * No-one has used Wikipedia's policies, that everyone else must adhere to, to argue against using the current title. As I said earlier, your personal feelings on the matter have no bearing on this article, or any other. Until you start arguing in terms of what Wikipedia's policies have to say, there is no need for me to bother replying to you either, and so I believe I won't.
 * Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

This reminds me of government red tape. Virtually everybody knows what's going on and that it should be changed but a few people want to use regulations and pile up the paperwork to make a roadblock. You use "sources", naming conflict guidelines, and anything else to preserve this obviously biased title so that you can get your opinion prominently displayed. It is very clear to virtually everybody what is going on here. I can see that it probably isn't going to change and that's too bad. I hope that those of you, no matter what your personal beliefs are, that see this situation for what it really is will prevail in the end and the title will be changed. I appreciate your sense of fairness and that's all that I'm asking for from the others. This is one of those situations that no matter how you slice and dice it, the reality is clear to all. The title is derogatory and is meant to be so. You can say it is not, but it is and everybody knows it. You can do what is right, fair, and proper and you can change the title. Or you can be derogatory, arrogant, and unfair and leave the title as is. You can try to convince others that you are acting otherwise but it's pretty clear to virtually everyone who can read what your intent is. That doesn't make you a bad person in my book. You're just not willing to right a wrong. That's your choice. I hope you'll reconsider. Best regardsOceanberg6 (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think everyone involved in this discussion is acting in good faith and making thoughtful remarks but with respect i think this discussion is missing the point. While encyclopedia articles are written for a general audience, their purpose is to educate.  That means articles should communicate in an accessible form the latest scholarship on particular topics.  And when it comes to scholars - in classics, history, comparative religion, folklore, and anthropology - "myth" does not mean "false" it means that the story has a particular social function.  And this indicates to us the real problem with this article: it des not draw on much scholarship.  For many if not most of the myths summarized, I bet there are several articles if not books discussing when they were composed and what that reveals about the period in history in which they were composed, or what the social functions of the myth are or were.  There could be structural analysis of the myth, symbolic analysis ... a whole library of scholarly works analyzing the myths and how they work as texts, and what they say about their context.  If you have no idea what i mean, you can start by looking at Claude Levi-Strauss's four volume Mythologiques or his more recent and accessible The Story of Lynx. manhy of the myths he discusses are not creation myths, but believe me, for most creation myths documented, there is a body of scholarship on what the myth means, the artistry behind the myth, the symbolism, etc.  Absent this scholarship, this article appears to be saying myth=false.  But the problem is not that it is saying myths are false, it is that is is NOT saying what truths the myths really do express.  And for us to know what those truths are, we would need to research the scholarship on each myth and the society it comes from, and start adding that informative, educational content into the article.  Anyway, that is what i think is the real problem here. We would be spending our time better if instead of arguing over true versus false we started investigating the rich scholarly literature on what and how myths "mean." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current argument isn't so much about content, but about the title of the article. Shambalala (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean that if the article were based on notable views from reliable sources, and built up an account of these myths based on how scholars study these myths, the title would be fine and non-controversial. The article would be a lesson not just on specific creation myths but on how scholars study myth, and thus, what scholars mean by myth. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on that. At the moment the content is a random selection of various "creation myths" rather than a comprehensive and comparative study of creation mythologies. There has been a suggestion to listify the article. At the moment the crux of the matter is whether to rename the article, "creation stories", "theories of creation", "accounts of creation" or "creation accounts".Shambalala (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * think the wod we use should follow what most academic sources use - in comparative religion, anthropology, classics, history, and folklor. So we cannot resolve this until we know the main sources.  To start with, Stith Thompson, Vladimir Propp, Alan Dundes, Levy Strauss, Frye, Gunkel, Joseph Campbell, Roland Barthes. Let's at least give an account of their definitions and methods and theories and then we can discuss the proper name, po=ssible reorganizaiton, and srtart drawign in more specialized research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When a errant christian comes on here and wants to change established terminology, it speaks volumes to their own personal doubts. They seek to persuade others so as to convince themselves. Their beliefs may in fact turn out to be correct. But they don't have any conclusive evidence that stands the test of scientific inquiry, so they must accept the common usage until they do.64.7.151.135 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have anything to add, or are you merely using this as a forum for your opinions about the beliefs and motives of others? Blog elsewhere, please.  LowKey (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for errant Christians, but I can tell you that I don’t have any personal doubts about my beliefs. The reason that I don’t like this title is because it is derogatory and unfair and I feel that is the intent of it as well. The writers/editors use smokescreens like counting reliable sources or some other roadblock to argue against changing it. But if you understand common usage of the English language you don’t need an English professor to explain to you that “myth” means false and it is meant to convey that message the way it is used in this title. To give solid proof of that try to find one article where the author is talking about their own personal belief and they call it a myth. Try to find one. Anyplace! A person only calls something a myth if they don’t believe it to be true. That’s the bottom line. This title should be changed or the article should come right out and say that these are false beliefs. Oceanberg6 (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Non-Religious" myths in Fantasy?
There are creation myths in Fantasy literature that are described in the article as "non-religious". The first two examples are Tolkien's middle earth, and Lewis's Narnia. Narnia's creation is openly religious, by the express design of the author. Tolkien's middle earth mythology has a personal creator bringing spiritual beings into existence, and then with them creating the world. One of the created spiritual beings rebels and corrupts others. The corrupted are expelled from the "blessed realm". I cannot see the justification for calling this non-religious. I don't know about the others, but by what criteria are they considered non-religious?LowKey (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. I changed it.LowKey (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Creation myth vs. List of creation myths
This article was just moved to List of Creation mythologies, which I've undone for now. I don't have a lot of time to type much at the moment, but I thought it would be good to get a discussion going. I do think this article is pretty much a list at the moment, but, there should still exist a "creation myth" article discussing the concept in general. I think a list of creation myths would be good too, but it should be a separate article. Can I propose we split off the list stuff into its own article, and try and flesh out this article a bit more at the same time? We can borrow from the list of creation myths article as necessary to illustrate certain concepts. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the current version isn't a list. I don't consider there is a problem that needs fixing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a move to Creation mythologies might be a way forward. Slrubinstein is discussing something in the above thread that also bothers me: that this article doesn't focus at all on the general cultural concept of a creation myth, but instead dedicates itself to cataloging various individual myths.  To see an example of the contrast, see Britannica's article Creation myth.  (Which I keep telling people to do, but no one seems to be listening.)  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 12:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It bothers me too and I have been meaning to do something about it. I am sure I tried to check the Britannica article a while ago, but it wanted me to pay to look at it. I'll try again today from computers at uni. Ben (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of renaming myths to mythologies, not least because it should reduce the amount of "myth => untrue => POV" posts we see here.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Britannica Creation Myth.Shambalala (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that link works fine here, so I'll read through that (probably today at some point). The additional reading section looks promising. Regarding using the term creation mythologies to reduce the number of complaints ... please tell me that is not a valid reason for change. I'd prefer to keep the article where is for two reasons. Firstly, mythologies is plural, and article names in plural form are generally frowned upon. That still leaves "creation mythology" I guess, but this article should be about the concept, not the branch of knowledge dealing with them (see MW). Consider "evolution" vs. "modern evolutionary synthesis" for instance. Maybe both articles will exist at some point in the future, but I think we should focus on this one before we worry about content forks. Ben (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New post
When I reviewed evolutionist and theistic evolutionary backgrounds they were not considered myths. The oldest living book in the world recognizes creationalism. In fact, when we review the dates of early evolutionary biologists we find the creation theory outdates them by more than 1000 years. In most cases evolutionary theoretics follow the same course as its proceeding theory of creation. If creation is a myth then we must consider evolution to be a myth as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kduncan121a (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with that last sentence (for reasons already discussed ad nauseum) it doesn't actually follow from what you wrote there. "Myth" is not being defined by when the explanation originated, but by qualities of the explanation itself.  There is disagreement over the label, but there are modern "myths' in the article, so arguments regarding antiquity won't really add anything to the discussion IMO.  LowKey (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Humans used to think the world was flat, but we know this to be false. So what you are saying is that since the idea that the world is flat is older than the idea that the world is round, then the earth being round is a myth.  Your logic is quite flawed. 64.7.151.135 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief. The logic above is flawed, but so is this argument here.  Sloppy logic, incorrect facts and "myth" not used in the sense of this very article. Please blog elsewhere.LowKey (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

-

Religious Myths?
I'm curious, is this implying that religion like say Christianity's description of the creation of man and the universe not true? Things like this are hardly fictitious, they are unproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the archives. Ilkali (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and the common dictionary definitions of myth. DVdm (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the dictionary but the reason I asked this was because the definition has several different meanings. I was curious which one this one implies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In a scholarly context, like an encyclopedia, the word myth is never assumed to mean 'not true'. The first definition in the link given by DVdm sounds reasonable. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "... I was curious which one this one implies." => all of them of course. That's the point of having more than one dictionary :-)
 * By the way, please don't forget to sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes ( ~ ). Thanks, DVdm (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But on that particular page, two of those definitions say the following:

"An invented story" "an unproven or false collective belief"

To say "Creation Myth" and to use all of those definitions would imply that the religious explanation for Creation was either invented or is fake.

My point is we don't know that. The only truth to the second one is that it is unproven.

I'll register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk)


 * I presume DVdm meant that all the dictionaries applied (the link given lists quite a few dictionaries, each with several definitions). Ben (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To 68.51.41.46: Please sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes. Thank you, (DVdm (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).

That's what I presumed as well, but out of some of them, the same as the 2 I listed are used as a definition, which is why I am confused as to why all of them then, would be used.

If a Creation Myth defined by this article is a religious story or explanation to how we came to be, defining it as unproven and a collective belief by many people usually defined by many as fact would seem more appropriate than "a false collective belief or an invented story". 68.51.41.46 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are "confused as to why all of them then, would be used"? ==> It goes as follows. One of your choice would be used by you. Perhaps another of my choice would be used by me. Probably yet another of Ben's choice would be used by Ben. In short, all of them would be used by all of us. That is how we deal with multiple definitions in multiple dictionaries. "Voor elk wat wils", as we say in Dutch. DVdm (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose anyone can take it to mean what they want (with or without reference to a dictionary even), but as far as the encyclopaedia goes, please see WTA. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question...why is creation considered a myth, but evolution isn't?? Just curious... 99.168.95.49 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because creation falls under the definition of | myth:"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
 * Evolution per se is a scientific fact, the scientific theory of evolution explains how evolution, which is the change inherent in generations of life, happens. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "scientific fact" as this can be argued in many senses of the word. It's still a theory with holes in it, not yet at the level of "fact". Too many people assume Evolution has been proven. However, you are right in the sense that Evolution isn't a myth. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may find Evolution as theory and fact interesting. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I still wouldn't say it's absolute fact. There are too many holes and problems with the theory in itself which is why I don't believe it to be as such.

Thank you for the link, however. However, I still stand by my comment that people need to stop parading it as fact in a sense.68.51.41.46 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with 68.51.41.46. all religions are based on faith, and until there is is undeniable proof (not "is is believed..." as usually given in some textbooks and artilces), then evolution is also a faith.216.118.231.66 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)faith


 * Evolution is a scientific theory as opposed to a religion. No matter, reliable sources would be required identifying a sacred narrative (myth) in evolution.  Although there are mythological aspects (as far as perspectives in popular culture) to both evolution and the big bang theory, as yet no one has presented here any reliable scholarship on the matter.  Until that point, arguments about whether or not these constitute "creation myths" are moot.  We go with what the sources say.  02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you are selectively ignoring Big_bang_theory — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay seriously, this article needs to renamed. Myth implies superstition. You might as well say that any idea about the origins of life is a myth. And in the origins of life article, there should be more info on the religious idea. There is much secular bias on wikipedia. I personally God is a God of religion and science, and im okay that not everyone believes that. However, I do not appreciate the fact that religion in general is tossed to the side as an 'alternate myth.' That is just kind of obnoxious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.180.181 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read our article religion and mythology. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite request
I have tagged the sentence "The term creation myth is sometimes used in a derogatory way to describe stories which are still believed today" as needing a cite. This is simply because I have never come across the combined term used in this way - "myth" has its own ambiguities, but "Creation Myth" is more specific.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it imo. Ben (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, edit conflicts! Was about to say
 * Let me clarify that a bit. The term "myth" may be seen as derogatory, but the term "creation myth" is not. To use an analogy once presented to me: we would not talk about "the theory about relativity by Einstein", we talk about "the theory of relativity by Einstein". The word theory has its own connotations; "the theory of relativity" refers to a specific model about which we have no doubt. I am just wondering if the sentence I quoted above was inserted to meekly mollify those who simply object to the term "myth" but who do not recognise that "creation myth" is a phrase with its own, far more specific meaning.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. I changed "need" to "may" in the following sentence, which imo more than adequately covers the possibility that any one story just might be true - daft though that idea is, some people still believe it.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This artical is a mockary of Wiki's nutrality!
This article is a utterly mockery of everything wiki stands for! Who on this Earth would say anything about this article is "neutral"? Calling every religion a "myth"? It's absurd! Its nothing but political propaganda.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, which 1 religion would you rather we not label with the term myth? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine, of course. --KP Botany (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, MINE! DVdm (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Myth need not mean false; it just so happens that it by default implies falsehood or fabrication in ordinary conversation. C.S. Lewis, an Oxford professor, toed the line between factuality and faith by calling Christianity 'the true myth'. Religion, almost by definition, is an attempt by self-aware beings to comprehend and fit into ultimate reality, not mere scientific reality. Hence, it is difficult to categorize any religion as either wholly fanciful or substantially credible without generating objection and controversy. WP is considered to be a database of knowledge, and knowledge is generally thought to be obtained through scientific and scholarly inquiry. Hence to be 'neutral' and address the 'default' mindset of the 'average' person, the scientific explanation of origins is treated as being fact-based, because an attempt to evaluate the factuality of every religion's claim would be variously impossible, absurd, or 'leading the reader' into conclusions they can reach on their own if they choose to do so. Additionally, not all religious views are wholly unsupported by evidence, but at least as regards Cosmogony, no religious view can be said to be wholly 'scientific' because they all ultimately point to something beyond the scope of science; the supernatural. I therefore propose that the article title be changed to Creation beliefs, because all myths were believed at some point, but not all beliefs are wholly mythical. And if you have an opinion on something, at least spell it correctly.
 * attempting to inject some reason into the patien- err- discussion
 * HuntingTarg (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article should not try to judge which, if any, creation story has been determined to be in accord with current scientific thought. The title "myth" imples all to be mere fairytale. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the primary definition of 'myth' has nothing to say about the veracity of such stories does not negate the fact that the word carries the connotation by means of secondary definitions. This seems quite evident without consulting a dictionary, although the term belief is similarly problematic in that it implies the article is simply about current views on the origin of the world &/ universe. While about Wikipedia (sec 2.5) readily admits that problems of this kind will inevitably occur, it seems simple and straightforward enough to follow the recommendation in NPOV (sec 2.1)  of clarifying the title in the lead section. This should at least quell further discussion, since it does not appear that a 'perfect solution' exists. It would almost certainly be less troublesome than coming back to this page again and again to answer the same objection. HuntingTarg (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not judging, it is using the proper word for the implied meaning of a religious story with supernatural elements which describes the origins of the world. Look it up. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no creation myth (at least none on this page) is in accord with current scientific though on the origins of the universe. But that isn't the purpose of this article anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rreagan007 is correct (although I think he means consensus instead of all *thought* (a 2nd misspelling; I trust these aren't attempts at trolling...) ), and although that discussion would make a roaring forum topic, such a discussion doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
 * sigh* Having read the archives (as recommended in above sections), this problem seems to have degenerated into a semantic debate that is unlikely to satisfy both sides. What bothers me is that in light of well-posited points about the difficulty of the current title ('myth'), one side seems to have come to rest on the issue without any attmept at clarification.


 * Yeah, that seems like the most reasonable solution to me as well. Sventington the Second 12:53 A.M., 12 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
 * The mythology article, which is linked to in the first sentence, is for discussing definitions. Ben (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Judgemental
The label of "myth" has been discussed several times here and elsewhere in WK; resolution is still not achieved. Most dictionary definitions allow several meanings. For example Webster indicates a "traditional story" and says a myth has only an "imaginary or unverifiable existence". Myth certainly has a connotation of a fairytale to many people. Much better would be to call these Creation Stories: stories can be true or false or just traditional. It is vital that WK present a Neutral Point of View. The label of myth is not neutral: A judgement has been made by editors that these stories are not factual. Whether we agree with the stories or not, we must not cast judgement. This article needs to present a neutral discussion of these stories. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "A judgement has been made by editors that these stories are not factual". Read the archives. Ilkali (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, some editors have tried to make that point. That violates the strict policy of neutraliy:NPOV. Grantmidnight (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the archives. Ilkali (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The word myth, in a depth psychology sense, does not mean that it is objectively untrue, but rather that it is subjectively true (irrespective of its objective factuality). In other words, there is a difference between a myth and a tale.  A tale doesn't need to have subjective meaning.  It can be objectively true but subjectively meaningless.  A myth does have subjective meaning.  Creation stories, by their very nature, have subjective meaning.  For this reason I do not object to the use of the word myth here.  However, I do object to the use of Wikipedia as a connotative means of changing other people's belief system.  Using "myth" for the purpose of expressing your own POV (i.e. this isn't factually true) is a violation of Wikipedia standards.  The title of the article is correct.  The motivations given by Ilkali, on the other hand, are not.EGMichaels (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ilkali was quoting someone. Ben (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I just came here to find out more about Ilkali, and I shouldn't have spoken up so soon anyway.  Thanks for the correction.  Dor what it's worth, I do approve of the current title.EGMichaels (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aww what? Ilkali has a stalker? I'm jealous. Ben (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL! Not quite!  I was just asking him on another article what his motivation was, since his stated motivation didn't make any sense to me.  He accused me of being two other people instead of answering my question, so I decided to figure out what made him tick.  He's not answering questions here either.  It's just "read the archives" and "I'm a one man consensus."  Trying to figure out if I should reason with him or avoid him, and I'm thinking of the latter.EGMichaels (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Stories" is much too narrow. A story could have been created this morning. Myths are more like stories based on stories based on ..., for all practical purposes, ad infinitum. That is implied in Webster's optional "unverifiable existence". Myths still "can be true or false or just traditional". Those who don't fully understand Webster's phrase are free to use other dictionaries. And of course, since indeed like you say "most dictionary definitions allow several meanings", the usage of the word guarantees the very essence of neutrality - clearly orthogonal to judgementality. Read the (endless) archives. DVdm (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from this discussion and the archives that neutrality, NPOV, has been debated and is far from resolved. The article is tagged to reflect this continuing problem. Resolution needs to be found to a less controversial title and judgement about the subject. Grantmidnight (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.answers.com/topic/myth Myth...A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: eg. the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. I fail to see why this is not neutral?  Teapot  george <sup style="color:blue;">Talk  20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is clear is that this page has seen dozens of people like you, with the same knee-jerk reaction and the same tendency to ignore consensus-driven decisions and guidelines. Ilkali (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. This article currently takes various religious beliefs of creation and reduces them to "myth". This perjorative term is not neutral. Continuing interest in this issue makes it clear that it has never been resolved. The article needs to be tagged with NPOV.   Grantmidnight (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Read.
 * The.
 * Archives. Ilkali (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please honor the WK policy of not deleting a NPOV tag until the issue is resolved
 * Please read the archives: These show a continuing and unresolved debate about WP editors judging that religious beliefs about creation are mere myth. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't the slightest understanding of the position you're attacking, and with pages of archives clarifying it ad nauseum, you have no excuse for being so ignorant. There's no point arguing with you until you understand what you're arguing against and bring something new to the table. Otherwise there is no "until the issue is resolved". There is no issue. Ilkali (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. The issue is that the label of "myth" on religious beliefs is not impartial, is not objective, and prohibibs balance. Editors must not allow their personal judgements to dominate the requirement of objectivity. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These aren't personal attacks. I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying that you haven't researched prior discussion and are consequently ignorant both of the opposing view and of the numerous and oft-repeated counterarguments made against your view. Bring something new to the discussion or expect to be ignored. Ilkali (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is entitled "creation myths" because it is about creation myths ... end of story. Abtract (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of just saying this article needs to be renamed, I have a suggestion. Why is this not called "Creation Theory". This implies that these theories could or could not be true and does not have the negative conotation that the word myth has. AS you can see here "theory", the definition of theory describes perfectly what everyone is trying to achieve.

On a seperate note there is several people saying that the concensus is to use "myth". Obviously this is not the case or we would not be having this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miarmyguy (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we also rename Mythology into Theoriology? Makes no sense to me. Who are those "everyone"? --Cubbi (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Creation myth" is a very specific term that lacks the ambiguities and potentially negative connotations of "myth" when used on its own. The lead of this article makes it abundantly clear what the term means. It is defining "Creation myth", not "myth". Apart from anything else, the various stories are all contradictary - at best only one of them could be true. By defining a creation myth as a story or (the even more generous) "explanation", there is no issue of neutrality here. If the lead said something like "A creation myth is a myth about creation" there might have been an issue because this would require a definition of "myth"; but it doesn't, so there isn't.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's an excellent point that only one of them could be completely true. Consequently, all the rest would have to be (at least partly) false. The term "creation myth" is an excellent term to express the fact that all (but possibly 1) traditional account of creation must contain at least some inaccuracies. And since we have no way of determining which 1 is (possibly) a completely accurate account of creation, they all have to be labeled as myths. To attempt to pick out which 1 is completely accurate would be POV. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not an 'excellent' term unless this is intended for use exclusively by historians and scholars. Read below section. HuntingTarg (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Creation Theory or Creation Story are much less judgemental. Myth indicates to many readers that WK has determined these stories to be false.  Grantmidnight (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the editors stating that this has been discussed ad nauseum in the archives. The book of Genesis was orally transmitted for centuries before finally being penned at around 1000 BC (although 500 BC is generally more accepted) can't possibly be 100% accurate from the original eye-wittiness accounts, baring some sort of supernatural explanation. And it clearly includes supernatural elements in the story. Just because some people hold the religious belief that it is true doesn't make it any less of a traditional myth than does any of the other religious creation stories. The Genesis account of creation is a myth in the context of this article with all the other creation stories from other cultures and beliefs. Outside of that context a sub-set of people do believe it to be more then a myth. This article isn't about addressing what a sub-set of the population believes but is about all creation myths. I'm sure you'll find pages and pages of discussion on this topic in the archives, and any further discussion isn't likely to change the consensus of the primary editors of this article. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 13:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The extensive archives and the continuing discussions make it very clear that a consensus has not been achieved. There is strong support of using more neutral language. Grantmidnight (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't really understand the opposition to more neutral terms other than wanting to marginalize certain viewpoints. Sure, the dictionary may allow for multiple definitions, but myth clearly has connotations which suggest the story is false. I personally don't believe in any of the creation stories I've heard, but I'm not out to marginalize them. Creation stories, a title you've previously suggested, is the best suggestion I've seen thus far.
 * However, is it unacceptable to revisit an issue once wikipedia staff or whatever have stepped in and ruled on it? If so, then I guess we have to live with it. Nonetheless specific terms seem to detract from the NPOV aim, but I guess that's bound to happen at times. Sventington the Second (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading WP:NPOV (and I'm assuming you have since you're quoting it) it's clear that the term in this context is perfectly neutral. Avoiding it would not be. Not liking it, either you personally or some group you're valiantly defending (because you don't believe these stories right?), means nothing. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, and concerning ourselves with how others feel about certain pieces of knowledge is contrary to that goal. It's that simple. Ben (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying using a word like story as opposed to myth would be biased/not neutral? Or the practice of choosing certain words communicating similar things but specifically chosen not to offend is not neutral as it is designed to appease certain people? In reading over earlier comments I can understand the objection to using story instead of myth as myth seems to better bring out the cultural component, but were another word found which brought out the cultural component, would you be opposed to it? I'm not exactly a thesaurus so I don't have any other suggestions right now, but are you or other adament about stressing the word myth? Sventington the Second (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know of a better word either, the word myth really is the right word. Perhaps there is an equivalent word, but stopping to think for a second, we're seriously discussing replacing a perfectly correct term here, and for what purpose? Because someone doesn't like it? That's hardly a compelling reason. More important than what you, me or someone else thinks is what terminology reliable sources on the topic use, and it's overwhelmingly myth - from specialised sources right down to common references like Encyclopedia Britannica. So on top of it being correct, it's a standard term. Avoiding such a well used and perfect term for the sake of the sensibilities of some group of readers is not neutral, far from professional and annoying for people who use anything more than Wikipedia to learn about these things. I hope that is a little clearer. Ben (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's perfectly clear. In fact, it seems like myth is the probably most appropriate word to use after all, regardless of if there are alternatives. I went and took a look at dictionary.reference.com and was given this definition:
 * a.A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
 * which seems to be exactly what's being discussed/outlined in this article. In light of this I admit I was wrong to object, I guess it was just a knee-jerk reaction based on my understanding of the word. Sorry for wasting anyone's time! Sventington the Second (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't waste anyone's time - a few replies is completely reasonable. Editors who refuse to get the point after months of discussion (two such editors exist) are pro time wasters. Welcome to Wikipedia. Ben (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dictionary definitions are more neutral than PC fads. --Cubbi (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation mythS, myths vs. natural science
The present title of the article is misleading: in opposite to the singular, the article is a long listing of diverse Creation mythS. Hence I suggest to rename this article using the plural.

Yet an other shortage of this long listing of diverse Creation mythS is, that the ATHEIST'S CREATION MYTH IS MISSING FROM THIS LONG LIST.

A warning at the top of this discussion page states, that "The article title adheres to this guideline, reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past.". There in the guideline you can find "In the natural sciences and other academic fields, a theory is a coherent explanation that is consistent with available knowledge and that has passed multiple independent tests. Well-known examples are Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity and the modern evolutionary synthesis". Now going to this last link, you find "Evolutionary theory redirects here", namely to the modern evolutionary synthesis.

DO PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE ATHEISTIC MESSAGE ABOVE:


 * the evolutionary sythesis is modern, due to the title of the article


 * it is also a theory, due to the redirection


 * it has "a coherent explanation that is consistent with available knowledge and that has passed multiple independent tests", due to the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_multiple_meanings guideline


 * it is in overall a modern, scientifically verified, reliable truth about the origin/creation of life!

The clue of the misleading atheistic propaganda above is the huge amount of philosophically undereducated natural scientists, and their atheistic interpretors.

I, as an extremely successful competitor in mathematics an physics, suffered a lot due to this strong fighting atheistic propaganda in the communist regime, BECAUSE THEY MADE ME BLIND TO SENSE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPERNATURAL.

The more science I learned, and the more questions I put concerning the CORRECT NPOV FOUNDATION OF SCIENCES, I slowly understood, that the atheism is only one of the many diverse religious beliefs.

The clue of the error what even quite a few of the leading scientists make is that to identify the real world with any of the possible scientific models!

A model is usually tested only in the situations, which can be accessed and intentionally repeated. The behavior of a tested model in a NOT testified situation does not conlude, does not prove, that the reality behaves the same way in that NOT testified situation.

Big bang and evolution works well in the close environment of our present space-time position, but nobody was able to make any test far beyond the limits of our possibilities.

The question of origin is however far beyond the limits of the natural science.

Any kind of belief concerning our origin can be only a myth, including the atheistic approach.

Be careful, I met already well educated professors in philosophy, but some of them are not NPOV even when they speak in the name of NPOV science!

The NPOV version of the theory of knowledge does not justify the atheism, as a modern scientifically well based theory.

Atheism is in fact a religion. The big bang and the evolution, when it is not used restricted to scientific question, but is used to answer the question of our origin, it is simply a myth.

prohlep (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, a myth is a (true or false) story with a point. What is the point (i.e. moral) of the atheistic story of human origins?  And if there is a point, was the story itself constructed with that point in mind?EGMichaels (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Atheists have no "creation myth". Saying that the big bang and evolution somehow constitute a creation myth for atheists is just plain wrong. First of all, people who are atheists do not necessarily believe in modern science's best determination as to the origins of the universe and life. For example, some believe the universe has always existed the way it is, something similar to the steady state theory. Secondly, as time goes by, modern science is constantly learning and discovering new things about the origins of the universe, so if an "atheist creation myth" is a conglomeration of the best science of the day, then the creation myth is constantly changing. So the "atheist creation myth" in 1700 (and yes, there were atheists back then too) would be much different from an atheist from 1800, or 1900, or 2000, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To equate science or belief in scientific explanations as a "religion" is misleading and just false. Creationists like to make this argument because they don't want to feel picked on when it comes to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. To somehow equate science with religion, they feel that would somehow justify allowing supernatural explanations into classrooms. It is false, please read here and here. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you guys are missing the point. The point is that there needs to be a point to a myth.  I'm not sure there is a point to the scientific account.  It's not designed to have one, and doesn't need one.EGMichaels (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the key components of a myth is a supernatural component, this is absent from scientific abiogenesis, ergo it's not a myth and as a whole science isn't a religion. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 03:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Myth"
Lots of discussion (and seems to be emotional reaction) to the term myth to describe creation. I am fairly new here, but wanted to point out to other creationists like myself that this article is about multiple supernatural explanations of creation, thus myth is the appropriate term. There is already a section for specifics of each myth (i.e. Creation in Genesis) that disregards the term and is more specific. I personally might support a change to "creation mythology" just cause it doesn't seem to have AS strong of a connotation for some reason, but am not sure how that might change the structure of the article... Cmiych (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The more emotional reactions here are based on the individuals not appreciating having THEIR OWN chosen creation myth represented here as a myth. --<font color="#330033">Kingoomieiii ♣ <font color="#ff6600">  Talk   20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Cmiych understands that, Kingoomieiii. His point (if I understand it correctly) is that people should not be upset at seeing their own chosen creation myths called "myths" in this article because "this article is about multiple supernatural explanations of creation, thus myth is the appropriate term". Also, by the way, when he wrote "section", I think he meant "article": "There is already an article for specifics of each myth (e.g. Creation according to Genesis) that disregards the term and is more specific." I don't see any disagreement between the two of you here. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Phatius. I am still sorting out my terminology, and had not yet grasped the appropriate presentation of Creation according to Genesis.  Your analysis of my comments was dead on.  I was merely trying to help diffuse negative reactions to a title that is actually most appropriate, IMO.  Thanks. Cmiych (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And pardon my idiocy. e.g. was definitely the appropriate abbreviation.  Thanks for pointing it out. Cmiych (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I try to prevent misunderstandings wherever I can. (I think you're a bit hard on yourself with the "idiocy" remark; I used to use i.e. instead of e.g. all the time.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

lead
The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.

That is what people who seriously write on the subject think, and that is what the article on mythology says. So, something along those lines should be in this article as well. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the following, which had been inserted as a final paragraph in the lead section, here for discussion


 * I think the wording there is clumsy, particularly the closing phrase. I'll suggest one possible rewording which borrows from the lead section of the Mythology article.


 * -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ASR, WP:NDA, and the mythology article is the article to discuss usage of the term myth. This article is about a particular type of myth and it should stay focused on that. Ben (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a disclaimer. It is a correct statement of fact about what the academic literature describes 'creation myths' as. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be mentioned prominently. Sventington the Second (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben, your own sandbox states that that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Til. Ben (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an idea, just move the article to Creation theory. It is a theory, and myth is avoided. That way there is no problem.-- Will C  16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Creation myths aren't really "theories" about how the universe was created. An article on "creation theories" would encompass things such as the big band, steady state theory, and intelligent design, which is not what this article is supposed to be about. I've thought long and hard to come up with an alternate title for this article, and the only possible alternative I can think of that might be acceptable is "Creation mythology", though I'm not sure "mythology" is any more acceptable of a term to people than "myth". Rreagan007 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. --<font color="#330033">Kingoomieiii ♣ <font color="#ff6600"> Talk   20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually when you think creation theory you think of the Christianity theory. Seeing as no one knows how the universe was actually created, this article should include every theory/myth. The Big Bang is just as plausible as the Christianity belief in creation or anyother belief. None of them have been proven as fact yet, so in a sense, saying myth in this sense of creation in a religious stand-point but theory in a scientific stand-point when neither has been proven is not neutral in my point of view. Plus I'm not on here because I'm a Christian. Just on here to make sure everything is correct. I see alot of atheist on here that tend to ignore NPOV alot (not saying you do if you are an atheist, I don't even know you or come on articles like this alot. I just saw it on page protection and thought to see what was going on). Now I understand this article is mainly about religious beliefs, but why is it so? Instead of using myth in a maybe true or maybe false way, why not just rewrite the lead and say this is a list of creation theories. Expand the article! Otherwise, there is going to be alot of ips come on here being upset, because no matter how it is spun, the first thought that comes to mind for myth is untrue, false, etc. With theory, it is neutral and, well, true. I don't see mythology. Any word that tends to make people think it is false, will just cause trouble. I don't think that is netural.-- Will C  17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A very common misconception; you've mistaken the colloquial meaning of "theory" ("just an idea someone came up with") with the SCIENTIFIC definition. A scientific theory is something with actual, real, observable evidence behind it. Which puts the Big Bang a couple pegs above any creation myth you care to name, in terms of plausibility. Referring to these myths as 'theories' alongside the big bang serves no purpose but to hurt their credibility, and would be irresponsible.--<font color="#330033">King ♣ <font color="#ff6600"> Talk   19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is already very large under its current scope, and you want to expand it to include all plausable theories on the origin of the universe? Even assuming I agreed with you, which I don't, all creation myths are not plausible. There are creation myths in the article that nobody living on Earth today thinks are plausable theories of how the universe came about. You have some creation myths from religions that are no longer practiced by anyone and from cultures that no longer exist. And why not include the Flying Spaghetti Monster while we're at it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They are all possible. I know the FSM is supposed to just be a parody of religion and God which is childish for the person who came up with it, but they all have marit. The article could probably be cut down pretty well. When I took my first article to FAC, it was at 50 kilobytes. I thought I would never get it down below 40 nor did I think I would get anyother article of the same type below 40. But I've gotten articles to below 30. It just takes effort. Taking the easy way out doesn't help anything. A simple way to make sure all the articles are correct is better for the project.-- Will C  17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you have good intentions, but frankly I'd rather just delete the whole article than do what you propose. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to apologise in advance for what I am about to say on the basis that I understand that I am not the first person to raise issue with the "creation myth" title applied to this article. Its just that I cannot see how this title reflects a neutral point of view and, as such, would like to propose the use of the title "account of creation". It seems to me that the conclusion that regards these "accounts of creation" as being representative of "creation myths" to may well be interpreted to be biased in its scepticism.

Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi or Zamba were not actually involved in creation? Arguments can obviously be raised to propose alternative explanations of existence and some of these arguments may well be interpreted to be very convincing and yet, as a sceptic I'd like it to be proposed that they are no more than that, arguments.

It seems to be apparent that there are "accounts of creation" that relates to the creative activities of a wide range of "creators". There may well be strong arguments to say that these accounts are of a mythical nature and yet these arguments are, ultimately, inconclusive. It can be readily admitted that the creative contributions of A'akuluujjusi and Zamba cannot be proven and yet neither can they be disproven.

Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi did not rig the physical evidence so as to suggest alternative explanations of existence? Can anyone prove that, from an alternative 'instant', that a Cartesian 'demon' did not feed the individual with a particular view of reality that was suggest of this form of apparent evidence. René Descartes opted to argue against this view through reasonings that were dependent on the conception of the existence of God and yet it may be interpreted that a God of the type conceived in Cartesian philosophy might choose to validate any particular creation myth of 'his' choosing. Can anyone disprove the concept represented in the idea of the Cartesian demon without calling on a higher authority? If someone can then this action would, in my view, generate a greatly valued contribution to philosophical understandings of existence.

The Wikipedia article on, 'Mythology' begins "Mythology is the study of myths and or of a body of myths". This definition, however, raises the question related to who it is that may decide whether a story has a mythical nature.

What is the nature of a particular story? It may be argued that there are two fundamental interpretations that people may take. Either it is true or it is untrue. People who believe a story to be true will, by definition, have interpreted that there was truth in the story. People who don't believe a story to be true will have interpreted the story to be untrue and may, classically, have regarded the story to possess a mythical nature. It may be argued that different people may come to differing opinions with regard to the nature of any particular story and it may even be agued that, within conceptions of freedom of thought, their liberty to do so should be protected.

Mythologists are at liberty to adopt their own interpretations with regard to the veracity of various stories and as such an outsiders view of mythology might regard it to be "the study of stories that are (widely/commonly/sometimes/on occasion/typically/often*) interpreted to be myths".

* choose description to fit

In an adult world it may be regarded that each individual should be empowered to come to their own conclusions with regard to the veracity of any particular story and this light, and as someone who experiences no particular belief with the regard to the existence of any particular conception of any form of creative agency, the assertion of the mythical nature of certain stories isn't regarded to be welcome.

Based on the argument that a level playing field for debate should always be preserved and according to the view that a "neutral point of view" should always be adopted I propose that a title along the lines of "account of creation" be used in connection to this article.

Gregkaye (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, all the 'Creation myths' in this article fall under this definition. Calling them 'accounts' would appear to violate WP:GEVAL by giving them equal validity to the results of historical and scientific research. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your (very long) argument gives me the impression that you haven't actually read through WP:NPOV. If that is true, you really should give it a read. You shouldn't get too far into it before you realise the 'neutral' word in the title of the policy is coupled to reliable sources, not to any particular editors or groups feelings on the matter. Ben (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your (very long) argument gives me the impression that you haven't actually read through WP:NPOV. If that is true, you really should give it a read. You shouldn't get too far into it before you realise the 'neutral' word in the title of the policy is coupled to reliable sources, not to any particular editors or groups feelings on the matter. Ben (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition continues:

As far as I am able to reason, all the 'creation stories' in the article in question are likely to be myths - by any definition. The only trouble is, and its not for want of trying, I can't prove it.



I personally see no problem with the use of this word on the basis that an 'account' can be either interpreted to true or false. Who trusts an accountant? (edit: O.K. the word is suggestive of the existence of source material which may be taken to represent a lack of neutrality).



Despite its history this word has a less respectful (but remarkably similar) meaning as that presented by 'account' and yet is ready to be used.

The word 'myth' is defined by falacy and is far from neutral.

Perhaps 'accounts of creation' can be proven to be myths. Perhaps they may be proven to be legends and, if so, fine. In the meantime I consider that answers to the questions that I have raised may present valued contributions to the content of this discussion page.

Gregkaye (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My advice above still stands. Ben (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I did not include the 'continuation' because the first MW definition is both the main, and clearly the most relevant, definition of "myth".
 * 2) "Myth" already contains "story" in its definition, "a usually traditional story…". Can you demonstrate that many (any?) of these 'stories' aren't traditional? "Myth" is the more precise term, and thus should be used.
 * 3) "Account" generally has an undertone of greater verifiability than "myth" or "story", either as a first person account of events witnessed, or as the account reconstructed as the result of research. As none of these 'traditional stories' are in any way verifiable (other than their existence within the appropriate religious or cultural tradition), I would suggest that "myth" (which is explicitly only "ostensibly historical") is far more appropriate.

I propose that the use of the word 'myth' in the use in its use in the title of this article, to canibalise the common phrase, be busted.

The use of this word is not neutral and perhaps a title such as "Creation story (Religion)" may be used. Alternatively it may be argued that a title such as "Creation story (Religion-Mythology)" might be used and yet it may be interpreted that the stories are typically of religion and interpreted within mythological studies.

The word 'myth' |en&q=myth&hl=en  can clearly be taken to presents its hearer with a concept of an untrue story. The words 'account' and 'story' don't do this.

The description of a "true account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be true. The description of an "untrue account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be untrue. This happens for the simple reason that these words both possess a notable degree of neutrality.

In contrast a description of a "true myth" can clearly be taken to describe a story that is certainly untrue. However, a description of an "untrue myth" can be taken to describe something that is not a myth. A simple mathematical equation can be taken to explain what's going on: +1 ✕ -1 =  -1. As such a description "untrue myth" may be take to be descriptive "non-fiction" and this can happen due to the clear definition of a myth as fiction.

No I can't demonstrate (prove) that any of the 'traditional stories' (as they have been perhaps fairly described) are not traditional. Moreover I would find it difficult to imagine that any orally recounted story of significant age would not have been affected by the influences of a transmitting society.

At the other extreme I cannot provide any conclusive proof that these stories have or haven't been based on a supposed true account of creation.

The particular difficulty in the current case is that the stories involved tend to call on supernatural agencies that may or may not include 'God'. This raises the question how might 'God' have done it. Indeed, it may be imagined that an entity with divine ability could do whatever he wanted and yet this statement does not cover the potential freedom. It could also be considered that she could have done whatever she liked as well. I would still tend to argue that there may be limits to divine freedom but you get the point.

At the moment the article begins: A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often as a deliberate act by one or more deities.

Perhaps the article could begin: A creation story is an explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often through the deliberate action by one or more deities. {and then say something like:} These stories are widely regarded to be mythical in nature. Citations related to significant claims should, surely, always be needed.

I hope that this may conclude matters relating to the current issue but, if not, can anyone actually disprove the various creative claims related to the variously claimed creators of history (my divinism website contains a list) and the previously mentioned questions?

Gregkaye (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're beating a dead horse here. This issue has been discussed discussed before in now-archived threads, and the overwhelming consensus has always been, as it is now, to keep the word "myth".  Plazak (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not overstate your claimed consensus. There are strong arguments on both sides. We need to use common names in Wikipedia.  The most common usage of myth is clearly a false fairytale: one accademic usage is broader.  I could support a neutral title of "creation story" which does not judge the content.  Grantmidnight (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (i) You have not substantiated your claim that "The most common usage of myth is clearly a false fairytale" -- MW clearly thinks otherwise. (ii) Even if its most common meaning is "a false fairytale" it should be noted that (a) a "fairytale" is a traditional story about the supernatural (and thus a synonym of the 'academic' definition of myth) & (b) that the majority of the people in the world are not of a specific religion or culture, and so disbelieve that religion or culture's specific creation myth (and often even many adherents of the culture or religion that spawned it do not take them literally). (iii) I would suggest that (ii-b) is most probably how "myth" developed its metaphorical/colloquial meaning, making it even less unreasonable to use it in its literal/formal sense. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, this amounts to a religious debate. According to the rules, the onus is on you to unsubstantiate his claims. -- King Öomie  15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that I can simply declare 'my religion says that your religion is wrong' (and what religion doesn't say that in some shape or form) and flip the onus back onto him? >:) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, religion is a personal belief. Within reasonable limitations, we must allow other people to hold and to present their views, even if we disagree with them. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably false- WP:GEVAL, WP:V, WP:PSEUDO. Wikipedia isn't here to reaffirm whatever garbage people already believe. -- King Öomie  16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose at the end of the day, a "myth" (whichever the definition you choose) is something that 'other people believe', and that everybody has a knee-jerk dislike of finding themselves part of that 'other people'. However, Wikipedia is meant to be based upon what the experts say, not on knee-jerk dislikes. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should all remember that this discussion does not relate to a popularity contest of ideas but to the single issue of what is right. Neutrality has been presented as the central issue in the debate. I have also raised a number of issues that I would not like to be forgotten. (quick link to top of the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_myth#Neutral_point_of_view.3F)

However, at this stage I think it may be wise to get things in a historical perspective.

Scholars have always recognised the word myth as being derived from the Greek μῦθος (a tale; fiction ('myth')).

The Wikipedia article on Mythology speaks of Euhemerus (working late fourth century B.C.) as: interpreted myths as accounts of actual historical events,... However, I am guessing that he did not actually use the word 'myth'.

The article continues: ... 19th-century theories framed myth as a failed or obsolete mode of thought ... I'm guessing again and this my guess is that this amounts to a view that may have been widely considered in the eighteen hundreds that: we, as good Christians, are right and, even though we respect that Aristotle chap, what everyone else believes is a right load of conveniently dismissable tosh.

The sad thing is that anyone at any time could have stood up and said that we can't actually prove that the various events recounted in ancient stories did not actually happen. No one was able to effectively able to stand up for the rights of ancient beliefs to be regarded with neutrality and then it was suddenly to late. At some point someone, in effect, said, "I don't Adam and Eve it!" The biblical creation story became just as vulnerable to the wrongs of the myth interpretation as everything else. Well that's equality for you. Things are equal and yet they are not fair.

Consider the story of young Z. Z is well behaved, goes to school without problems, is relatively friendly and happens to share the same religious beliefs as his parents. There's no way to know how it started but one day the the other kids found out about what Z believed. Ha, ha, Z believes such and such. What's wrong with that? Its a myth. And there's no denying it. There's little chance for debate. No proof is offered as to why the belief is wrong and yet even the God damn encyclopedia says its a myth.

Gregkaye (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (all comments are of a non-biographical nature)


 * Please don't confuse neutrality for validity. Also, Burden of proof. We make fun of Z because he ignores the evidence in front of his face, not because we can't prove a negative. -- King Öomie  19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would hope that anyone with a scholarly background sufficient to readily recall the origin of the word 'Myth' would also have the mental faculties to see that the term is quite apt. -- King Öomie 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No Öomie I think that you will find that you make fun of Z because you are the kind of person who makes fun of people. Oh, and thanks for raising the burden of proof issue. And perhaps you can reread what I said about the definitions of 'account', story and myth. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose a name change. As it is, the article neutrally presents ALL creation myths as MYTHS. I see absolutely no reason to raise their validity in such a blanket fashion, especially for religious sensibilities. And I think you'll find that I said "we". I don't appreciate your assumptions about my character. -- King Öomie  21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to detract from the ethical issues that are raised by the blanket description of every "supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe" as being a myth and yet I still want raise this reminder of the burden of proof issue recently raised. I'd also recomend that people might refrain from the use of first person descriptions in their writing if perhaps they don't mean it. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The MW definition clearly meets any "burden of proof issue" for the "blanket description". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How? I am genuinely interested in the line of reasoning that has been applied in relation to the "blanket description". Gregkaye (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (still centrally interested in the neutrality and related issues)


 * Oppose name change. These stories have one thing in common, they are not based on scientific fact, theory or reasoning. Many of them were the stumbling attempts of early societies, without our current level of scientific knowledge, to explain how we came to be here, they may have some 'higher' spiritual meaning for certain groups of people, they may be useful allegories even today, but they are still myths. In my Collins English Dictionary a myth is "a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs etc came into existence" ... an excellent description of all that is in this article. Note that nowhere in this definition is the word "untrue". Abtract (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. It offers an unrivaled range of digital information to absolutely anyone who has an appropriate web connection. This includes people with non-academic backgrounds.

This page begins with the statement:

"The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;"

and yet this is immediately qualified with the statement:

"however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.

That is what people who seriously write on the subject think, ..."

But what about people when they are not seriously writing on the subject? How do they use the word?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+myth+of%22

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22its+a+myth%22

An initial Mirriam Webster dictionary definition has been quoted for the word and yet it may be noted that at least three of the five following definitions are clear in their presentation of variations of the "untrue story" definition.

I also quoted Google|en&q=myth&hl=en Oxford  and Wiktionary  and, in an open access site, I commend these definitions for future presentation simply due to the absence of words like ostensibly.

One thing is clear, The word myth has a range of meanings and yet, given an awareness of the full range of these meanings, the one conclusion can be reached. It's not neutral. The use use of this word makes a judgement in regard to the contents of the page before the typical reader will have got passed the title. Perhaps various of the editors of this page may interpret the word to be neutral enough so as to warrent its use and yet it surely won't surprise you when people disagree. Gregkaye (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No Greg, it is not "clear". The word myth has a well-defined primary and formal meaning, which is perfectly congruent with its usage here. Further, it has not been demonstrated that any of its lesser meanings conflict greatly with this usage. The usage is an accurate description of the traditional stories covered by this article. That such stories have lost their power in modern culture, and have become a metaphor with some negative connotations (and some positive as well -- 'mythic' is generally used positively) does not invalidate the primary and original meaning of the word. Nazi does not stop meaning a Germanic racist fascist, just because it is used as a metaphor in soup nazis, feminazis, etc, etc. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Greg, nobody is denying that there is a colloquial definition of the term, and so your Google searches with colloquial phrasings are of no use to us. As Hrafn clearly points out, a colloquial definition is not a problem. In the case of 'myth', it's hardly a unique situation either: consider for instance the term theory vis-a-vis colloquial and academic definitions, and yet nobody bats an eyelid at general relativity being described (twice!) as a theory in the first line of that featured article. Since you've clearly not bothered to read and understand WP:NPOV, I'm not sure there is any point in giving you anything else to read, but here you go anyway:
 * Encyclopedia Britannica has its own creation myth article found here.
 * Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible (ISBN 978-0192116918) entry for 'myth' states that It ... covers those stories or narratives which describe the actions of the other-worldly in terms of this world, in both OT and NT. In Gen. the Creation and the Fall are myths ...
 * In Oxford University Press' The Illustrated Guide to the Bible (ISBN 9780195214628), a work clearly intended for a general audience: It is generally recognized today that myths and mythological concepts figure prominently in the Bible.
 * On Marcus Borg's website here, he tells us that 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. The reliability of these two sources can be gauged from their respective Wikipedia entries (and so I've linked their names for you).
 * Of course, there are many more reliable sources available. Another link for you you to consider before you continue: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose name change. "Myth" is the proper term for this. We shouldn't dump a perfectly fitting term used in other encyclopedias and scholarly works just because of secondary connotations. Let's end this, please? <font color="483D8B" face="lucida blackletter">Auntie E. 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, you seem to have described the definitions of myth following its first entry in the MW dictionary as being lesser and I am wondering in what sense this was meant: in sequence in the dictionary; in academic opinion or in terms of the words actual usage in the English language.

Ben, I am pleased that nobody is denying that there is a colloquial definition of the term. Its just that I don't agree that this definition, in the context of an open access project, should regarded to be lesser.

I also understand any potential frustrations with my sticking with this issue and will admit to a refusal to except the 'point' made in several of the comments. I have, however, not stuck to one argument and have presented a number of views that are not represented on this discussion page so I would view the contributions to have been valid.

Auntie E, the problem is that the "secondary connotations" of the word, as you describe them, result in that it is not perfectly fitting. The word myth presents a meaning of untruth while other possible terms do not do this.

In my view a judgement is expressed in the use of this term and I find the notion pleasantly ironic that mythologists, of all people, can be interpreted to have adopted the role of playing God.

The stories of creation belong to the groups of people that came up with those stories. It may be argued that their views may be consulted with regard to the ways in which their stories are being portrayed.

I don't personally have anything new to currently add to this argument. All the same, any responses to the questions that I have raised will still be welcome here or on my talk page if preferred.

Gregkaye (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, as Gregkaye has nothing more to add, I suggest we end this discussion now, with a decision not to change the title, and move on to more productive things. Abtract (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think archiving this thread will lead to productivity elsewhere ;) Ben (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. This is a topic that has two strong views, both with some validity.  A year ago, this had some resolution by a statement in the lead section about which definition of "myth" was used in this article.  That helped a lot.  Let's reconsider a similar statement that says we are using an academic definition that does not suggest truth nor fable.  If we burry this thread, it certainly will resurface.  Grantmidnight (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And what would you add which isn't already specified in the intro?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that one group of editors "knows" what a myth is and another group "knows" it to be something else. The solution is to clearly state what the meaning is in this article: This should be in the lead section.  I am open to several options.
 * This one is based on words to avoid.


 * The term “myth” in this article is used to denote a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth.
 * Comments? Grantmidnight (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Grantmidnight. That intro seems fine -- as long as you can find specific sources for it (or for the various parts of it). I have seen far too many cases of editors (in an effort to quell disputes such as this one) crafting very intelligent, well-intended, and tactfully worded definitions of "myth" that have the unfortunate drawback of having no actual citations whatsoever. If you want a great resource for actual sourced definitions, check out the Mythology article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, check out Religion and mythology. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true." True in what sense? Railway timetables are true (one hopes). My son's account of how he did his homework (one page when the teacher asked for five) is true, in a sense. Emperor Hirohito's report on the progress of the war against America ("events have unfolded not entirely to Japan's advantage") was completely true but less than complete, and might fairly be described as myth. My only advice is: Stay away from Webster-Miriam when looking for a definition of "myth." Go to scholarly sources instead. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In my ‘opinion’ the use of the word “myth” within a wide range of contexts throughout the historic use of the word has been conducted in an abusive way.

Having presented this opinion (which has been rightly presented as an opinion) perhaps I can move on to present some ‘facts’ that are considered to add substance to my interpretation of the history of the abusive use of myth related terminologies:

In 1755 Samuel Johnson published “A Dictionary of the English Language”. It was quite a dictionary. It really has the most beautiful typography considering its date. But here's a curious thing. While the "SJ" dictionary presented definitions of many terms related to the topic of myths, it didn’t directly present a definition for the word “myth” itself. Perhaps the reason for this is that the dictionarys “myth” related terminologies tended to make reference to fables instead.

I'll start with a presentation of the "SJ" definition of FA´BLE so as to prepare the ground for a contextualised understanding of the definitions of MY´THICAL/MY´THICK, MYTHO´GRAPHER, MYTHOLO´GICAL/MYTHOLO´GICK, MYTHOLO´GICALLY, MYTHO´GICIST, TO MYTHO´LOGIZE and MYTHO´LOGY. This presentation may lack the typographic flare of this remarkable text but is faithful to the content.

FA´BLE. n. s. [ fable, Fr. fabula , Lat.] 1. A feigned story intended to enforce some moral precepts. Jotham’s fable of the trees is the oldest extant, and as beautiful as any made since. Addis. Spect. VOL.II 2. A fiction in general. Triptolemus, so sung the nine, Strew’d plenty from his cart divine ; But, spite of all those fable makers, he never sow’d on Almaign acres. Dryden Palladius coming to die somewhere in the north part of Britain, may seem to give some kind of countenance to those fables that make him to have lived many years among the Scots. Lloyd. 3. A vicious or foolish fiction. But refuse profane and old wives’ fables. 1 Tim. iv. 7. 4. the series or contexture of events which constitute a poem epick or dramatick. The moral is the first business of the poet : this being formed, he contrives such a design or fable as may be most suitable to the moral. Dryden. Dufresnoy. The first thing to be considered in an epick poem is the fable, which is perfect or imperfect, according as the action, which it relates, is more or so less  Addis. Spect. 5. A lie ;  a vicious falsehood. This sense is merely familiar. It would look like a fable to report that this gentleman gives away a great fortune by secret methods. Addison. ... MY´THICAL.* MY´THICK. } adj. [μυθικος, Greek.] Fabulous. The account we have of them so far from being mythick or unintelligible, is most plainly written for our admonitions. Shuckford on the Creation. (1753) Spect. MYTHO´GRAPHER.* n. s. [μυθος, fable, and γράφος to write, Gr.] A writer of fables. The statues of Mars and Venus I imagined had been copied from Fulgentius, Boccacio’s favourite mythographer. Warton, Hist. E. P. add. ii. sign. e. 3.

MYTHOLO´GICAL.† MYTHOLO´GICK. } Adj. [from mytho- logy.] relating to the explication of a fabulous history. The original of the conceit was probably hieroglyphical, which after became mythological and by tradition stole into a total verity, which was but partially true in its convert sense and morality. Brown, Vulg. Err. A relation, which her masters of the mythologick prosopopeia expressed, we may suppose, by giving them in marriage to each other. Coventry, Phil. to Hyd. Conv. 3.

MYTHOLO´GICALLY.† adv. [from mythological. ] In a manner suitable to the system of fables. The relating mythologically physical or moral truths concerning the origin and nature of things, was not perhaps, as modern writers too hastily imagine, the customary practice of Moses’ age, but rather began after his times. Shuckford on the Creat. Pref. p. vii.

MYTHO´GICIST.† n. s. [from mythology. ] A relater or expositor of the ancient fables of the heathens. The grammarians and mythologists seem to be altogether unacquainted with his writings. Creech. It was celebrated problem among the ancient mythologists, What was the strongest thing, what the wisest, and what the greatest ? Norris, Miscel.

TO MYTHO´LOGIZE.† v.  n.  [from mythology; mythologiser. French. Cotgrave.] To relate of explain the fabulous history of the heathens. He mythologises upon that fiction. Fotherby, Atheom. (1622,) p.320. They mythologised that five gods were now born, Osiris, Orus, Typho, Isis, and Nephte. Shuckford on the Creat. Pref. p. x.

MYTHO´LOGY. n. s.   [μύθος and λόγος ; mythologie, French]   System of fables explication of the fabulous history of the gods of the heathen world. The modesty of mythology deserves to be comended : the scenes there are laid at a distance ; it is once upon a time, in the days of yore, and in the land of Utopia. Bentley. Samuel Johnson presented clear definitions of these words. He did not mince them. He did not present a definition of the word “myth” in a direct way and yet he can still be interpreted to have presented is meaning in a quite fabulous way. It had a phenomenal lack of neutrality. It was dismissive of people’s beliefs and its use, as far as I am concerned, was abusive. It still is.

Here's another thought. If the MW dictionary is considered unscholarly, then perhaps this will do. The most recent edition of the greatly influential Oxford English Dictionary published 1969, updated 1991 and most recently reprinted in 2001 has this to say:

myth ... '''1. a.''' A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. ... b. in generalized use. Also, an untrue or popular tale, a rumour ( colloq. ). ... 2. A fictitious or imaginary person or object. ...

The primary definition of the word “myth” presented in this most highly esteemed of dictionaries is of: “A purely fictitious narrative”. It’s not presented as a lesser definition of the word.

The topic of the historic use of the word “myth” may be of great interest and this is content that I expect it might contain. The actual followers of a religious tradition who, it may be argued should have the right of description of their stories, may have considered their stories as being accounts of actual events and would be unlikely to describe them to myths. At the other extreme other people who have not had any strong belief in the factual content of the stories will have been most likely to dismiss the stories as “myths”.

The word “myth” is not neutral and I suspect that its meaning has been primarily developed by people who have lacked neutrality.

Repeated and pointed mention has been made within this discussion of the WP:NPOV neutrality principle. I thought this might stop but, since it hasn’t, perhaps we can discuss the content.

Bias Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. A simple formulation Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. ... ... Article naming ... A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. ... If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. ... ... Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing. ... Impartial tone ... A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.

These principles have not been fairly applied.

The current “Creation myth” article title demonstrates clear and present (as well as historically rooted) indications of fallacy which will be received by most readers before they will have begun to absorb the content.

Gregkaye (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

 * So, is this a draft of a BOOK you're writing on this subject?
 * It's been established before that posting solely with walls of text makes you very difficult to respond to, and is typically disruptive. -- King Öomie  13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, King Öomie the dictionary texts were put together yesterday for the direct purpose to present them in this page. I also have in mind to use them on a website on themes related to the topic of Freedom of thought. I have enough to do and a different book to finish without thinking about any publication on this subject but thank you for the question. My last posting was comprised of two sets of dictionary definitions, some quotations from the oft mentioned WP:NPOV principle and a few extra comments. What's difficult to respond to? Gregkaye (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I've seen from you in general is an idealistic appeal to a society (rather, a species) that does not exist. You will have significant trouble finding people that share your view that every religious (or pseudo-religious, or completely invented) belief system is just as reasonable as the next, AND that these beliefs truly are "reasonable". (You've sold me on the first one- the feasibility across the board is zero.) I see absolutely no point in pursuing notions of thought-crimes and persecution thereof, or any other hyperbolic sentiment. Let's just drop all that, shall we?
 * Stop trying to convince me on a philosophical level, because you won't. What would you have us replace "Myth" WITH? Why is it more appropriate, according to the lexicographic consensus on the meaning of the words? Leaving ENTIRELY aside the psychological effect on the believers, which truly, literally does not matter. And let's aim for 5 sentences or less. -- King Öomie  15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't even want to get involved in this, because I tend to believe that "myth" is appropriately used in the title. BUT, I could suggest "Creation Lore" if anyone feels like discussing it. Cmiych (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable suggestion, but it seems 'off' to me to use the term Lore to refer to more than one school of thought, especially since they're almost all mutually exclusive. Then again, I'm not a lexicographer. -- King Öomie  18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would further suggest "creation lores" but I'm not sure "lores" is the correct form or use of the plural. But you're right, lore does seem to refer to the body of knowledge collectively, which may or may not be appropriate here. "Creation doctrines" might work as well.  Again, I'm not passionately against "myth," but if it's going to be discussed again due to the connotations, I might as well throw out some options rather than simply insert myself into a slugfest. Cmiych (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lore", unlike "myth", more commonly refers to 'knowledge' rather than to a 'narrative'. Traditional medicine would be better described as 'lore' than a 'creation myth' would. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Creation traditions?
 * "Beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally. For example, we can speak of the tradition of sending birth announcements."
 * "A set of customs or practices. For example, we can speak of Christmas traditions."
 * "A broad religious movement made up of religious denominations or church bodies that have a common history, customs, culture, and, to some extent, body of teachings. For example, one can speak of Islam's Sufi tradition or Christianity's Lutheran tradition."
 * Just my 2&cent; TheresaWilson (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that it is one thing to simply pick up a thesaurus and suggest alternatives, but an entirely different thing to offer a sound argument for why change is necessary and then for why one term is better than another. As far as I see it, I don't think a sound argument for change can co-exist with Wikipedia's policies: so long as reliable sources overwhelmingly use this terminology, it is not up to you, me or anyone else to start proscribing new terminology on Wikipedia (of all places). Not to discourage anyone though, feel free to get out there and change the reliable sources (as opposed to Wikipedia) if you want to right this great wrong; It's my understanding that Encyclopedia Britannica is now accepting 'updates' to their articles (subject to some form of scrutiny), so that might be a nice easy start for you. In the mean time though I don't want to sit here and think of reasons why not to use your pet terms for as long as you care to suggest them. Ben (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the constructive sarcasm. Cmiych (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry for being so rude. I think I took it too far this time, so no justifications or anything, just a genuine apology. Ben (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tradition' generally has the connotation that it is still being "taught", which is not true for many of these myths. It is even questionable whether it is a 'belief' as many Christians don't believe the literal truth of Genesis, and I would suspect the same is true of other creation myths. If an alternative is truly needed for 'myth' (which I dispute), then I would suggest that the best (if imperfect) alternative is 'narratives'. "Myths" 'nails it', "narratives" doesn't nail it, but at least doesn't seem clearly wrong. "Lores" and "traditions" are clear mis-fits. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Hrafn, I was just trying to pour some oil on troubled waters. TheresaWilson (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we start a pool (har har) on who's going to drop a match into it first? -- King Öomie  15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Myths" in my opinion (as stated above) does 'nail it' based on its definition. The issue for those questioning if there is any Wikipedia policy to support a change, is that "myth" could be considered weaselly based on its connotations.  A similar situation often occurs with the word "manipulate" (I will elaborate if needed, but I feel it's relatively self explanatory). Cmiych (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether it's "weaselly" or not is a matter of context. Whilst I would likewise consider "manipulate" to be loaded in many contexts, I wouldn't in articles such as physiotherapy and industrial robots. Likewise, it should be clear from the context that 'myth' is being used here in its original, formal meaning (which is directly applicable to the subject matter), even if it might be used in an informal, and more loaded, context elsewhere (e.g. in Urban legends). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Titles, by their very nature, may be encountered within contexts that may be devoid of any form of expanation related to understandings of the meaning of the title. Titles, on the other hand, always always provide a context for a context that follows. When a title is used in relation to an article whose content may be interpreted in different ways, a neutral title needs to be applied. In the current case the words "story" or perhaps "account" may provide a simple introduction to the "creation stories" / "accounts of creation" that are mentioned within the article. Gregkaye (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute the notion that the current title is biased in any way. -- King Öomie  14:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it isn't in the slightest. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

King Oomie, would you consider all the accounts in this article to be myths in the non-academic sense of the word? Cmiych (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term isn't usually used (colloquially) for things that people still believe, but on the whole, yes, the classification fits perfectly. -- King Öomie  16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me be more clear. The term isn't used by people to refer to things that THEY believe, which again, is the root of this entire discussion. -- King Öomie 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That being the case, it does not surprise me that those who do not hold to any of the beliefs listed here insist on maintaining the term myth as it is 100% accurate connotations included, while those who might hold any of the beliefs are offended and wish it to be changed to something more "neutral". Just as a title should not give validity to a persons beliefs, it should also not present them as inherently false (especially when some of them are widely regarded to be true within certain groups).  The comments discounting any individuals beliefs have not helped to reach consensus here.  We should acknowledge that there is disagreement over whether the accuracy of the academic meaning of the word trumps the connotations and discuss the merits of such an argument without regard for one's own beliefs about the content of this article.  In the process, we should attempt to find an equally accurate term that lacks the connotations altogether to hopefully avoid the continued rehashing of this issue.  Just my opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of like how the Chemtrail people can get offended at it being labeled a conspiracy theory, because of its pejorative connotation? Or how Intelligent Design supporters rail against the term Pseudoscience? Just like in those situations, I respectfully decline the drive to change accepted wording to suit interested parties. -- King Öomie  17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid has a section relating to "myth" where it points out that context should reinforce that the term is not to be read informally. I'm not sure that a title has the ability to do that.  It also read: "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition [...] Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral." Based on these guidelines, I do not think that this situation is comparable to the ones you mentioned.  This is not about calling a specific creation story a myth based on a reliable source, but rather collectively calling multiple beliefs a term that cannot be clarified within the title yet has strong informal connotations that may not present a neutral view of the subject matter.  The issue, though discussed numerous times before, should not be glossed over. Sorry for the winded response. Cmiych (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading that section. It is strongly depreciating the use of "myth" in its informal sense, but emphatically supporting its use in its formal sense: "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception." This fully supports those of us here who have been arguing that it is its formal, not its informal, sense that should determine its use. Also on "context should reinforce…", it is less restrictive than your interpretation would suggest. What it in fact states is that "When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally…" This cannot be taken as suggesting that it should not be used, in its formal sense, in an article title. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I am misreading it I apologize. I was simply trying to point out that even wikipedia policy acknowledges that the term can be ambiguous to the point that it suggests certain measures to prevent it from being misinterpreted. I would again like to point out that I do not support a change at this point, but such an issue should not be blown off as a bunch of idiots getting their feelings hurt.  If there is a better option it most definitely should be used to avoid confusion as supported by "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition [...] Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.". Cmiych (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is 'ambiguity' so much as stating that it is correct to use the word in its formal meaning and generally incorrect (with a very few specific exceptions) to use it in its informal sense. This is very similar to its treatment of 'theory' (formal 'scientific theory' acceptable, informal 'hypothesis' or similar not acceptable) -- which does not prevent (or even seek to prevent) the existence of the article Theory of relativity. WP:WTA is unequivocal in its opinion: use 'myth' in its formal sense, be as clear as possible that you're using it in the formal sense, and you have no problems. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The word formal[] is defined as: 1 done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette; (but no mention is made as to whose rules of convention or etiquette should be applied) 2 officially recognized: a formal complaint. (with that, when official judgements are made, they had better be fair) 3 of or concerned with outward form rather than content. (words, quite obviously, form impressions due to the forms which they are variously perceived to have) 4. (of language) characterized by the use of studied grammatical structure and conservative vocabulary. (It can be of interest to note the use of language. As far as I understand it, conservation of language relates to the rejection of foreign words.  I don't know whether conservation of language may also relate to the rejection of foreign meanings or whether this is a related issue.  Never-the-less, it may be of as much interest to note the ways in which the meanings of words have been changed as it is to note who has changed them). 5 (especially of a garden) arranged in a precise or symmetrical manner. (Not necessarily of words and yet it may be considered that understandings of the word myth have branched out over time).

Perhaps we can remind ourselves of the initial definition of the word myth supplied by the Oxford OED:

1. a. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena.

It's a definition that provides a fundamental understanding of an initial definition of the word and here's how it works. People who believe in the veracity of a story (such as a creation story) don't use the word myth in the context of the story. Outsiders to such views who disbelieve in the veracity of such a story may describe the story to be a myth. A confusion may then occur. People who are uninformed of the fundamental meaning of the word and who see it to have been applied to a story that cannot be proven to be false think, somehow, that the word has changed its meaning and fall into this mistake.

This situation leaves us with two options. We can either use the word myth that enables a retention of clarity in regard to this aspect of the English language or we can allow the continued use of a non neutral term, allow understandings of the word myth to range wide and put up with the resulting 'ambiguity'.

Gregkaye (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to nitpick again, that phrase "Cannot be proven to be false" is entirely logically invalid, and a little insulting to my intelligence. It was, in fact, the reason I linked to Burden of Proof above. -- King Öomie  15:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it can be proven that all-but-one of these stories are false -- via the argument from inconsistent revelations. Further, unless one of these stories isn't contradicted by the scientific evidence then all of them are "proven to be false". It would be nice if we could write 'Everybody agrees that all but one of these stories is a "a false fairytale", but cannot agree on which one is true -- apart from the scientists who believe that they're all "a false fairytales"' (to use Grantmidnight's turn of phrase) -- but somehow I doubt if we'd get that one past WP:NOR. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You would just have to cite a reliable source that says it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But what if one of the religion's prophets announced that the reliable source given had been possessed by the devil at the time he wrote it? Surely you can't prove that isn't true. We must act as though it might be, because some people believe it! -- King Öomie  16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * O'course -- everybody knows that reliable sources (scientific journals, Biblical scholarship, etc, etc) are the work of the Devil. Why would you expect that this RS would be otherwise. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: The term myth is formally accurate. If there's not an equally accurate term that lacks the connotations, then there's no sense in even having this discussion.  What would you suggest Gregkaye?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Break II

 * Compromise? How about adding a Wiktionary link as clarification for Wikipedia users who might misunderstand this word? Keahapana (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that selection suggestion very much, actually. -- King Öomie  20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we all think we know what "myth" means. The answer is to clarify what it means in this article.  There are many good dictionary  definitions.  Here in Wikipedia, we have it spelled out for us in words to avoid.
 * Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth.
 * If you do not like it, change it there. We need to include the definition of myth we are using in the article.  Grantmidnight (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, in the sense that I don't think we need to include the definition of 'theory' we're using in scientific articles or the definition of 'number' we're using in mathematical articles. Including definitions of terms like this is to invite endless argument over the definition chosen - I have no doubt this is one of the major reasons we have entire articles discussing each of 'myth', 'theory' and 'number' as opposed to just piping people to wiktionary. So basically, I don't think it's this article's job to try and summarise mythology into a sentence or two. In fact I think it's impossible. Instead, I think we should just offer a wikilink to mythology and let that article do the explaining. After all, isn't that the point of the wiki software? Ben (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be defining 'myth' in isolation, but the article should certainly state what 'creation myth' means, and (per WP:WTA) should do so in a way that makes very clear that we're using 'myth' in its formal sense. I'd be tending toward something along the lines of 'A creation myth is a traditional story told by a culture or religion as the supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe and its contents.' The 'Modern' section may prove to be a bit problematic for this definition, and may require 'generally' to be inserted in front of 'traditional' & 'supernatural'. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I just wanted to pop in to remind everyone of the importance of citations. I think it's great that you guys are hammering out a definition of "myth" for this article. But the fact that the definition is being tailored specifically for the contents of this article does not remove the need for citations. For each and every distinct claim being made within a Wikipedia article, a citation must be provided. I have seen far too many cases of editors (in an effort to quell disputes such as this one) crafting very intelligent, well-intended, and tactfully worded definitions of "myth" that have the unfortunate drawback of having no actual citations whatsoever. If you want a great resource for actual sourced definitions, check out the Religion and mythology and Mythology articles. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking Phatius McBluff's comment on board, how about the following:

This may be too close a paraphrase, and may need its language simplified, but provides a good basis for working up a sourced lead. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After glancing at the relevant source, I suggest the following paraphrase of Hrafn's definition, which could be used in the article's lead:
 * Note that only the first sentence is actually a definition of the term "creation myth". The rest of the passage is a series of statements about creation myths, e.g., that they express their cultures' self-identities. I suggest avoiding the word "science" in the lead; to mention science in the lead is to ask for controversy. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest we stick with the word 'group' used in Hrafn's version? Phatius' version might suggest a one-to-one correspondence between culture's and creation myths. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just re-read Hrafn's version and I missed the word culture is used in his too. I'm still a bit worried about using the word on its own though. Ben (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just re-read Hrafn's version and I missed the word culture is used in his too. I'm still a bit worried about using the word on its own though. Ben (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My wording uses the more precise 'culture grouping' in the first usage, but thereafter uses 'culture' to cut down on verbosity. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to omit science as (i) the source makes prominent mention of comparison to it & (ii) the relationship between creation myths and scientific explanations is an important one (we wouldn't have a Creation-evolution controversy if there wasn't). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cmiych asked a question that was preceded by the statement: The term myth is formally accurate.

Me: Are you referring here to the OED definition of myth or to something else?

Cmiych continued: If there's not an equally accurate term that lacks the connotations, then there's no sense in even having this discussion. What would you suggest Gregkaye? —

I suggest that various editors admit to mentioned "connotations" and they admit that the term myth cannot be neutrally used in the context of an open access encyclopedia. I also suggest that an immediate change be made to the way in which this talk page is introduced. The page currently begins: Important notice: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy ... This is not true. The article title does not adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy and I suggest that any claim to the contrary be dropped.

I suggest, if there are editors who propose to continue to use the work myth in connection with article, that they do so according to reasoned argument and not in reference to any unjustified claim to neutrality.

I suggest that specialist dictionaries be used with caution. They tend to provide definitions of words in the ways in which they are understood by specialist groups.

I finally suggest that one of the words: "story", "account" or "narrative" be used in connection to the main article. The article currently begins: "A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural story..." (In effect the word "myth" is used three times prior to the explanation "is a supernatural story"). The Oxford, A Dictionary of Creation Myths states: A creation myth is the narrative projection... and also: A creation myth is a story...

My suggestion is simple. I suggest that the word "story" be used in conjunction to this article. But what kind of story is it? As a convenience we find that a clear decription is neatly provided in the title. It's a creation story. Its the kind of story that some people believe in and other people don't. It is described to be a creation story which says it all. Its very neat and the further convenience is then found that, there is no need to begin the article with an otherwise needed and unneccessarily complicated rational that might attempt to justify the use of such a word as myth. A level playing field would have been smoothly accessed and within this context the content information of the article might then be fairly presented.

I have answered all the questions with which I have been presented. It would be appreciated if my various questions might also be tackled.

Gregkaye (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Story" is not even close to "equally accurate", as it loses "myth"'s aspects of "sacred past" and cultural identity. A creation myth is not just another story. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

While I still dispute the use of the word myth in the current context, I cannot dispute the content of the last statement. "A creation myth is not just another story". Its a "creation story". Moreover its a "creation story" that that has a 'sacred past' but, more than that, in the eyes of many believers, they may additionally be regarded to have a 'sacred present' and it was for these reasons that I previously proposed the title 'Creation story (religion)'.

This is a title that, in every way, is respectful of cultural identity. Gregkaye (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally find "story" to be more offensive as well as less accurate Cmiych (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic of creation envokes strong reaction and this page remains open for comments as to why such terms as "Creation story" might cause offense. On the same vain potential titles like "Account of creation" (previously discussed), "Creation narrative", "Creation doctrine" (a common favourite amongst people who believe in these stories) and others might also receive comment.

However, through our consideration of issues like of any offense that may be taken, we should remember that the issue in question is the topic of neutrality.

Gregkaye (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the umpteenth time this issue has been raised. A list of alternative names
 * Creation accounts
 * Accounts of creation
 * Creation stories
 * The trouble with 'myth' is that some religions may view creation stories from other religions as myths, whereas atheists believe all creation stories are myths. I don't have a preference on any term at the moment. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. When you look at the results it becomes clear that the formal description that is most commonly applied to a creation narrative by people who actually have a belief in the content of the narrative is "account of creation".

Doctrine of creation is also mentioned quite a lot.

The Catholics have even been noted to speak in terms of "dogma".

Never-the-less, it can still be interpreted that all these terms have a greater degree of neutrality than "myth".

Gregkaye (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead section of the mythology article says, in part,

"The term 'myth' is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;$[Refs]$ however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.$[Refs]$ In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.$[Refs]$"
 * (look at that article for the refs). Given that, the question is whether Wikipedia (in general, and this article in particular) is speaking in a colloquial or an academic mode. I think the latter.


 * Also see.


 * How about adding a paragraph to the lead saying something like

The term myth is used in this article to refer to a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. The term is used in this article in an academic rather than a colloquial sense and, as used here, carries no implication of either truth or falsity.
 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all I would like to quickly mention, so as to add a follow up to the proposed terms that Wapondaponda and I have presented, that Creation myth has a comparatively low currency. Thanks Bill for your valued reference to "Thinking through myths: philosophical perspectives", a clearly valuable source that may certainly inspire great content within Wikipedia articles. The section in the book that recieved the link was the section related to metaphysics, a word which, according to its etymology, labels the subject to concern issues "after physics". I merely mention this due to the fact that the branch of philosophy called metaphysics is assumed to contain ontology, an area of study that my, at least by definition, clearly related to the physical. I thus wanted to clarify the view that, when we are talking about metaphysics, we are talking about the study of non physical things - that are 'evidently' not, in every situation, always so easy to study.

The definitions of the word myth do not tend to directly refer to metaphysics but frequently refer to the supernatural which, I guess, indirectly refers back to certain aspects of metaphysical conjecture. Again it can be pointed out that the validity of the supernatural may rightfully be debated but it cannot be disproven and again it can be pointed out that the use of the word myth in the current context is unnecessary.

In his book Schibrack tactfully informs us that: (a friends) preferred approach to religious narratives is to read myths as an evocative form of fiction, ... p87. The word "them" could have easily have replaced the unnecessary mention of "myths". On its first point of call the Wikipedia article on Colloquialism indicates that: "Some examples of informal colloquialisms can include words (such as "y'all" or "gonna" or "wanna"), phrases (such as "ain't nothin'" and "graveyard dead"), ..." I "kind of" wonder whether various senses of the word myth may be used in circumstances beyond familiar conversation and whether they might even be used in the formal or perhaps even the literary context. Again it should be noted that Wikipedia is an open access project and, as such, it can be argued that it should use terms in the ways in which they are generally used and understood.

The history of the word myth may be interpreted to have been a curious things and the result seems to be a situation in which dictionaries seem to have adopted the practise of first presenting a version of the historical - traditional definition and then to follow this up with versions of the untrue - popular tale type definition. You are welcome to conduct your own search (or wider research) enquiries so as to assess the validity of the priority that might be rightly applied to the various dictionary definitions of myth.

I've just been trying to set up a format of links to searches on "myth" through a variety of search engines so that one page would be produced of initial results while other pages would be produced of later results. The systems of Wikipedia, however, have a natural problem with the production of search urls that go further on than the initial results.

Searches with http://www.blackle.com/ http://www.google.com/ and http://www.yahoo.com/ can have &start=[insert number] added to the search urls while http://www.bing.com/ can have &first=[insert number] to request pages for up to the first 1000 results. That's not that much really considering that there are millions of results.

The first of the listed results will have a natural tendency to point towards encyclopedic and dictionary references related to the word myth while later results may have a greater tendency to indicate the ways in which the word myth may be used in general (but not always informal) life. The centrally fallacious definition of myth should be confirmed and it may be argued that this should rightfully be the primary definition of myth.

Gregkaye (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)



myth /mıθ/ n 1 [C,U] an idea or story that many people believe, but which is not true: the myth of male superiority &#124; Most people think that bats are blind, but in fact this is a myth. &#124; popular myth (=one that a lot of people believe) Contrary to popular myth, there is no evidence that long jail sentences really deter young offenders. &#124; explode/dispel a myth (=prove that it is not true) 2 [C] an ancient story, especially one invented in order to explain natural or historical events: the myth of Orpheus  3 [U] this kind of ancient story in general: the giants of myth and fairy-tale. 

dictionary notes:

[C] = nouns that can be counted, usually as UNITs ( dog, box ), ...

[U] = uncountable nouns ... Examples: Sugar/love is sweet. [U] | He came by car. [U] | felt strong desire [U] | ...

The Longman Dictionary presents a sequence of definitions that confirms an understanding of myth that may easily be gained through any review of internet search results. The untrue idea idea / story definition rightly presents a primary definition of the word myth.

Gregkaye (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is feeling like dictionary-shopping now. Creation Myth is a professional, official term. This will be no sooner renamed than National Association for the Advancement of Colored People redirected to National Association for the Advancement of African Americans. -- King Öomie  14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry that you feel that. The main point, that I had previously attempted to present, related to the simple fact that the untrue - popular tale type definition of myth has a notably high currency. This is something that can be easily confirmed by spending a little time on an internet search on the word myth. The reference to the Longman’s dictionary merely provided an external confirmation of information that anyone might easily access.

Gregkaye (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Break III
There are phenomenally large numbers of religious people on our planet and as is clearly presented in the Wikipedia article on: Major religious groups. Many of these people hold their own sincere beliefs in regard to a variety of religious stories and creation stories may typically be included.

I do not see why “professional”, “official” or “formal” citations should be required for their positions to be considered and yet citations that fit these criteria are presented as follows:

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA JERUSALEM THE MACMILLAN COMPANY VOLUME 5 C-Dh from p.col. 1059

CREATION AND COSMOGONY IN THE BIBLE The Hebrew Bible commences with a majestic cosmological account of the genesis of the universe. According to Genesis 1:1-2:4a (the P account according to the documentary hypothesis), God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. ... ... p.col. 1060 ... ... Another story of creation, Genesis 2:4b-24 (the J account according to the documentary hypothesis), describes a much more anthropocentric version of the origin of life on earth: with the ground watered at first from a subterranean flow; the first man formed from the earth of the ground and animated by a breath blown into his nose, the first woman was created from a rib of the man and the two placed into the Garden of Eden. ... ... p.col. 1070 IN MODERN THOUGHT ... For Kaplan the "creative life" is the essence of the creation story,

... TORAH (Heb. תּוֹרָה). The Term. Torah is derived from the root ירה which in the hifil conjunction means “to teach”. (cf. Lev. 10.11). The meaning of the word is therefore “teaching,” “doctrine,” or “instruction”; the commonly accepted “law” gives the wrong impression. …

The New Standard Jewish Encyclopaedia 1970 Pub: W. H. Allen p.col. 494 COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY : Speculations dealing with the origin and structure of the world. JUDAISM has only one generally accepted dogma : that God created the world. ...

Jewish Encyclopedia Genesis is a historical work. Beginning with the creation of the world, it recounts the primal history of humanity and the early history of the people of Israel as exemplified in the lives of its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their families. It contains the historical presupposition and basis of the national religious ideas and institutions of Israel, and serves as an introduction to its history and legislation.

Catholic Encyclopedia Creation (Lat. creatio).—I. DEFINITION. ... In technically theological and philosophical use it expresses the act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence—productio totius substantive ex nihilo sui et subjecti. words used: account, doctrine

...

The contents of the Pentateuch are partly of an historical, partly of a legal character. They give us the history of the Chosen People from the creation of the world to the death of Moses, and acquaint us too with the civil and religious legislation of the Israelites during the life of their great lawgiver. Genesis may be considered as the introduction to the other four books; it contains the early history down to the preparation of Israel's exit from Egypt.

A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY 1960 CREATION. Making out of nothing. That God did so create out of nothing is the great doctrine which is expressed in the first verse of the Bible, and which became a cardinal doctrine of the Jewish and afterwards of the Christian faith. The belief in creation is, indeed, a tenet peculiar to revealed religion. Heathen religions attributed the origin of the world to emanation, or else represented it as made out of pre-existing matter. The doctrine of the ancient philosophers is summed up in the familiar axiom "Nothing is made out of nothing." Ex nihilo nihil fit.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM 1986 E. J. Brill publisher VOLUME V KHE-MAHI p.col. 400 AL -ḲURĀN (A.), the Muslim scripture, containing the revelations recited by Muḥammed and preserved in a fixed written form. ...

It can further be noted that the words creation and myth are not both to be found on any web page via the following site specific searches. | creation myth site:www.hindupedia.com | creation myth site:thesikhencyclopedia.com

These references are only a starting point. It is hoped that a consideration of the substantial number of individuals who religiously believe in their doctrines of creation may be taken into account.

Gregkaye (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is honestly bottom-barrel apologetics. If it comes to a vote, I staunchly Oppose a name change. Until then, I have no interest in reading through the dissertation you've presented here on the rights of the deluded. -- King Öomie  14:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see, how many different policies does your above post violate? It is a large-scale cut and paste from a copyrighted source. It is soapboxing. It is using a talk page to discuss the topic itself rather than how to improve the article. I don't see any reason why it should not be reverted entirely. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "'I do not see why “professional”, “official” or “formal” citations should be required for their positions to be considered...'"
 * You can consider whatever you want. The official, accepted terminology invariably trumps alternate wording suggested by interested parties. Much in the same way moonies tend to not use the term 'conspiracy theory'. -- King Öomie  18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if there was a problem regarding the copying of small passages of text, I still have my doubt whether any of the religious organisations involved would be that bothered about the way that the quotes have been put to use. Its also a nice thought that I might have been able to copy and paste anything approacing the majority of the texts. This having been said my hope remains that we might get back to the central issue: the lack of neutrality within the current article title and the mockery that this makes of the Wikipedia policy regarding Neutral Point of View.

Gregkaye (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link.
 * "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use [Fundamentalism and Mythology] 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."
 * Looks fine to me. Also, to head off beancounting, Google tests. Scholarly experts certainly hold sway here. -- King Öomie 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A few points: Therefore there is neither evidence of a valid NPOV issue needing correction, nor a WP:CONSENSUS (nor any likelihood of one developing in the near future) for a change. I would therefore recommend giving this a a rest, and that this thread be either archived, or moved to a subpage where those interested in further debate on the subject can continue their argumentum ad nauseum without disturbing the rest of us. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There has been an enormous amount written on this issue, mainly by a single editor, with little indication that it is influencing the opinions of others.
 * 2) There is no indication to date that there is any significant movement on the local consensus, that it is appropriate to call these 'traditional stories of the supernatural origin of the universe' "creation myths".
 * 3) This local consensus would appear to be endorsed by a wider consensus on the use of the word "myth", as demonstrated in WP:WTA.
 * 4) Those opposing the use of the word have failed to demonstrate how its use, even in its informal sense, fails WP:NPOV. They have failed to present any evidence whatsoever that a majority of the relevant academic communities (or even the majority of the wider population) accepts the literal truth of any one (let alone a significant number) of the myths documented here.

King Öomie correctly notes that when the NPOV policy enters its subsection on Religion it states, in relation to words such as mythology, that: 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. There is, however, nothing mentioned so as to recommend the use of such terminologies in article titles.

To this point a number of neutrality centred arguments have been presented in relation to the current debate. Other issues may also be raised.

Some issues may even go beyond the topic of neutrality. For instance the universally applicable | law of priority clearly indicates that the original terms applied to a topic stand. The law of priority presents the common sense rational for the renaming of Brontosaurus as Apatosaurus and adds a further justification of the renaming of Leningrad as St Petersburg.

I don't imagine that the people who originally may have held to communicated accounts of the activities of creators such as A'akuluujjusi or Zamba would have described these accounts to be myths. There is no doubt that presented information in relation to a subject may be criticised and yet the information itself should be faithfully represented. The creation myth title does not do this.

A lack of a current WP:CONSENSUS has been noted and yet the fact that there are two sides of an issue that don't agree is no reason to archive the debate. It is already protected by a readily apparent important notice that makes the bold statement that: "The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy ..."

It has been fairly noted that little indication has thus far been presented that this issue is of influence on the opinions of others. Is this information really required? One of the arguments presented is that the title "Creation myth" restricts freedom of thought. Whether intended or not, it presents a judgement at the initial point of the article in relation to the content of the article that then follows.

Gregkaye (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Creation "myth?" Seriously? How can a article with the title "Creation myth" ever be NPOV? Some of these apparent "myths" could never be disproven short of someone creating a time machine and going back to see exactly what the heck happened. Regardless of how many references and citations are available, it's only the opinion of some people and should not be presented as fact, unless of course we can cite opposers of the evolution theory and present their views as fact. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read this article? The mythology article? The notice at the top of this page? The talk page archives? WP:NPOV? WP:WTA? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I still don't consider it NPOV to classify any widely accepted theory to be a myth. Some people consider Darwin's evolution by chance theory to be mythology. It's generally considered acceptable to classify something as mythology if it's something that's no longer significantly followed, but it gets controversial when we tag theories such as the Genesis theory as a myth. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm having a hard time trying to find the section of WP:NPOV that supports you. Can you please help me out by quoting the relevant sections? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, now which view is it you think we're biased against? Ben (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that question. Right now all the creations stories are treated equally in the article, why shouldn't it be the case ? --McSly (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a gray area. If one is to look at it that way however, we should look at evolution (a theory I actually kind of believe in along with creation) with the same uncertainty. Afterall, science once said Pluto was a planet like Mars and Jupiter. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 03:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I believe it's biased against the creationist view. This is basically a list of different creation accounts if you read the article. Granted, many of these ancient accounts are widely considered to be mythology, but there are also many of these that are taken seriously by large populations around the world. NPOV would be to move this to something like List of religious accounts of creation. This doesn't mean that there can be no references to mythology here, it simply means we shouldn't be classifying currently popular religious beliefs as mythology as it tends to alienate believers. I've seen people who have complained about the coverage of articles related to creationism, evolution, and atheism. Want to be politically correct? Forget about saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, we need to write creation/evolution articles that are neutral. Also, how can one say that evolution theories are "fact" when every science teacher I've ever met has said that science is dynamic? Furthermore, no editor here is NPOV on the issue; editors either believe in creation or they don't. Same thing with evolution. I personally believe in creation and evolution. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 03:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) So your argument is essentially that this articles contents should depend on what the general population believe. Doesn't that clearly satisfy the definition of bias? That is, we would be biasing this article in favour of a groups beliefs? And what about this section of the NPOV policy: WP:GEVAL. Should we just ignore it? Ben (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 'Creation myth' is also the 'normal' phrase used for the stories in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Several points for PCHS.
 * I've seen an absolutely incredible amount of material called 'biased against creationism'. It's a meaningless phrase at this point. I've come to the conclusion, myself, that reality is biased against supernatural explanations. The manual of style is very specific on the issue you bring up- when there is an established terminology, DO NOT avoid it simply to avoid hurting one group's feelings.
 * Common misconception. No one (knowledgeable) is calling evolution theories fact. In a nutshell, the fact or law of evolution explains THAT evolution occurs, and the various theories try to explain WHY. This is similar to the state of research into gravity- everyone knows that gravity is real, but we're still a little in the dark as to WHY it exists, and how, specifically, it works. See also, Evolution as theory and fact.
 * Proving a negative is a logical impossibility, so claiming that "No one can DISprove" a story in any way increases the likelihood of it being true is a fallacy. I'm not sure where you're going in pointing out how science updates its textbooks occasionally. -- King Öomie  14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your opinion. It often helps in NPOV discussions when all users willing to state their own POV.


 * However, I don't think that your POV ought to be the viewpoint of the article. We should rather describe both your viewpoint (i.e., that reality is biased against supernatural explanations) as one of the common views; identify what authors have expressed this POV and what arguments and evidence they advance to support it AND the viewpoint that reality consists of both a natural and a supernatural world.


 * Scientists who study the physical world tend to express the confidence that they can find a physical cause for all phenomena, but there are also religious believers who assume (or place faith in) a supernatural cause. My question is whether we should write about cosmogony or creation accounts with a bias that favors "science" and materialism, or with a bias that favors religion and faith?


 * I daresay NPOV urges us to pick neither bias but merely to state that there are two viewpoints, and to point out that scientists are more likely to adopt a standpoint of methodological naturalism while religious believers are more likely to choose a faith-based Creationist idea. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I must ask - what does the objector to the use of "myth" prefer we use in it's place? A myth is defined by the OED as a "traditional narrative usually involving supernatural or imaginary persons and embodying popular ideas on natural or social phenomena" There is no suggestion of falsehood there, though the possibility remains. In contrast, a story is defined as "account of imaginary or past events; narrative, tale, or anecdote". A story is not necessarily false either, but the implication is actually more pronounced than with the word myth. Theory has been suggested in the past, but the scholarly definition of it does not even remotely apply to this situation - "Exposition of the principles of a science". Narrative - "spoken or written account of connected events in order of happening" - fits pretty well, but I can't really see it as a fitting descriptor for all of these different accounts. And as for the word account - "narration or description". It's not really descriptive enough either, nor truly applicable to all. Myth seems to be the only truly fitting descriptor and the pov is only seen by those who don't seem to understand what it really means, which isn't our problem. (though they often like to try and make it ours)Farsight001 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not being the original objector, I can't speak for him or her, but I too object to the use of the term "myth" on NPOV grounds. "Myth" can be interpreted as an invented story, imaginary or fictitious event, or false collective belief. Instead of using the word "myth", does anyone object to the use of the words "belief" or "doctrine" instead? 69.245.90.210 (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The notice at the top of this page says the article title is consistent with WP:NPOV, yet you tell us it is not. There are then three possibilities.
 * The notice at the top of this page is incorrect, in which case you should identify what part of the NPOV policy is being infringed and how it is being infringed;
 * You are incorrect, in which case the likely reason for this is that you have not read or failed to understand the policy; or
 * Both you and the notice are correct, in which case the NPOV policy contradicts itself.
 * Please help us work this out by giving us a little more than a vague reference to the NPOV policy and no accompanying explanation. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading the exceptionally long discussion and rationalisation around the term "Myth" I must still object strongly to it's use in reference to my beliefs. You are welcome to use a number of other words, for example and in order of preference: Creation beliefs, Creation doctrine, Creation philosophies, Creation stories, Creation rationale, non scientific creation viewpoints, Creation points of view, Creation world views, Creation allegory, Creation accounts, Creation faiths. It should not be difficult to find an alternative, even having a redirect from a "Creation Myth" page will be acceptable. Jpvosloo (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Definition of creation myth from Oxford Dictionary of Creation Myths: "A creation myth is a myth that describes the original ordering of the universe. A myth is a story that expresses a cultural group's sense of its sacred past. Virtually all cultures have creation myths. A creation myth expresses a society's sense of its identity and relationship to the universe. It acts as a symbolic model for the society's worldview and way of life." (Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths.) Note the word "sacred" - creation myths involve gods or other supernatural beings and agencies. To put that another way, sacredness, not truth, defines a creation myth. PiCo (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can strongly object all you want, Jpvosloo, but as per the manual of style, the established, scholarly terminology will not be avoided out of sympathy for a particular group. We "are welcome" to use the term Creation Myth, and will continue to do so. -- King Öomie  14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having this debate every 2 weeks adds a great deal of stability and regularity to my life. Thanks.  Side note:  Did anyone actually followup on changing this to "List of creation myths" as mentioned at some point? Cmiych (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The regularity of this debate should itself evidence that there is a problem that needs to be addressed - namely that there is a group of people who feel that the article is biased against them. May I introduce several obvious points that I think all people in both camps can agree with:
 * The majority opinion of the scientific community is that the theory of Evolution, or some variation of it, represents truth.
 * There are a large number of people, including a small minority of scientists, who today believe that the theory of Evolution is false.
 * Both groups pose questions to the other, which they themselves believe the other cannot adequately answer.
 * Therefore, regardless of any of our personal beliefs, there is undeniably controversy on this topic in our time, with a large number of people on either side, albeit more on one side than the other.
 * If the NPOV policy is to be of any value whatsoever, then it should be apparent that it applies utmost when there is a current controversy in play.
 * One of the meanings of myth is (according to wiktionary) "A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing..."
 * Irrespective of whether wikipedia chooses to narrow the definition of the word 'myth' to exclude falsification, most visitors to the site will not have read the wikipedia policy on the word.
 * It should therefore come to no surprise that those who take a creation position should feel that the term 'myth' is non-neutral and bias against their beliefs.
 * Now, if indeed the current title is in compliance with the letter of NPOV and WTA, then perhaps those policies are also in need of adjustment, because NPOV is not currently evident here. Or, have these policies become immutable documents of rule to which all must submit without questioning? :) As to alternate suggestions, I don't think either party would object to 'Creation Belief'. It may also be worth organizing the topic into two sections: one for currently held beliefs, and one for beliefs that have been long abandoned by all and can truly be called myths in all senses of the words. PKA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.48.213 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there has been heated discussion on the neutrality of the title of this article. It seems to me there are plenty of definitions that support the neutrality of the title. Because of this, those arguing that the title is neutral are correct if you use the definitions that do not define myths as "false". As it has been clearly stated, the word myth is not being used to mean "false". This being the case, I think we should all be in agreement that another word could be used in it's place. We can all see that the word myth has created significant controversy because of it's connotation and other possible definitions, so unless someone is using the word myth to mean "false" then we should all be in agreement that a title such as "Creation Accounts" would be a suitable title. As we are all clearly trying to eliminate the controversy of this title (and the word "Myth" has obviously caused it), I see no reason that anyone would object to changing the title. --Isaaclill (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives to "myth"
I believe that Cosmogony is a rather obscure word, so I'd prefer to see Creation account as it connotes neither validity nor falsehood.

Furthermore, a Creation account can include both religious accounts (as in Creationism, a view clearly deriving from faith and theological belief) and scientific ideas such as the Big Bang Theory which is based only on physical science. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An explanation of the word is available right there on it's linked article for those who don't know what it means. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the common, ordinary use of the word "myth" is so dominant in societal thinking, all the way back to the days of our bedtime stories, that it's only reasonable for the reader to assume that he/she certainly already knows what that simple four-letter word means. Therefore, how reasonable is it even to suspect that any reader might reason that they don't know what "myth" means, with or without the "creation" prefix? Is this line of reasoning by Wiki's fictitious "ordinary reader" logical for any of us to even imagine:
 * IS THE FOLLOWING A LIKELY SCENARIO??
 * "Hm, 'myth'. That's something that is imaginary or not true. It's fictional like the Santa Claus myth or 'Peter and the Wolf' and the Loch Ness monster and urban legends. But just in case 'they' are thinking of some other kind of myth (though I don't think there IS any other kind), maybe I'd better look it up by clicking on the light-blue Wikilink." Hogwash!


 * From umpteen years teaching in university classrooms, and almost as many years as a student, I know that people are loathe to look something up if they think it's somehow beneath their dignity on the basis that "I already know that. When we read the word "myth," unless we are among "the few and the proud" who are specifically schooled in a technical/academic/literary genre, highly atypical usage of the word, our kneejerk response is to run with the MOST familiar definition we've had of that word throughout our lifetime. And that's going to be an untruth that has been whitewashed as truth.


 * May I illustrate from the Wall Street Journal's use of the word myth, and the connotation they clearly expect from readers:


 * Jun 20, 2009 . "A Doctor's View of Obama's Healthcare Plans: The Myth of Prevention."


 * Feb 20, 2010. "The Myth of the Techno-Utopia." The complete sentence: "It's fashionable to hold up the Internet as the road to democracy and liberty in countries like Iran, but it can also be a very effective tool for quashing freedom. Evgeny Morozov on the myth of the techno-utopia."


 * Apr 24, 2009: "...the Treasury for getting only 66 cents in value for every TARP dollar spent. This accusation would be troubling if true, but the 66 cent claim is a myth. The 66 cent conclusion is no more sound than a subprime mortgage."


 * November 20, 2009: Lies, Myths, and Yellow Journalism. "Because this editorial is based on deception (or, more charitably, bad journalism), it's not surprising that harmful myths about education reform are also woven in. The myth that spending more money on poor and minority kids is a waste ("some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most money on students"), the myth that vouchers help kids from low-income communities (they haven't worked, which is why they're off the table), the myth that strict accountability will close the achievement gap (it won't, although accountability with clear standards, and with more capacity to meet those standards will), and the myth that teachers' unions are the enemy (they have problems, but reformers need to work with, not against them).


 * An ordinary Google search of Wall St. Journal + "myth" turned up these and many more. Please try the search for yourself on any of your favorite printed sources that contain OpEd's. We can continue to play ostrich and bury our heads in the sand, or we can stop trying to force "myth" with all its shades of gray down people's throats.


 * None of us were around when the term "creation myth" was spawned by a group of the intelligencia who probably had at least a couple of years of Greek, so the choice of words isn't our fault. But we do have other terms that are not ambiguous, even terms that no less prestigious an agency than NASA has chosen, such as cosmogony. True, it's not well known, but since it isn't, that's the type of word that most of us WILL click on if it's blue. (I also like the suggestions that start with 'creation' and are followed by narrative or account or whatever. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia should favor one term or another (despite the sources) because...? This sounds like expert-shopping more than anything. You know what the word means, are you just worried that OTHER people won't? It's explained everywhere it appears. This sounds like the complaints at Talk:Muhammad/Images. -- King Öomie  13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth/Cosmogony/Cosmology/Cosmogeny
This article has used the term cosmogony throughout-more than it does "creation myth". The cosmogony article and this one (which do not agree with each other) are now so hopelessly confusing that I can't tell what either one of them are trying to say. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this flurry of words an attempt to bury the word myth? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Ben (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought so. These articles are just a mess. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the source given in the opening sentence doesn't even use the term "creation myth" once. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started a user subpage with descriptions of these articles here. All are welcome to edit my subpage! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Using the word Myth is NPOV
Myth might means mythology but it is a loaded word, and it is argumentative that evolution is taken as fact but the creation story is taken as myth. Very subjective stuff, since more people agree on a creator than people who believe in random Darwinian theory. Another name is needed to reflect a Neutrality to the subject. Cuz most humans believe in this "myth" so must have some truth to it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been argued to death; please review previous discussion and the archives. Let's not start flogging that horse again. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * i SAW that after the fact. I guess i am not alone.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alone? Definitely not. Wrong? Absolutely. -- King Öomie  15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Most people believe it, so it must be at least partly true"? Within the last two thousand years, hundreds of little tidbits of cultural knowledge have been completely rejected. Diseases aren't caused by magic (or sin), the sun doesn't rotate around the Earth, flies don't pop into being on rotting meat. All of these things, at one time or another, were a given. EVERYONE believed them. Now look at those and tell me that popular ideas MUST be true. -- King Öomie  15:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious have the evolutionist yet proved that man evolved from apes? That to me also should be called a scientific myth. That randomist over a 100000 years produces life in all its diversity. Does that not also sound like the magical myths you listed?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could have saved time and said "Fields of science I don't understand must be wrong". Suffice it to say that scientific evidence points to Common descent of Apes AND man from a "cousin" race that no longer exists (except in fossil evidence). It would sound like a myth if it were presented without evidence, but in fact, the evidence for the real-world versions of your straw-man points is comprehensive and irrefutable. You can find much of it here, but I suspect that you will not, and will instead consider yourself to be completely correct. -- King Öomie  21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish i could get into this but i have to humor you. It is not that i do not understand, it is that is disagree with the conclusion. If GOD (scary word isnt it) is an artist, i would expect a certain commanality across creation. Some call it direct evolution, i think more like direct creation. All subjective. Who created the big bang is identical to who created God (so we are stuck in the same place).The original Porsche model and the new Porsche model are related but not by direct mechanism of evolution. i.e. the old Porsche car didn't growing new lights and new alloys and become the new 911.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminder - this talk page isn't a public messageboard to debate God, logic, evolution, automotive design, the Big Bang, or anything else. Please review WP:TALK. If it continues down this vein, I'll refactor the comments. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

-

Outside observer on titles
Cosmogonic beliefs (here_ is not an improvement over creation myths, and Genesis creation narrative (@Genesis creation narrative) is not an improvement over Genesis creation myth. That said, if the decision has been made to go "Cosmogonic beliefs" (far more impenetrable than "creation myth" but would not be the first time WP scares away readers), then Genesis creation narrative needs to be retitled "Cosmogonic beliefs in the Judeo-Christian tradition" or similar. Since "narrative" is not used for similar other articles, it is inappropriate there; and since other articles speak to geography and not specific scriptures, then the use of "Genesis" (specific named scripture in the title) is also inappropriate unless you organize along the lines of: et al. including any similar article using "creation myth" regarding specific accounts. So why, exactly, has "Creation myths" not been renamed to "Cosmogonic belief narratives?" I have to ask, has anyone thought of the reader here, lately? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cosmogonic beliefs in the Book of Genesis
 * Cosmonogic beliefs in the Bhagavad-Gita


 * The name changes to "cosmogonic beliefs" was very poorly considered and short-lived.  I think that proposal is completely dead now-and it never had much support in the first place. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm utterly confused. Where was the decision made to call creation myths, "cosmogonic belief narratives"?Griswaldo (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm reading the notice at top as stating content being split out into a series of "Cosmogonic beliefs...". It that's dead, it needs to be removed. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's dead :). It's probably not helpful to dig for the old bones of that "phase", but I'm sure they're in the talk page archives somewhere.  I don't see the notice there now but if it's there please do remove it. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the word Myth is NOT NPOV
":This has been argued to death; please review previous discussion and the archives. Let's not start flogging that horse again. " Too bad.

If there is no proof and it is presented as factual, then it is mythological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.233.232 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race; I'm not religious and am pretty hard to offend anyway. Still, I don't see what harm would come from renaming the article to 'Religious accounts of Creation', or 'Creation (religion)' or some such thing. Is there a reason that 'Creation myth' is a better title for the article than these? Bdrasin (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add to this that Wikipedia itself uses "myth" to mean a type of ahistorical fiction; for example the article Christ myth theory. 'Myth' isn't a precise synonym of 'fiction' but certainly myths are a subset of fictions; otherwise the title of that article is nonsense because Christ would be a myth weather historical or not. There actually is a case to be made that the religious accounts of creation are objectively false according to RS and therefore it is NPOV to describe them as fiction, but no one seems to want to argue this way.Bdrasin (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I am sorry but I argue the word Myth is very biased, the word "Account" is more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From Merriam-Webster:


 * "myth n. 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society"


 * This has been discussed ad nauseam. In the context of this article's topic, the word "myth" is correct. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree and what's more important so does Mr Collins in his concise dictionary "a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs etc came into being". Abtract (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute as to whether "creation myth" is a neutral term.

I googled it, and here's what I read at Amazon about the first book that came up in my serch:


 * Evolution and Religious Creation Myths seeks to educate and arm the public on the differences between myth and science, fiction and theory.

It seems the word "myth" connotes "fiction", while "theory" refers to a finding of science. I don't see, therefore, how myth could mean anything other than false, made up nonsense. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because you're preferentially putting more stock in a definition you already agree with, above that of any of the others available defining a 'Creation Myth' as a supernatural explanation of creation, absent any judgement of truth or falsehood, perfectly neutral. -- King Öomie  15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're also setting up a counter-argument yourself, using the colloquial definition of 'myth' alongside the technical definition of 'theory'. The colloquial definition of 'theory' isn't far from that of 'hypothesis'- unproven, and laughable to accept at face value. "It's just a theory!" -- King Öomie  15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be an argument for renaming articles with titles such as Enûma Eliš - Enûma Eliš creation myth. But there is no reason at all to change the title of this one.  Creation myths are a real life category - offensive to some or not we're not reinventing the English language here at wikipedia.  The extreme oversensitivity about using this term in this article is absolutely 100% unjustifiable. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't own any stock in either viewpoint; I'm a longtime fan of NPOV. I'm just going along with what Evolution and Religious Creation Myths says: i.e., that there are differences between myth and science just as there are differences between fiction and theory. But the authors of that book also argue that evolution and creationism are not both valid theories and that they don't deserve equal attention.

I wouldn't want our use of myth in an article title to make the reader think that every "myth" is likely to be a "fiction". --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument then is to those in the real world that termed this category of stories "creation myths". It's probably been the proper usage for couple thousand years beginning with the Greeks-and it's certainly the name given in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources today.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently contributors feel a need to distinguish between (A) scientific cosmology, i.e., scientific theories of creation (cosmogony) and (B) religious cosmology. I'm sure we can come up with terminology that suits all parties. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Mr. Lurquin will be surprised to learn his text has become the leading authority on religious scholarship. Again, the term Creation Myth does not assign truth or falsehood to the story it represents. It merely states that a group of people believe/believed that it is/was literally how we/the earth/the universe came to be. -- King Öomie  17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Side note-not all "creation myths" involve supernatural beings or forces either. The introduction to this article is terrible, imho, but I'm currently pulling together a body of good sources to use there.  Many of the best known of the creation myths come from peoples who had no concept of separate realms between nature and supernature. Their creation myths describe beginnings initiated and guided by what they viewed as natural or "innate" properties and forces. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree these words have loaded meaning, Myth in language might as well mean fiction. And Supernatural sounds like something on the X-files. Esp the abbreviated for of Myth. If there is so much disagreement CHANGE IT. isn't that how Wikipedia works. clearly it is a problematic word.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * VERY PROBLEMATIC. In no way is it neutral, nor can it be when the most prominent meaning of "myth" is fiction, hence untrue fantasy. Do a Google search on "myth" on any major newspaper in English. There will be many hits, and I have yet to find even one that implies truth. Why do these writers and editors use "myth" so often in their headlines and titles? It's straightforward when one glances at the article. The editor or writer is claiming something this being misrepresented or falsified, hence is a myth. They don't have to worry about any technical understanding of myth occurring to even a single reader.
 * In no way is the definition "myth" not neutral. Seeing how the con provides no counter definition and the only definition within this conversation derives from the Merriam-Webster, we should use that definition. Even if popular culture (X-files) or google may offer a contradictory definition, you fail to provide any warrants why that definition should be used. In fact, It would seem as if these definitions fashioned by popular belief or google were "supposed" to be incorrect. "A usually traditional story..." is not something that MUST be fiction, "A popular belief or tradition" is not something that MUST be untrue. To put this in perspective, all Abraham religions can be placed into these general parameters but nothing tells us that they are fiction. Remember that the purpose of wikipedia should be to educate people in this case, end the misconception that myth means fiction. The fact that popular belief tells people that myths are anything but real should give us more incentive to make the line between such definitions bolder. 216.101.109.137 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

LONDON TIMES: L.A. TIMES: April 5, 2010. "Myth-busting polls: Tea Party members are average Americans, 41% are Democrats, independents." "It has nothing to do with the myth of left and right. It has to do with democracy versus corporatocracy (formerly known as plutocracy)." ...and the list goes on and on this way. Absolutely no one is going to FIRST think of "Symbolic narrative of the creation and organization of the world as understood in a particular tradition" when they see "Genesis" and "Myth" together in the same phrase. It defies reasonable expectation, particularly in view of the fact that there are many who believe Genesis or even the whole Bible is "a fictitious narrative presented as historical but without any basis of fact"─which was, by the way, a recent SAT's "correct answer" for the definition of "myth." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * January 3, 2010 "What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth"
 * January 2, 2010 "Over 7000 women a year get false breast cancer alert. We debunk the myth behind the headlines...."
 * April 20, 2010 "Exhibition explores the myths behind artist Paul Gauguin. They will depict a strikingly modern artist: a monstrous, exploitative, lying self-publicist and instead focus on “the tendency towards myth-making, in his work and his presentation of himself”.
 * Because the first thing I think of when I think "Wikipedia" is "Atheist plot". Well, after "Illuminati". -- King Öomie  21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The most prominent meaning of "creation myth" is not "untrue fantasy". (This article hasn't done a good job of saying what it does mean yet, but I've got it in the queue to make improvements in that area.) The long and short of it is this: it's a real topic, well known and well covered from a variety of domains, from children's books, ancient history, anthropology, mythography, classical scholarship-themes from myth also frequently appear in art, sculpture, cinema and architecture, and real encyclopedias do not reinvent, they describe.  Encyclopedias such as Britannica and Grolier do it, and wikipedia does too. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the love of...Creation Myth is neutral. It's an accepted and official scolarly term used to describe a specific type of story found in various cultures.  Each entry on this list meets the criteria to be described as such.  Using the term is not a violation of NPOV standards, avoiding it simply to defend people's sensibilities would, however, be such a violation.  And let's be honest here, that is why the change is being proposed as noted by the very phrasing of the arguments for change, including "Other people might not be aware that myth doesn't imply falsehood in this context" and the repeated reference to the creation, strongly indicating that the objection is not so much to the term (which again is an official scholarly term for these kinds of stories, applied to those of both modern and past religions) as it is the fact that their belief is being grouped with them.  The request to change it is as ludicrous as suggesting that the title of Atomic Theory be changed because the colloquial usage of "Theory" denotes a uncertainty.  The request doesn't work at all.  74.240.68.101 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is there is a problem. How do we know? because look at the energy going into this debate. Solution: Work on a solution. U have a point, I have a point. But they are pointing in opposite directions. Myth is a problem, as the above writer says. Language changes, and technical terms and terms in common usage do not always marry up. look what happened to feeling gay.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is bunk. Let me put it this way, there was a lot of time and energy put into the Galileo Affair, that doesn't mean that there was good cause for labelling heliocentrism heretical.  A lot of time and effort is put into holocaust denial and claiming that the moon landing was a hoax, that doesn't mean that there's any validity in either claim.  What matters here are the facts.  And the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day the usage of the phrase "Creation Myth" is not a POV issue because that's the term used in scholarly discourse, and in fact the insistence that it should be viewed as such because so-and-so doesn't like seeing the word anywhere near their own belief is far more of a POV issue as it insists that we ignore the official terminology purely for the sake of appeasing certain individuals (read: Favoring a point of view to the extent that we ignore facts).  The term "Creation Myth" is accurate for the subject matter, and that's the long and short of it and the only thing that matters in encylclopedic entries.  74.240.68.171 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. The term is accurate, anything else is almost certainly going to be pov pandering to various interests.
 * So the scholarly discourse out weights the religious discourse? Because i think most humans subscribe to it not being a myth. Either way what you are saying is that as long as a minority of scholars (clearly not religious scholars) use the term it is valid. Finito. The "discovery" myth i.e. Columbus discovered the Americas is still used in most school systems around the world. SO i guess we just go with the majority on that one to. republish a lie because some Oxford scholar and friends use the word. Wikipedia NPOV rules apply outside of what so-called scholars say. Myth in english means fiction. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Scholarly discourse does outweigh colloquial discourse. That's the term they overwhelmingly use for this and thus the most accurate.  Your inability to understand how the term is used means less than nothing, especially considering that the facts that a) that in scholarly discourse the term is used to describe the story type rather than it's validty and b) you've acknowledged as much in the history of the discussion and then started arguing that the article be renamed because of the colloqual usage of the word "myth".  Again, what you're suggesting is akin to renaming Atomic Theory because the colloquialization of "theory" denotes far more uncertainty than is attributable to the model. You don't like it?  Deal with it.  The reality of the situation is that the term Creation Myth is used to describe the type of story, not the validity thereof.  Your lack of research into the matter does not change this fact, nor does your dislike of the term 'myth' have any bearing whatsoever on it.  Here's a piece of advice: Look up how scholars use the term myth before you do anything else.  This would be a good place to start.  74.240.68.95 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My research shows that scholars of religion are far more numerous than your so-called scholars. unless scholar means secular scientific. Prove the point with sources showing that scholars (in the broad sense of the word) agree that it is myth. Encarta has rules, wiki has rules. If Encarta trends are valid then delete the page and just redirect to the likes of Encarta. Consensus over rules your claims of weight. I wonder if I look at all the religious schools in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity if the word Myth is used to describe creation. Now all of these schools have scholars. Because I have just glanced at the Iranian school for religious studies and I didnt see the term Myth in use. So unless you want to change the definition of scholars you have home work to do. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You and I both know that you've done no such research. What you're referring to here is your presumption that the world agrees with you when the actuality is that you have done little to nothing to learn about the subject matter, as is overwhelmingly evident by your ignorance on how the term "myth" is used by religious scholars, as explained in the link above, in the Encyclopedia Britanica link in the introduction of the page we're discussing, repeatedly cited multiple times on the page about Mythology from multiple sources there, though if you'd prefer more, I could also cite the introduction here and this right here.  Incidentally, I am using the term scholars correctly.  The difference between your usage of the term and mine is that I refer to theologians, who use the term myth without the ire or presumption you're attributing to it.  74.240.68.95 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 74.240.68.95: I can understand why you choose to remain an anynomous IP user. That's apparently so you can hide in a cowardly manner and be rude, crude, and ignore any intelligent discussion of User:Halaqah's attempt at logical and informed discourse. Disappointing from someone supposedly intelligent, scholarly and civil!─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So wait, let me get this straight...all of the edits attributed to me are on this page, over three responses (well, four including this one) over a period of less than 24 hours and because I dared to say that Halaqah was arguing a point based on his own ignorance of a term's usage, you declare that I am rude, crude and don't have an account because I'm a coward (which honestly makes no sense as so long as I sign an edit I'm ostensibly just as open to public criticism) instead of adopting the more rational and actually supportable belief that I lack an account because I don't do a lot of wiki-editing? Incidentally, while I'll fully admit to being prone to bluntness, how you managed to get "crude" in that personal attack is beyond me (with rude additionally being subjective, though far easier to understand where you're coming from). Frankly, after a quick review of your history I'm rather distressed that you're so quick to jump to conclusions.  74.240.68.95 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment This is a completely unproductive conversation and someone should put it in an archive so no one has to be subjected to it anymore. Lexically "myth" is a homonym. Like any homonym, or indeed any word in actuality, meaning is dependent on context. There is absolutely no reason to believe that people are reading this entry and assuming that it covers "untrue stories about creation" as opposed to "sacred stories about creation." Anyone who does so fails basic English reading comprehension and I'm sorry but we can't do anything about that. Might someone who has not encountered mythology yet read the title only and wonder if it isn't about "untrue stories about creation"? I suppose that is a distinct possibility but as an encyclopedia our job is to help them learn what "creation myths" actually are. I will also note that none of Afaprof's examples above actually utilize the term "creation myth". And yes I'm sure there are some hard core atheists who have published books or articles in which "creation myth" is utilized in a way to also mean "untrue" but let's face it those examples make up 0.0001% of usages in mass culture. When someone does encounter the term "creation myth", as they will pretty much anytime this general subject matter is broached they should be able to turn to an encyclopedia to read more about it. This title is in line with common use across social fields -- the media, scholarship, everyday speech, etc. There is NO proof to the contrary. Please do us all a favor stop this silliness. It is this type of absurdity that makes otherwise neutral editors weary about supporting a different title at Genesis creation myth where common use actually warrants one. You all are doing those types of discussions a huge disservice and what you suggest for this entry is completely unencyclopedic. Please give it a rest.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic would be better served if you would be CIVIL and contribute to the debate or stay out of it. and use proper indents to address the issues at hand. Silly is not defined as "what you do not agree with". Edit the topic and not the editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing uncivil about what I said and I have not attacked anyone. This discussion is not helping the content of this entry in the least.  If you want to have a serious conversation about the title bring in some real evidence from scholarship, mass culture etc.  None exists on this talk page.  The use of "creation myth" in any of those contexts is entirely consistent with this title.  The presentation of this type of content in any of those contexts is also consistent with this title, with a few minor exceptions -- see for instance the discussion at Genesis creation myth.  However those specific exceptions should be dealt with on a case by case basis.  My very point here is that ironically your arguments here hurt even those specific cases because of the atmosphere of distrust they drum up.  People have a hard time believing that genuine arguments based on policies and guidelines are being made as opposed to just "I don't like that phrase personally".  I will not answer you again.  I suggest, once more that you find something to back up your argument or stop making it.  Best regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Halqh, instead of choosing a random number of spaces to indent your comments, use one more colon than the comment you're replying to. -- King Öomie  13:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that seriously thinks myth is a pejorative term needs to go read some Joseph Campbell and get an education. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 13:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It can only be pejorative in contexts where people are obsessed with the truth value of stories. There certainly are people who use it specifically to mean "untrue" in relation to religious stories.  Everyone isn't Joseph Campbell.  But those people are in the vast minority, at least in the real world.  One of the problems here, unfortunately, is that people on both sides of "truth value of (religious) stories" argument are uncommonly many in contexts like Wikipedia.  They feed off of each other as well.  What you get is a hostile environment in which rational discussion based on sound research is drowned out by ideological defensiveness.  Personally I wish these people would find their way back to chat rooms and blogs, where their types of argument belong.Griswaldo (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Both the use of the word myth in its original meaning and with the meaning that its untrue is appropriate for Wikipedia IMO. Wikipedia should not be the place for people to spread their misinformed views about the origins of this planet. Let me quote Larry David : "I wasnt making fun of his religion, and even if I was, so what, you know, its a comedy. Religion should be made fun of, its quite ridiculous, isnt it? Just think how people spend their lives; they have no idea, they go around as if this is a fact. Its so insane, you know. If I really believed in this I'd keep it to myself."Wims (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not only incorrect, but unhelpful. The purpose of this article is not to mock religion, and you inflame the (misplaced) anger of its detractors by claiming that it is. -- King Öomie  17:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The base of this problem is that Wikipedia should not be putting politeness and political correctness above truth. For example, would you describe Thor's Hammer as a myth or a theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.119 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically what it comes down to is that religious people, those who believe these stories literally, don't realize that the stories are fiction and only allegorical representations and thus have a tough time accepting that some may view the word "myth" as fiction, even though it is. Let's stick to reality of what we know and not entertain magical thinkers. Tolerance should only extend so far before it becomes detrimental to being able to discover a clear cosmological view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.18.138 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Eliminated  as its own section Aug 2010 and referred to only via wikilink to main article since Aug 2010.

=Main Article=

Fork B becomes current main article:


 * Split off to current main article then called Creation accounts in Genesis 29 October 2004


 * reverted back to Creationism 30 October 2004


 * restored as Creation accounts in Genesis 31 October 2004


 * then Creation account(s) in Genesis 31 October 2004
 * Creation accounts in Genesis 31 October 2004


 * Creation according to Genesis by 7 Nov 2004


 * Genesis creation myth 5 February 2010


 * '''Creation according to Genesis 14 February 2010


 * Genesis creation myth 14 February 2010


 * Creation according to Genesis 14 February 2010


 * Genesis creation myth 14 February 2010


 * Genesis creation narrative 28 April 2010

PROPOSAL
A more accurate title of this article would be "Modern philosophers' opinions concerning Creation account(s) in Genesis". There is precious little about the creation account in this article, what it says, how it fits within the ancient Hebrew Weltanschauung, his concept of history, how to know God (if there is such). It lacks even a linguistic analysis and historical literary comparisons. If I didn't have some ideas about these question from other sources, I would be ignorant of them from this article.

From another perspective, why does this article exist at all? Most of it just rehashes what was covered in greater detail in other articles, in particular, that concerning Form Criticism. If it were up to me, I would flag this article for deletion, not because of NPOV problems, but because it has almost nothing original (not part of other wikipekia articles) to say. In short, it appears to be a waste of wikipedia bandwidth.

Melamed 18 Jan 2005


 * what would you place on this page? Ungtss 14:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)i would place this question. is there a limited amount of space ? there just isnt room on i dont know what to call it ?hello hello can any body here me ?

First I would remove all the discussion about the JEPD theory and Formkritik, referring people to the articles in Wikipedia that discuss these themes in greater detail. Further, I'd remove the question of Mosaic authorship as that is irrelevant to the story of creation, better handled under the Wikipedia article on Genesis. I would also edit out repetitious elements in the article, which make up a large portion of what remains. That leaves us with an article about one third the size or less. And it still does not address how the Genesis account of creation fits within the larger picture of ancient Hebrew beliefs nor its literary style.

If I were to write this article, I'd first have a description of the ideas included in the text itself, showing the literary style that indicates that chapter 1 - 2:4 are one document, then 2:5 - 5:2 the second document, according to an ancient literary style that went out of use 1500 - 1800 BC.

Further, I’d show how the Genesis account of creation resonated in later Jewish writings, such as Exodus 20 where it serves as the reason for the seven day week and the Sabbath.

Only then would I mention modern interpretations of the Genesis creation, how modern people view the text and the message it conveys. This can afford to be fairly short, with extensive hyperlinks to the other articles which cover those issues in greater detail.

Melamed 28 Jan 2005


 * I think I like what you are proposing, but for such a wholesale change, it's probably best to wait for some more people agreeing.
 * Also, I am wary of your comments about "an ancient literary style", as I subscribe to the view that the Genesis actually is composed of separate original documents (i.e. as per, or similar to, Wiseman), not just having a style that makes it look that way, which is how I read your comments above.
 * Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * all these sound like good ideas to me -- feel free to take a stab at your ideas, melamed -- we'll follow things where they go:). Ungtss 14:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Melamed. I came to this article looking for information about the creation story of Genesis and instead have an article about the Theories of Interpretation of the Creation Myth of Genesis.  While it is an interesting article it doesn't really help a person who doesn't already know the Creation story.  Think the title of this article should be changed.  hdstubbs November 3, 2005


 * I agree that this article is currently dominated by a giant debate over the source criticism of Genesis 1-2 and Mosaic authorship. If there is a way to edit down those sections, while referring readers to other places that deal with them (e.g. the Genesis article) I'm all for it.  The rest sounds like it would be difficult to do within an NPOV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demmeis (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

old proposals
i would like to change the name of this article to "Creation account(s) in Genesis," because there is a dispute as to whether there is one more more accounts in the text. I would also like to replace the text in this article with the text in Creation account(s) in Genesis, which describes both POVs with regard to the text in a more evenhanded, NPOV fashion. Any thoughts? Ungtss 23:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

alright. any opinions, cheesedreams? Ungtss 00:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) the new article, incidentally, is a thorough edit of the old one, and not a new article. i copied, pasted, and edited.


 * You should either (a) edit the original article, or (b) copy paste and edit in your sandbox and append the page to your user page for discussion, linking from the talk page of the original article.
 * This is the article, not your page, and the neutrality of this article is all I am willing to discuss. If you dispute the neutrality of this article, then either change it, or complain in this talk page.
 * I am probably not the only person with any kind of interest in this proposed title change, and you should wait 48 hours at least to see if anyone who lives in another timezone, or is out tonight, or something, makes comment. CheeseDreams 00:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Let's see. :) The problem seems to be that the page title "Creation accounts in Genesis" implies the POV that there are two different accounts in Genesis. And some people say that there is only ONE account in Genesis.  Is that right?  ---Rednblu | Talk 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * that about sums it up, i think:). any thoughts about how to resolve the issue?  Ungtss 04:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we open the discussion on the Creationism page where the master ToDo list is discussed and maintained. Creationism is the highest level page in this series.  I'll open the question--if you did not already open it there. ;) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merged From: Talk:Creation account in Genesis
The Existance of this page This page was recently created by someone for POV reasons. It entirely duplicates the Creation accounts in Genesis page. It is now a candidate for deletion, for NPOV reasons. User:CheeseDreams

I don't see why this should have been merged (I can't see much relevance), but it was tagged for merging -- I guess it might be of use to someone, so here you have it. Robinoke 21:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposing split
I propose to split this page in to Creation according to Judaism, Creation according Christianity, etc. As both understand Genesis totally differently and have very different ideas.

Judaism holds the Hebrew grammatically correct translation the first verse is: "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth." Rashi refutes the reading of the verse as "In the beginning [of everything] God created the heavens and the earth", as it is illogical, due to the fact that, in the next verse, water is mentioned before having been created. Indeed, water is never said to be created in the Genesis account of creation. The Jewish understanding of Genesis has no similarities and is incompatible with the Christian understanding.

I propose this split because the viewpoints have no similarities. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey
3/6/0 (for/against/neutral)
 * Support ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Against The etcetera is an open ended call for adding multiple versions; furthermore this may result in a fractioned representation of the topic with much redundancy. I agree some attention should be piad though. I think a section 'difference between interpretations' should be sufficient to capture these issues. Arnoutf 11:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment actually there wont be any redundancy. Jewish and Christian understanding of Genesis are totally different and these major deference starts from the very first verse. There are no similarities at all. I proposed this split because they are incompatible and have no similarities. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 11:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty drastic, and also pretty inaccurate, to say that there are no similarities at all. --InShaneee 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Against : Agree with Arnoutf that this will just frationate the topic. By all means introduce material to discuss distinctions being drawn by different interpretations though (the distinctions seem minor to me; but I'm fairly ignorant).  If it were to split, presumably we'd have to introduce further splits to represent Islam and different flavours of Judaism or Christianity.  Probably best to avoid that.  --Plumbago 11:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment why would you need splits of similar and compatible views? Here I ask for a split because the views have no similarities and are incompatible. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 11:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My objection is that it's not at all clear to me that they really "have no similarities and are incompatible". I'm sure that there are differences in detail, but do they differ radically in the overarching scheme of things?  If so, the case for this needs to be made better.  At the moment, it just sounds like another familiar creationist interpretation.  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Against Agree with Arnoutf; fractioned representation will ensue and the issue can be adequately represented in a single topic. --Davril2020 11:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That would be possible if both agreed to the fundermental basis of the argument, that is, the story or events of creation. Judaism sees it in a totally different way. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The present article is a hopeless mismash of theories and opinions, more about Bible criticism in general than the creation story. The "Story" section itself is filled with interjections that are not in the text: "Light is the most important element for life to exist". I think it would be more interesting to read clear descriptions of coherent positions that one could then compare. --agr 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Against differences both within Christianity and within Jewish thought (rather than between them) differ far more than differences between different versions of the book Genesis. WAS 4.250 17:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment do you say such a thing because you do not know the Jewish thought? Their differences have no simillarities. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment They have many similarities. They both have some commentators who were historically willing to accept less literal interpretations and others who were not. They both now have adherents who range from YEC to TE. Don't accuse WAS of ignorance simply because you disagree with him. JoshuaZ 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I asked a question. who were historically willing to accept less literal interpretations and others What nonsense. Rashi's comment on the grammar is 100% literal. Ramban's comment on the days is also 100% literal. Unlike Christian scholars they based their understanding on literal Hebrew with grammar. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support As per ems. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Against Was and Arnouft put it well. Also note that this is part of a general set of POV pushing by ems to deemphasize creationism in judaism. He is trying to do it also in Creation-evolution controversy. JoshuaZ 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Against All that needs to be done is to sort the article by viewpoint. It's the same genesis that's being read, so that part will be consistent, then both interpritations can be presented. --InShaneee 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That is the problem. It isn't the same Genesis. Jewish reading is with Hebrew grammar. While Christian reading isn't. Jewish reading is based on the Hebrew text with grammar. Christian reading is based on the LXX translation that was without grammar. Grammar makes a huge differences. No Christian translation translates according to the Hebrew with grammar. While a majority of the Jewish translation do. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still mostly going to be the same text. Differences in interpritation due to grammatical differences could still be covered here. --InShaneee 22:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Would you think I am stupid to propose a split? The differences are major and have totally different meanings that there is not simillarities. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are PLENTY of similarities! Is there an Adam? An Eve? If there are 'major' differences, then a seperate section on this page should be adequate to discuss them. --InShaneee 23:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is already after creation. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Either way, are you really saying that every last detail on this page is disputed by the vast majority of Jewish scholars? If so, significant evidence would be needed to back up that assertion, and again, if it just amounts to 'significant differences', then it can be covered in its own section here. --InShaneee 00:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ramban says the lateral translation of "vayehi ever vayehi borck'r" is "and there was caos and there calmness" not "and there was evening and there was morning." Likewise, Rashi states But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:“At first He created the heavens and the earth,” (Hebrew: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word... ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep citing two scholars. Do you have any evidence that their translation is widely accepted, and not just their opinion? --InShaneee 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually am quoting 3 scholars. Rashi, Ramban and Rambam. There are many more but them three are most popular Jewish commentators. Rashi being the most popular of them. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the above comment underlines the need for a separate article on the Jewish interpretation of the Genesis story. It's not just that Jews have a different translation, the entire approach to understanding the Bible is different. There are thousands of years of writings that have to be considered. The text of Genesis itself, the Talmud, Mediaeval commentators (of whom Rashi and Maimonidies/Rambam,  Nachmonidies/Ramban are preeminent names, on the level of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein in Physics), Midrash, Halacha, Kabbalah, Chasidus, Reform, Conservative and more. The end point is not an accurate, once and forever translation, but increased understanding at multiple levels. When such an article is written, we can discuss more meaningfully how much overlap there is between the views different religious traditions.--agr 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * However, at the moment, there isn't a clear consensus to give the topic its own article. --InShaneee 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This survey is the consensus debate. The aim of it is to reach a consensus. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't get hung up on separate article vs. separate section. The point is the Jewish approach to the story needs to be developed separately. If the section gets to large, it makes its own case for a separate article.--agr 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * However that would require rewriting half the article. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see why. The jewish perspective should just be put in its own section, without a need to touch the rest of the article for the most part. --InShaneee 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it refutes it from the very first line. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Against - let's see first a sub-section on this page with something like 'Jewish views of this verse' explaining all the differences. If it really becomes clear that this is so different, then consider a split. Brusselsshrek 08:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Many Jewish translation are the grammatically correct version. Artscroll, The Gutnick Chumash (will check), The Living Torah. The Judaica Press, Samson Raphael Hirsch's German translation, etc. While the most notable one translates grammatically wrong is the public domain JPS edition. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you basing your assertion that it is more 'correct' on? --InShaneee 22:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jewish commentators. Mainly Rashi and Ramban. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...Which sounds like a point of view rather than a fact, and therefore something that can be addressed here. --InShaneee 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually this is Rabbinical Judaism POV. Its a fact for this is how Judaism thinks. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz wrote a wonderful book explain the Jewish understanding. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name)  22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Steinsalts's book is apologetics, not an actual reflection of the text and in any event, he is so far outside the mainstream of almost anything, it is hard to take his opinions in thist matter seriously. JoshuaZ 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why he is Nasi... ;-) ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here have a read of his book, In the beginning. Judaism it self the mainstream its only 0.2% of world population. His book represents the Chasidic understanding of Genesis. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Read an excellent and recent book, philosophical and theological, in French : '''Jean-Marc Rouvière "Breves meditations sur la creation du monde" Ed. L'Harmattan Paris 2006'''

I would just like to add, being a Christian, that the initial information is all wrong. God created the light on day one,the oceans and sky on day two, The land and plants on day three, the sun and moon and stars on day four, the fish and birds on day five, land animals and people (in His image) on day six, NOT all these other things claimed to be made. (Caves, Magic staffs, (which was God, not "Magic") the rainbow, (Noah was thousands of years after creation, He was the only righteous man left)and other absurd things this article talks about.)On the seventh day He rested. I just wanted to clarify.


 * If you need to talk to someone, call toll-free 1-800-633-3446 Please don't hesitate.**


 * It's a legitimate complaint. The article is a mish-mash of differing traditions. I tried to edit the stories so they stick more closely to the text and clearly identify the dusk of the sixth day material as part of the Jewish tradition.--agr 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bible by Chapter
Has anyone ever proposed having an article for Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Genesis 3, and on and on throughout the entire bible? It might seem extreme, but such an important document should be looked at as closely as possible. Someone please direct me to the page on wikipedia where this matter is being discussed. - ShadowyCabal 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start. If others see them as unnessisary they might put them up for deletion. But there is nothing to stop you starting. There is no page to discuss new article proposals - you just start writing. --Michael Johnson 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I support your idea. Let me call to your attention two parallel projects, although neither may be responsive to your interests:  There is an article on Genesis 1:1, and see the discussion page there at Talk:Genesis 1:1.  But see the discussion of the related discussion of including the text as such at Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.  And there are articles on each of the 54 portions of the first five books in the Bible that are read in Synagogues on a weekly basis.  These tend to be three or four chapters each.  For example, see Bereishit (parsha), Noach (parsha), and the rest cited at the bottom of each of those pages.--Dauster 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Myth vs. Account
The change to include the assertion that the Genesis account is a "creation myth", first made a part of the visible text in the opening description of the topic at 22:37 on 26 NOV 2008, is a dogmatic assertion of a non-neutral point of view. The fact that most scholars consider it to be mythical should be established in the body of the article, but not dogmatically asserted in the opening. There are many Bible scholars who consider the Genesis account of creation to be factual and not mythical. While they are clearly in the minority, they are not an insignificant or fringe group. To be sure, there are some scholars who consider anyone who believes the creation account of Genesis to be factual to be unworthy of recognition as scholar, but that is a point of view, too. The battle between those who consider Genesis 1&2 to be mythical and those who consider it to be factual is truly a war of words, with some on each side calling their opponents fools. I suggest that the opening be returned to a neutral description of the topic. WP ought not take sides.RDavS (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it is what scholars call a myth doesn't mean it's false. See the definition of myth. Only in casual meaning does it imply a value judgment. It's rather like the difference between the scientific and casual meaning of the word "theory". In casual use, it means "guess" or "idea". In science, it means, solid and well-supported concept. Two totally different implications of the same word. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What if you changed the first sentence to read "Creation according to Genesis is the creation story or creation myth (in the academic sense)..."? Loves  Macs  (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we would be obligated to do this for every word that had different formal and colloquial usage, and let's face it, there are many such words in the English language. For all such words, context is important. This is an encyclopedia, and since it is generally assumed that an encyclopedia would be using words in a formal sense, this hardly seems warranted. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would we really have to do all that? I thought that this article was controversial enough to let it be the exception rather than the rule, in order to add some explanation that may not be needed with less hot-button topics. Loves  Macs  (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article isn't controversial, in fact it's not special in any way, so giving it special treatment just opens the floodgates as I explained above. I will admit the article is a POV pusher magnet though, and since you're likely still watching the Noah's Ark talk page, you know that's all RDavS is here for - he wants language that is sympathetic to his beliefs, not neutrality. Pandering to him/her isn't going to do the article any good. If, however, you genuinely want Wikipedia to avoid using the term or to have parentheticals explain what sense we use it in, then that is a discussion for WP:NPOV or WP:MOS or something, not one articles talk page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (I just wanted to explain that when I said this article isn't controversial, I meant mainstream controversy - I don't tend to count fringe groups and pov pushers as adding controversy to a topic. Ben (talk))

Taken over from Talk:Creation:

Summary of principal meanings of "Myth" as found on dictionary.reference.com, with emphasis illustrating the neutrality of the word in the context of the first book of the Bible, Genesis:
 * from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
 * "A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
 * from American Heritage Dictionary:
 * "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth."
 * from Online Etymology Dictionary:
 * "Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." (J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254)"
 * from Wordnet:
 * "A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"
 * from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
 * "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical."

Looks like the word was specially created for this. - DVdm (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling Genesis a "myth" is a point of view
This point of view can appear in the article, but per WP:NPOV policy, it must be attributed, and sources establishing that other points of view exist must also be mentioned. We are talking about taking such cases to arbcom. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

that's nonsense. please read creation myth, and look up "myth" in a dictionary. Plus, nobody is "calling Genesis a myth". Genesis is a lengthy Hebrew text containing various material. This article is concerned with the first two chapters of Genesis only, which happen to contain the narrative of the Hebrew creation myth(s). If there are any npov problems here, it would be the WP:UNDUE length of the "Biblical literalism" section. I do accept that Christian fundamentaism and Biblical literalism could get a mention in this article, but seeing that this topic is an Iron Age text, not recent events in Christian sectarianism, such a mention should be kept brief indeed. --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read dictionaries, and "myth" is not a "neutral" term to describe a contemporary and widespread belief.. It's not even a well defined term by scholars, and all of the nine potential definitions are subjective.  There are not only many editors and readers, but millions of people, and plenty of reliable sources who definitely do not consider Genesis a "myth".  It's an opinion of some, being falsely presented as if nobody disagreed.  You may call it nonsense, but this issue won't go away until it gets to arbcom. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Til, did you miss the reference to Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible? Ben (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Til, you are wrong, and just repeating your claim does not make it any truer. this issue won't go away until it gets to arbcom isn't a healthy approach, but good look taking a trivial matter such as this to arbitration after all of two talkpage posts on your part. Purely assertive posts without any presentation of references at that. But sure, feel free to drop this now and leave the article in peace until you get an arbcom injunction. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue is longstanding and not unique to this article, and I have got a whole collection of reliable sources establishing that alterative povs really do exist. It's far from trivial, there are many books entirely discussing the tactic of defining "myth" to include the Bible, and these views are significant. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, taken over from Talk:Creation and form recent archive:

Summary of principal meanings of "Myth" as found on dictionary.reference.com, with emphasis illustrating the neutrality of the word in the context of the first book of the Bible, Genesis:
 * from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
 * "A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
 * from American Heritage Dictionary:
 * "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth."
 * from Online Etymology Dictionary:
 * "Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." (J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254)"
 * from Wordnet:
 * "A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"
 * from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
 * "A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical."

Looks like the word was specially created for this. - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because you're only giving half of the definition, and using only those sources that agree with your POV. Neutrality means telling both sides. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These definitions cover every possible POV, so the word is perfect for the job. DVdm (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Til hasn't backed up anything he said, so I've removed the tag. Until he can present a case backed by reliable sources, and get some sort of consensus here, it should stay that way. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have backed up everything I have said with copious references, you're just pretending you haven't seen any references. I have said before and I will say again: If you don't believe there really is a "significant point of view" in numerous published sources, actively disputing the opinion that Genesis is in any way a "myth", or that the definition of "myth" should include Genesis, than we can get clarification from WP:RS/N, because you seem to be havig trouble understanding WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  If there are conflicting, sourced, significant points of view, WP:NPOV requires that we don't present only one view as correct, factual and undisputed, and pretend we haven't seen any dispute or other POVs as if they didn't exist.  Rather, we are required to give ALL points of view and attribute them in our wording.  Policy is being consistently ignored on multiple articles, so I predict arbcom action will eventually be required. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to what we find in 5 top-dictionaries, Genesis being a "myth" is clearly not in any way a point a view. It is a fact - by definition. It seems to me that the only point of view here is yours, namely that there is something wrong with a particular word because you attach a special meaning to it. I get the impression that you hold the opinion that your religion is the only "correct" one. Perhaps that is the reason why you have some difficulty keeping a neutral stance regarding this subject. A friendly piece of advice: take some time to closely look at those definitions, and try to appreciate the sense of neutrality of those who listed these definitions. DVdm (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again: You are only giving part of the definition. The various and contradictory definitions of myth have been greatly argued over for decades for precisely this reason, and this debate exists in literature to the tune of many megabytes.  There is nothing I as a mere editor can argue, that one of the published reliable and scholarly sources hasn't already said, directly in opposition to the supposed appropriateness of the label "myth".  It comes down to a question of, are you blindly going to ignore those significant sources and pretend they don't count.  For which, if WP:RS/N is not sufficient, there is arb com. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Words are used one definition at a time. And "myth" is a neutral term and used properly here. I'm sorry that the common meaning is more prominent in your mind than the standard scholarly one, but that's not the fault of the first definition. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, this isn't really about what's "prominent in my mind". This is about a ton of published sources, a significant viewpoint you are turning a blind eye to, all saying for various reasons, "we disagree that Genesis is a myth", or "this definition is disputed".  Policy very clearly dictates that we take these into account and attribute the notion that it is a myth, as well as the notion that it is not.  What you  or I or any editor thinks personally about this is quite irrelevant, once you have all possible spectrums of the debate well represented in print (and I assure you this is a massive and significant debate) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your phrases "...only giving part of the definition" and "... the notion that it is a myth, as well as the notion that it is not" => According to the  full definitions in 5 top-dictionaries it is de-facto a myth and, apart from the authors of the dictionaries, there is nothing anyone can do about that. See also the article on mythology. You confuse your personal and obviously biased notion with a notable notion (no pun intended). Perhaps you are a bit too much emotionally involved. Emotions might provide good and valuable guidance for essay writing, but they are bad news for encyclopedia writing. Some time off from this hobby might do you good - cheer up, DVdm (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring anything; you are. Once again: this has nothing to do with what I may or may not think, feel, or believe; I'm just an editor, and those thing don't matter and are perfectly irrelevant to the published debate. There are numerous reliable sources establishing that "Genesis = myth" is a hugely contested POV, and not an indisputed, uncontested  "fact" as you pretend.  Now you can either acknowledge that other significant POVs (beside your own) really do exist, and are easily attested, on this very question, or this can go to mediation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Til, there is nothing wrong with thinking you're right. There is a big problem with thinking you can't be wrong. Think about it for a second, either there is a wiki-conspiracy to work against you over this matter, or you're simply wrong. It's good to see you finally read that the arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes, and that your threats of action are now about mediation. Unfortunately, I don't think mediation is going to help you out either - it requires all parties to agree to it. I don't know how others here will react if you ever go through with your threat, but I'm inclined to refuse. I've already spent countless hours going through mediation with you at Noah's Ark and discussions on policy pages, and now it looks like you're intent on taking every page using the term through the same process. It seems little more than disruptive behaviour to me, and frankly, I've got better things to do than entertain it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again: This has to do with the views of a huge number of authors who disagree with your POV.  This is a huge debate, and it does no good for wikipedia to hide its head in the sand and ignore it.  The reliable sources will not go away.  This is not about my personal views, as desperate as you seem to be at this point to make this about me personally, it just isn't.  Nice try though.  Unless perhaps you think all of those scholars from Gunkel up to the present day, who are on the record as saying things like "Genesis does not meet any definition of myth, and myth should not be purposefully redefined so as to include scriptures" are all really my various pen names. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going in circles. Til has been doing this for years, and is probably not going to see the point anytime soon. Fortunately, WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "absolutely unanimous", or Wikipedia would be doomed, because there will always be someone with listening difficulties. Our own mythology gives a perfectly satisfactory definition from OED, the foremost dictionary of the English language.
 * "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon"

This is meaning 1a, i.e. the primary meaning. In the compound creation myth, we intend meaning 1a. Yes, there is a secondary meaning, "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief", which is why Til is making all this noise. This is not the meaning intended here. How difficult can it be to understand and accept that we are using a term in its primary dictionary meaning? Genesis 1-2 is A traditional story (traditional indeed for most of Europe and Western Asia for two millennia!), involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures (you bet the Elohim are supernatural!) which provides an aetiology for a natural phenomenon (in this case, the Universe itself, which I daresay is a natural phenomenon). This isn't any sort of "redefinition" of the term "myth", it is its core meaning. So if we can please leave it at that and stop the sophistry and hand-waving. Calling a story a "myth" is actually admitting it is important. A "story" is something you read for entertainment. A myth is something that holds significance to people's lives. --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also a lie to pretend that "scholars are unanimous in describing Genesis as a myth". Scholars are NOT unanimous on that, there is wide disagreement among the sources, and policy requires us to reflect that they disagree on that point. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So you have reliable sources that say that Genesis is NOT a "traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon"? Because that is the definition we are talking about. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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". 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. Surely the label of "myth" is inappropriate for narratives that demythologize pagan mythologies. -- Sydney Greidanus
 * Those are not my words, but just one example of the massive amount of evidence from numerous scholars that other significant viewpoints exist.  Specifically, the viewpoint that Christian scholars and various religious bodies hold of their own canon, is quite significant to an article on that topic, and it is a violation of neutrality to rely solely on, or give precedence to, one-sided sources and definitions that would dictate to Christians how they must interpret their own scripture. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A non-notable (so it seems after a little research, feel free to correct me) faculty member of Calvin Theological Seminary who wrote a non-notable (I found two reviews - one an authorless word document - but again, feel free to correct me) book about preaching. We should consider this opinion because .. ? Ben (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am truly amazed that Greidanus' words "...biblical history is not myth, but a true story..." are taken seriously here by someone to make a point. People, this is an encyclopedia, not Speaker's Corner. DVdm (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am already aware of your POV that Christians are not entitled to have their POV on their own Scriptures represented. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That Christians are not entitled to have their POV on their own Scriptures represented, is not a point of view of mine. That is a serious strawman you are pulling there. It is however a point of view of mine, and much more importantly, of the founders of this encyclopedia, that no-one here is entitled to impose their POV about the veracity of their own Scriptures upon the community, in order to represent them as factual. DVdm (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is you are arguing against representing Chrstian & Jewish viewpoints on their own scriptures fairly. By presenting only the view of some scholars that Genesis is a myth, without acknowledging that there is an opposing viewpoint.  WP:NPOV is very clear that when you have two opposing and significant viewpoints, both sould be presented and attributed in neutral language, not just one.  And no, I have never suggested representing anyone's scriptures as "factual".  That right there is a strawman. I just want the article to reflect the reality that not everyone agrees this is a "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Way to misrepresent other people's comments. It seem this is another recurring problem of yours. Ben (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I am mistaken or have misunderstood, then on what grounds precisely do you presume to disqualify Greidanus' scholarship? Guess what: You aren't the arbiter of what is or isn't a scholarly, widespread or significant POV to the topic, for purposes of being represented fairly in accordance with WP:NPOV.  We also have a procedure to help determine that very thing, if there is any question about it. See WP:RS/N. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The view that the bible contains mythical elements (like this article's topic) is near universal among recognised experts on the topic. This is easily backed up, for instance, Marcus Borg notes here that


 * 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.
 * This is a recognised expert describing scholarship on the topic Til. Scrounging around the web and finding a few quotes that seem to support your misconception of scholarship on this topic will not do - anyone can find quotes supporting any argument they like. The classic example is evolution. Expert opinion in near universal, but there is a lot of background noise coming from people who really don't know what they're talking about or have some agenda to push. As someone said earlier, you probably need to take a break from this. You're in real danger of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are only accepting one side of the scholarly debate, that is the classic violation of NPOV, and I have found many scholars who came after Strauss who contest his defining the Gospels as myth. You are claiming a monopoly on scholarly thought that doesn't exist, and you are pretending you didn't hear all of the scholars who disagree with your POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the "official definition" hinting the word 'myth' may be acceptable, the general interpretation of the word is that is a made up, fake story. This interpretation is what most to all people use when they first see the word 'myth' typed here in the article. Perhaps whe word legend would be better suited. I am not signing my IP address on Wikipedia, I respect my privacy.

"The point", and a clearer proposal
Let's get back to the point, which is the first two chapters of Genesis. Til, if you don't think they can be called myth, what would you call them? PiCo (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many interpretations of Genesis. For this article to start by defining the subject as "myth" sets the tone for the entire article and does not present a neutral point of view.  The creation accounts in Genesis might be called "story" which some take literally while other take figuratively, allegorically, or even as myth.  Rlsheehan (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the point, PiCo. It doesn't matter at all what I would call them.  I might even call them "myths" for all it matters to the real point, which is what do Reliable Sources say.  Some scholars call them "myth".  Others specifically do not, and in researching this I have seen many other attempts to categorize the genre epistemologically.  The term that seems to be most commonly used by those scholars who dissent that it is a "myth" is "scripture" as a distinct genre.  But actually, what I am proposing is not to replace "myth" with another term, but rather, instead of saying "it is a myth", we should say something like "it is a myth according to most Bible scholars (including x, y, and z), while a few modern theologians such as Robert Jenson, and contemporary sources such as International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1994 ed), the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the New Living Translation  specifically disagree with this categorisation." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh here we go. Til, can you please explain to me Jenson's views on this? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He is only one of several scholars who are drawing distinctions between Genesis and the polytheistic myths of Israel's neighbours, by noting what characteristics would obviously separate them into a distinct category (other than just polytheism itself, which was sufficient for Gunkel and those who follow his school of thought to the present). He makes the same point that several scholars have made: while stories traditionally called "myths" (polytheistic accounts) have their setting in a timeless frame, the monotheistic account in Genesis is connected with a definite view of history, as Israel saw it; one that begins with creation, not before it, and is part of a continuous narrative of time that continues to the days of Persia and later. This, he and the others argue, is more than sufficient to qualify it as a totally different genre that distinctly presents itself in contrast to the other stories believed in ancient times that are agreed to be "myths". Several scholars also argue that the Israelites actually took pagan myths and "demythologized" them, turning them into something else, monotheistic accounts that ought to go by a different name because they are so vastly different, not part of any nature-religion. By the way, some scholars of Hinduism have made a very similar argument that Hindu texts are not "myths" for a very similar reason: Because they clearly present themselves within the framework of history, quite unlike the primeval accounts of the Greeks, Egyptians or Babylonians. Thus they are versions of history - possibly inaccurate ones, but versions of history nonetheless. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I recognise that some scholars associate myth with polytheism (an association few maintain today, as I showed you earlier - if anyone else is curious I'm happy to discuss this historical association), it is news to me that Jenson shared this view. Can you point us to a passage or something where we can verify this? Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I misread your paragraph, but upon rereading it I think you're saying Jenson is looking for other (i.e., not polytheism) distinguishing attributes of biblical narratives, in this case an historical perspective. Fair enough. This naturally leads to a new set of questions. Is this distinction so notable that we should avoid, or perhaps use with qualifiers, the term myth in this article. If not, and I feel this is the case, does a discussion of this distinction merit a note in every article that uses the term myth, or should we restrict the discussion to a broader article, say Genesis, Christian mythology or mythology? Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This particular school of thought (which is far wider than just Jenson, but I mentioned him as a representative example because he has a big wp article, and because he specifically mentions Creation according to Genesis as his example) is only the tip of the iceberg; actually a vast number of RSS and theologians have cried foul at the newer, broadened use of "myth" by other academics, for a variety of reasons. But please note that I am not suggesting that we "avoid the term myth in this article", I am suggesting that we attribute it, and the opposing view, in our wording per NPOV policy; since it is by no means a unanimous or uncontested view among theologians. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the crux of the matter though. You simply assert a vast number this or significant debate that again and again. You must establish, not assert. Pulling quotes of people dismissing the term myth simply will not do. We don't sit here and run up a tally of how many people use x or y. Instead, if there really is significant debate, or whatever you want to assert, then the reliable sources must say so, right? I claim there is not significant debate and I think I have established this by citing discussions like Borg's above. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong, so prove it, don't assert it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, by doing this, you're answering the first of the natural questions I mentioned above about notability. I'm not asking you to run in circles or anything. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Raising the bar yet again, I see. A few months ago, you were telling me there was nothing in print anywhere disputing that Genesis is a myth, and therefore it was my OR and I made the whole objection up myself.  Then as soon as I came up with sources, who'd have guessed, they weren't good enough for you.  No number of verified theologians explicitly saying "we don't agree with those who say it's a myth" will ever be enough for you, Ben.  Luckly it's not up to you, it's up to policy.  I'm sorry, but you have no right to hold me to a standard that is unreasonably higher than that set by WP:RS.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And by telling you there was nothing in print, you mean I was asking you to present some reliable sources. And by that OR quote you just gave I was talking about the proposal to use the wording Regarded as myth by all but some fundamentalist Christians who believe it to be true which is not just OR, but utter junk. Your continued misrepresentation of peoples comments is fucked up Til, and if I knew of something I could do about it I would. You're free to ignore my request to establish your claims, but you'll just to have to deal with sitting on the talk pages for the rest of your days. Have fun with that. Ben (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Til's point is a rather subtle one, and I'll begin by restating it: scholars of mythology characterise "myth" as stories concerning the gods, set in a timeless frame; Genesis 1-2 differs from the myths of surrounding peoples in being set within a timeframe, a very definite and unmistakable one, which means it merges with history, a separate genre of which the ancients were quite aware (Herodotus quotes Persian historians - he wasn't, in fact, the inventor of history). For this reason mythologists DON't call Genesis 1-2 "myth": they call it "mythic history". Ben, this is a fact of scholarship - Til's right. PiCo (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just sat down to read through Til's sources, unconvinced of his claim that there is significant debate on whether we can apply the term myth to Genesis 1-2. The third, Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth, seemed to make the strongest claim - all biblical scholars. Shit, the passage he quotes is on defining 'myth vs. myths'. It has nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, the book discusses extensively the role of myth in the bible, went to great lengths to offer varying definitions of the term and gives views from a range of different academic disciplines. Til isn't right and doesn't have a subtle point, he doesn't even read the stuff he pastes here - it just looks like it supports his cause so he just pastes it. That doesn't mean he is wrong, I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong, but I'm sick of doing his homework to establish that. Your comment above is so utterly non-constructive, as is and in light of all the previous discussion we have had (that included you), that I'm not even going to bother discussing it. I give up. I wash my hands of this mess. Do what you want. Ben (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What a display of bad faith, Ben... Of course I have read all of these sources thoroughly; I'm not just pasting them. The third quote (Rogerson) as you say, discusses all the varying definitions and views, and how they contradict one another.  That is what true scholarship does.  Shoddy scholarship pretends there is only one view, and that the others don't exist. It doesn't matter so much which side of the debate Rogerson himself comes on.  You asked for evidence that there exists more than just one unanimous, monolithic view agreeing with you on this question, and I provided it.  Take Rogerson away, and the other sources are still more than sufficient to establish that this is a matter of intense and continuing debate among theologians, not a matter of agreement.
 * Those who argue that we should cite scientists on theological articles instead of theologians, are kind of like those who think we ought to cite theologians on science articles, instead of scientists. But then, I don't wade into science articles and demand that theologians be cited there instead of scientists. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources stating it is a significant debate

 * "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.


 * Also please read God Who Speaks and Shows: Preliminary Considerations by theologian Carl F. H. Henry, 1999, Chapter 3 in its entirety.  He peer-reviews at least eight other theologians (including G. Ernest Wright and J. I. Packer) who assert that no part of the Bible fits the definition of myth.  "Many scholars deplore the ascription of mythical language to Scripture as entirely unjustifiable and arbitrary."


 * "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." -- J.W. Rogerson, "Slippery Words:Myth" in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth


 * "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. - another good chapter to read, in The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, 1984, p. 99. By the way, he does not totally share this view, but at least he is scholarly enough to acknowledge it exists, citing the Gunkel - Wright school of thought in opposition to the notorious Strauss-Bultmann school of thought.


 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing. You could have just given these three months ago you know. Time for bed for me, but I'll be sure to read over them when I wake up. Ben (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually I couldn't have given these three months ago; but over the course of our discussions, and the many requests for sources, I have educated myself by reading up on all sides of the great modern mythology debate among scholars and theologians. Three months ago, I probably couldn't even have told you who Levi-Strauss was. But I certainly would have given these refs to you, if I had known then everything I do now. Anyway, this doesn't really matter. Happy reading. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A compelling bottom line on the "myth" issue
Concerning Til Eulenspiegel's phrase "By presenting only the view of some scholars that Genesis is a myth..." and 76 variations thereof:

The bottom line is that only some Christians might disagree that Genesis is myth. Understandable as it may be, we call that "bias" around here. Look at the principal dictionary entries listed above: THEY COVER ALL VIEWPOINTS and that is what we need in an encyplodedia. This really is not open for debate. Is this so hard to swallow? DVdm (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have established, with reliable sources, that there is a significant debate. If you are going to continue to insist that only one side of this debate needs to be presented, we shall proceed toward arbitration. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to debate. You are just banging your head against a wall. DVdm (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I will be pursuing due process of mediation in the near future. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong. There is nothing to mediate. You are figthing a concrete wall of dictionaries. DVdm (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously suggesting that I have no right to pursue due process according to WP:DISPUTE? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47,, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not in any way, let alone seriously, suggesting that you have no right to pursue whatever it is that you feel compelled to pursue. Another strawman. I am at most suggesting that you might be in the process of hurting yourself. DVdm (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hurting myself? Please explain. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if the issue were really as clear-cut as you seem to think, you'd have nothing to fear in appealing this to the mediation process. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not actually trying to stifle the process out of fear of the result. Editors just can't make up rules as they go along; these things are governed by policies which, IMO, have not been followed here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me a benefit, but I'm afraid there is nothing to mediate to begin with. Dictionaries are quite rigid - THEY COVER ALL VIEWPOINTS. I can't help that. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will be preparing my case in the near future. NPOV policy is quite rigid: when the existence of a widespread and significant viewpoint about a topic can be verified, we are required to cover it in the article. Not cover it up. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Define "myth" in article
Since "creation myth" is apparently being relentlessly forced into this article by its proponents, it needs to be done with some modicum of integrity to include explanation of this particular definition for the uninitiated, like this PhD, who grew up associating myths with Aesop's Fables, Greek Mythology, mythical beasts like the gryphon, dragon, unicorn, pegasus, phoenix, gargoyle and so on. It has no integrity to drop a proverbial bomb into the first sentence with the surface appearance of attempting to bias the reader to the most common connotation of "myth." If it is so important to so identify this article, then it is deserving of a clear explanation of intent.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The creation myth article is the place to discuss definitions. Ben (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has vehemently opposed the insertion of "myth" into articles, some editors may be surprised that I am happy with "Creation myth". To clarify: the word "myth" is tied to the phrase "Creation myth", which is wikilinked. In this context, the term "myth" is qualified by the phrase that it is found in and so the question of neutrality is bound to the term "Creation myth", rather than just "myth". Given this, the correct place to argue about the neutrality of the term is at Talk:Creation myth--FimusTauri (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "creation myth" belongs in the lead of this article. There are other articles where it's unnecessary; I think Noah's ark is one, for instance.  In this one, though, that's the entire topic of the article, and it really makes no sense not to include the term -- and of course the academic meaning that is intended should be clearly defined in the wikilinked article. Agathman (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Genesis is the topic
I am new to this group and would like to clarify that this page is intended to describe creation according to Genesis, and not whether the source (bible) or information is mythical. Please remove the word "myth" so that the students using Wikipedia can trust this resource. Fighting about creation and use of the word myth does not promote education. Students seeking information regarding creation according to Genesis deserve only the facts and should not have to read the entire book of Genesis for a summary of creation according to Genesis. Honestly777 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Honestly


 * Have a look at a few dictionaries and at the articles Myth, Mythology and their talk pages. DVdm (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Myth has no place here. It is seen to be derogatory and only a dozen or so people on wikipedia are fighting for it. Over the last year, many more people have asked against it, but these POV pushers keep reverting. then then warm you on your talk page for doing the very thing that they are doing. myth is ambiguous. narrative is recognized by all. let's switch. in fact, it was switch, but they've reverted again. revert, revert, revert. look at their contributions, the revert key is the only one they use! 76.249.22.141 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you hate the dictionary? Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "the" dictionary. There are myriad dictionaries and therefore variant definitions. It is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose to leave a particular POV.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not intellectually dishonest to use the very first listed definition of the word in a matter perfectly suited for it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a continuum from 'fact' to 'myth'?
Sure, in about the same way that there is a continuum from "dog" to "toaster". We are using "myth" in this article, as elsewhere in wikipedia dealing with religion, in its religious sense -- see my quote from Hyers above. To use Hyers' quote of EHW Meyerstein, "Myth is my tongue, which means not that I cheat, but stagger in a light too great to bear." Myth and fact aren't points on a line; they fall on entirely different axes. One may understand the Genesis 1 and 2 myths as absolutely historically accurate, and miss their symbolic import; one might see them as historical truth and also see the symbolic import; one might see them as historically inaccurate and devoid of symbolic import; or one might see them as historically inaccurate and symbolically important. The range of interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, as for any myth, is huge, and not to be captured in a sentence. Agathman (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * oh, but it can be captured in a sentence. in fact, that's the point of an encyclopedia.  besides, who really cares about this myth-fact continuum. (Which by the way is very, very common in scholarly journals, news media, and everyday speech, and you would have to live on a different planet not to know this):  But I don't care and that's not the point here -- the point is, is that some people take creation in genesis to be REAL, FACT.  and Some take it to be MADE UP, FICTITIOUS.  And there is this grand continuum in between.  Swift as an Eagle (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But my point is, many people take it to be things that are not either of those two alternatives, nor any point in between, but something else entirely. And the fact that the popular press fosters a binary "us vs. them" view of this issue is not a reason that it should be endorsed in what is attempting to be a scholarly article.  I'm happy with a statement that interpretations vary, just not with one that represents all of them as falling on the line you describe.  Agathman (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * you do realize that I do not support a fact vs. myth mentality in the opening right? as far as i am concerned, there needs to be no discussion about fact vs. myth here Swift as an Eagle (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and yes, I'm happy too with a statement that interpretations vary -- but a literal interpretation and a "this is complete made-up" interpretation seem to me to be the two extremes, with the majority falling somewhere in between. No?  Swift as an Eagle (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. There are many facets to it. And the reference you attached to the statement in the article does not support the statement. I have the reference in front of me. Can someone else please remove the statement. Ben (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NO. I disagree completely.  This is a very good summary statement.  if there are "many facets" (as you say) to it, then add a section underneath and describe them.  but this fits really well in the intro.  just deal with it. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Swift as an Eagle, I think you're now in violation of WP:3RR on this issue. Ben and I have tried repeatedly to explain our objection to the sentence, and you don't seem to get it.  I'm not going to revert your latest attempt -- I'll leave it up to other editors.  Agathman (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for seeing that. i have replaced your version.  i personally don't think this was breaking 3RR because the first clause had "myth" (which was your problem), and this second one did not. but in good faith to this i reverted.  but i have not conceded :)  Swift as an Eagle (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to be careful since WP:3RR doesn't distinguish between partial and 'letter for letter' reverts. The point is, don't edit war. WP:BRD is worth reading too. The problem with your edit is that you're trying to build a relationship between a classification and varying levels of interpretation that doesn't exist in the literature. Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth, people interpret it differently, but the concepts are not related. If you're using a definition of the word 'myth' that isn't appropriate for an article on a religious topic then you may argue the point, but this is an article on a religious topic so we'll stick to the relevant definition. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I put in a definition that every person can understand. the story is either interpreted as real or fake.  yes, the lead paragraph can almost spell it out as black and white as that. it is especially appropriate (indeed, required!) in the lead considering that the details are fleshed out later in the article under "5" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swift as an Eagle (talk • contribs)
 * Then we can work on, and gain consensus for, a sentence that explains there are varying interpretations. We don't need to invent a continuum concept to do that. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To some huge majority of people, there IS a continuum from 'fact' to 'myth.' I suggest that those who don't see it as a continuum are in a growing but relatively small minority of Wiki readers. Being a professor, I appreciate Swift as an Eagle's respect for teaching/learning. In our very first sentence, it is absurd to force "myth" on everyone. How many are going to click on the WikiLink? Why would they even suspect that "myth" might have a scholarly meaning far beyond the common vernacular? Be honest...how many of us click on a wikiLink when we think we already know what it means? I am not opposed to Creation Myth being used so long as this article gives some hint that it is not the common connotation of myth. The dictionaries being referenced DO make that point, and DO acknowledge that Creation Myth is a relatively new use of the word "myth" in this specific context. The theologians already know that; the everyday Wiki reader (including school kids) don't have a clue. They walk away with their understanding from bedtime stories that "It's just a myth, like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Why must we disrespect a time-honored Judeo-Christian concept by forcing this in the very first sentence? How can that NOT be an NPOV issue?


 * Even the dictionaries cited by some proponents of myth are intellectually honest and start out by saying it's the "story" or "account" or "record," etc. There are numerous examples of that, even online. These scholars apparently don't have an axe to grind like some of our editors seem to have. This is not good teaching at all. And it lack integrity. It's killing a gnat with sledge hammer.


 * If we use another commonly accepted term in Sentence #1 and then somewhere say it is a.k.a. called a "Creation Myth" in scholarly circles, that would have integrity and serve as education to millions who don't know about this "high" definition of myth--rather than the understanding that all of us grew up with. As has been pointed out before, there are likely thousands who read Sentence #1 and go "Click."


 * Why are we so afraid of getting them further down our article and teach them something? If we show some ordinary courtesy and even sensitivity about not deliberately offending so many readers, while still informing them without assuming a universal understanding of this higher definition, aren't we showing greater maturity and judgment and care and respect for everyone, not just the intellectually-informed on this particular word? Thank you.Afaprof01 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is deliberately offending anyone, and can you stop inventing unrealistic 'readers' to try and make a point? Over a thousand people view the page daily, so if such readers existed we would see reams of complaints on this talk page about the article calling their belief imaginary. A quick peruse of the talk page and its archives show that the most complaint comes from people defending this imaginary reader, and even then it's a tiny proportion of the archives. The fact you consider the term a mark of disrespect to "a time-honored Judeo-Christian concept" suggests to me you're not here to improve the article, you're here to distinguish your own beliefs from all the others - a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Can I suggest you focus your time here on articles you're a little less passionate about? Ben (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See . For a large part of the tradition, Genesis as myth was much more important than as fact, which was taken for granted but not necessarily in a literal way. See also . Genesis as fact is a product of the Protestant reformation, and many Protestants dispute literalistic interpretations of the bible. . . . dave souza, talk 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a useful book you've given us dave souza. I think we can use it to help re-write and expand the "theology and interpretation" section. I note that Philo (a very important figure in the development of Christian ideas about the Trinity) believed that Genesis 1-3 was both literally true (i.e., this was really how the world came into being, and Adam and Eve were real people) and more than literal, in that the story was filled with hidden meanings for the initiated (it took God 6 days to create the world, for example, not because he couldn't do it in 5, but because the number 6 signifies completion). I don't think a simple dichotomy between myth (fiction)/fact (history) can capture this adequately. PiCo (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First sentence
I'm suggesting this for the first sentence: ''Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. ''

This avoids the word "myth" while still using the academic definition of myth. Given the popular interpretation of "myth" as "fiction", I think this is desirable.

Rossnixon in a recent edit changed it to this: ''Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's narrative explaining how the universe, world and life on earth came into existence. '' My problem with this is: (a) it's definitely a sacred narrative, as it puts God at the centre of the story; and (b) the idea of "universe" is a modern one - lots of planets and solar systems and galaxies whirling through space. That's not what the ancients thought of at all. Oh, I'll add (c): the Genesis story concentrates not just on how the world came into existence - it could stop at day 6 if it did that - but on how the new creation related to God: a day of rest and marriage. It's not just a story, it's a story with a message. PiCo (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not desirable. In fact it's in violation of the NPOV policy, in particular WP: RNPOV. I ask that you please review this section. Avoiding the term myth for the reason you've indicated is as silly as avoiding the term theory in scientific articles. Having said that, I prefer:
 * Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis.''
 * Or something along those lines. Obviously the creation myth article is highly relevant and should be included as such. Ben (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If we just say "myth" it tends to raise hackles and people react without thinking. On the other hand I have no problem with an embedded link to the article on creation myths. How about an embedded link: Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.  PiCo (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia, and as such I think your suggestion goes against some pretty hefty principles that any good encyclopedia should stand for. I don't care about some heckler on a talk page anywhere near as much as I care that an article is presenting knowledge completely indifferently to said heckler. In fact, an attitude of ooh, well this knowledge tends to raise hackles, so lets censor, hide or otherwise obfuscate it in some way is, in my mind, offensive, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, non-neutral. My suggestion is unchanged from above. Ben (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben Tillman says on his Talk page that he is an atheist. I say on my Talk page that I am a Christian. Obviously, we both are committed to our respective views, meaning that it may take extra effort to not allow our worldview paradigms affect our edit views. I know that to be true for me. Numerous times I have had to forcefully lay aside my personal convictions to edit an article that contained views to which I am sympathetic, but which were not NPOV. I'm sure that's true of all good Wiki editors. But forcing the word "myth"&mdash;as if everyone knows that we are using a much lesser-known definition of the term, and it they don't, it's high time that they learn it!&mdash;doesn't seem to equate to NPOV. I guess Encyclopedia Brittanica must not know about the "pretty hefty principles that any good encyclopedia should stand for. " Many scholarly articles and books on this subject very successfully avoid "myth. " User PiCo has, IMO, skillfully avoided it in our article.


 * In Talk:Creation–evolution controversy, I have already provided a reputable source that points out how the word "myth" predisposes many readers of Judeao-Christian persuasion to be on the defensive before they read on. One reviewer (Justin Topp, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas-Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9038) has written of the book, Evolution and Religious Creation Myths: How Scientists Respond.: "The authors describe creationism and intelligent design as myth and unscientific.... Reducing, if not misrepresenting, ID (Intelligent Design) in such a manner makes it easier for the authors to argue against ID, but it clearly does a disservice to the movement and diminishes the integrity of the book for ASAers.... The issues noted and the other capable offerings available make it difficult to recommend this book ."


 * Knowing that "myth" riles many readers and starts them off with a negative predisposition, why must "myth" appear in the very first sentence? Why in the very first paragraph? A matter of one editor's principle is insufficient justification. Should we trade liberal or atheistic preference for true neutrality in a really good article that we want people to be able to read with an open mind? Or to ask it another way: will anyone not continue reading the Encyclopedia Brittanica article just because the word "myth" does not appear in the first few sentences, nor anywhere in the article??? "Myth" in the lede biases many potential readers who are neither hecklers nor hicks: "Warning: if the writers of this article label not only "creation" but Genesis&mdash;and probably, then, the whole Bible&mdash;to be a "myth," there's no need to waste my time trying to sort out creation vs evolution. I can see from the start where "they" are headed. And if they knew that the strongest proponent of "myth upfront" approach so disrespectfully labels a fellow editor "some heckler on a talk page," not exactly in the finest tradition of Wikipedia etiquette, would that make them any more likely to trust the article's neutrality?
 * I strongly oppose the use of the word "Myth", since is this purely a POV, we all know that there at least two schools of thoughts regarding creation, so this article should identify the various rejections, but keep in mind that the topic again is "Creation according to Genesis"

We can just easily have "Creation according to Darwin" --Paul Lewison (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly support PiCo's edits. I disagree that his edits "censor, hide or otherwise obfuscate it in some way." He just doesn't wave the red flag in the face of the bull. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Negative book reviews of a book that considers intelligent design a myth (nonsense, though it clearly has its roots in one) and unscientific (completely true) have no weight here what-so-ever. I've already cited Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible, and our policy WP:RNPOV. The WP:WEIGHT requirements of RNPOV are satisfied by the following:
 * ''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.
 * As such, this matter is completely resolved by our policies and those accompanying reliable sources (more reliable sources can be provided, but unless you have a good reason for demanding more I doubt I'll go out of my way). Given that, I'll now restore the first sentence and ask you to note that the onus is on you to present a solid argument for it's removal that doesn't involve petty edit warring. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what Afaprof01 just did, he seems to have refactored other people's contributions in the edits just before Ben's above, or have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he just put a space in between my indent colons and replies, which may have confused the wiki a bit. I don't see any obvious changes in content so I don't think it's a problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a Christian but I recognize that the formal definition of myth does not imply an untruth. (Should the article link to that definition?) Also, I would like to point Ben's attention to WP:WTA: the language used surrounding the term "myth" should make it obvious that we use it in a formal sense, not the informal meaning of "a false belief".
 * Not to mention that the Creation Myth article to which the words link is well written and serves to broaden the subject from a cross-cultural viewpoint. Removing said words and link in the name of making one creation myth sound more "true" than the other creation myths would not do this article any justice and only spur further POV and Bias arguements.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with this. It should stay as myth. I'm sorry if it seems a red flag in front of a bull to some people but is no more that than removing SWT etc because of WP:MOSISLAM which also offends some Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the "Bible is myth" crowd's fallback argument, the one "Bible is myth" folks keep falling back on when all else fails, but I still fail to understand it. It sounds like some kind of emotional argument, or fallacy coming from your POV.  Can you please elucidate further, so that others who don't share your point of view, might also understand it?  How exactly is it comparable to removing SWT from Muhammad's name?  It seems more directly analogous to the principle that we don't use offensive racial epithets to describe different races here.  If you're ging to introduce a slippery slope argument, where do you draw the line?  It's not a case of going extra miles out of our way or bending over backwards either to show respect (SWT) or disrespect (racial epithets, or calling widespread religious beliefs you don't share "myths").  It's a choice between picking a less offensive synonym, or a more offensive, POV-laden, and ambiguous one.  It seems to me that a few editors preferring the more offensive and disputed term for whatever reason, is more a case of going out of our way to offend.  The fallacy here seems to add up to "It just wouldn't be neutral not to offend, so instead we ought to go out of our way to offend - now that is neutrality."  71.253.143.203 (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you editing logged out by mistake? I presume you are, and are aware of WP:AGF. And, by the way, neutrality is not what we aim for, it is WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to get an explanation of your logic here, and I'm struggling to understand how you can possibly describe your point-of-view as a "neutral" one. It doesn't seem at all like logic, seems like a complete throwback to a less tolerant era.  Perhaps the fact that the offensiveness concerns other people's beliefs, rather than their ethnicity, is clouding your perspective.  Try it like this:  "People from Slobovia say they are offended by the term 'Slow-boes'.  But they ARE Slow-boes, and that's what we should call them, because that's what they really are. Look, we have fifteen books that all agree that they ARE Slow-boes and that this is not offensive, and OUR books are right, while all the books that say this term is offensive, are just plain wrong, and were probably written by Slow-boe lovers anyway.  So despite the fact that they don't like being called Slow-boes, wikipedia should definitely use this term, because it just wouldn't be at all NPOV to accede to their POV and call them Slobovians." 71.253.143.203 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's where you're right dear IP editor, we are falling back on "The bible is a myth" because that's how all creation stories are listed and identified on Wikipedia. And from an encyclopedic point of view it is a myth, just like the Norse myth of creation and the Hindu and the ancient Egyptian.  It helps maintain NPOV that none of the creation myths are categorized differently from one another.  So whether you believe the earth was vomited up by a giant turtle or hatched from a interstellar egg or was conjured up by a wizard in the clouds is irrelevant because an encyclopedia doesn't take sides or opinions nor should it cater to one group's religious ideologies or sensitivities over anothers. Nefariousski (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Refering to the Genesis narrative as a "myth" in the first sentence is definitely POV and a failure to maintain an impartial tone. Though there is a definition of myth where this is an accurate statement, one could say the same to justify opening the Bill Clinton article saying, "Bill Clinton was born a bastard on August 19,1946."  Most readers will believe that calling the narrative a myth in the opening sentence is making an assertion that the narrative is false, because the most common usage of "myth" suggests falsehood.  Certainly, at later points in the text, the term "myth" can be used if it is properly identified as an attributed point of view.  See: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.  When using "myth" to describe a religious narrative, it must be clear that it is being used in the formal sense.  Usage in the opening sentence is ambiguous, and thus prohibited by the WP:NPOV policy.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would call attention to Words_to_avoid which would seem to apply here. In particular, it suggests the following test: 'The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.' --agr (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue shouldn't be one of what this article labels the "creation myth" but with the creation myth article itself. If the term is deemed inappropriate then the creation myth article should be changed. Calling the biblical account a "Creation Narrative" while other faiths' accounts are called "Creation Myths" is where your WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV truly comes into play. When the "Creation Narrative" words link to "Creation Myth" article it defeats the purpose entirely. Go to Creation Myth and get that name changed first.Nefariousski (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Defeats the purpose" - What purpose - you mean to deliberately enflame and offend with an "outside word"? When there are clearly more NPOV alternatives? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose is to truly be neutral. Wikipedia does not view the bible story as a narrative while viewing the Koran as a myth or the nordic version as a myth etc...  The article Creation Myth contains all of the various cultures stories regarding creation and to hold one above the others by labelling it a "narrative" on the surface while it still links to the creation myth article is dishonest at best and only masks your concern about the "myth" labeling.  Articles link to other articles and should do so in the most transparent manner possible, your personal opinions and sensitivities aside.  While I agree with you that "Myth" isn't necessarily the best word to use it is currently the article to which the link redirects and should clearly show as so.  Users who are obviously skewed towards a religious belief (per their user profiles) only contribute to the systemic bias that is so common in bible related articles in english Wikipedia and as such their contributions and opinions tend to push POV.  The only truly neutral solution is to label references to the article by the article's name and if the article's name is poorly worded then that article should be changed.Nefariousski (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could give examples of these other articles where you say the scriptures of other major world faiths (such as the Quran) are defined as "myths". There's a good chance I'd oppose that usage just as strongly on those articles, because in most cases there is a good deal of opposition on the record against having the scriptures of any given religion labeled as "myth".  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

how about the creation myths page?Nefariousski (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... i wonder how many users would feel more comfortable if that page were renamed "creation narratives"? Sounds far more NPOV, I'd say... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your colloquial examples of the word "myth" on your user page do not trump the formal meanings adopted by Wikipedia as a matter of agreed upon policy (once again feel free to read WP:WTA). If you want to change the usage of the word "myth" do so at the source article and not the articles that reference said source.Nefariousski (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Says you. Somehow I don't think it's going to be that easy or clear-cut. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Says Me? How about Says Wikipedia Policy.  I'm not pushing my opinion here, I'm just trying to make the article comply with already long debated and agreed upon policy.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying there is "consensus"? Where? I'm confused - do you mean 'consensus'  as some kind of doublespeak, or 'consensus' in the English language sense of "no significant opposition"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean "consensus" as in there is an already accepted Wikipedia guideline that clearly supports the use of the word "myth" in the case of creation myth. Feel free to read it here WP:WTA.  If you're not interested in reading through the article I'll quote it for you:


 * "Formal use of the word (Myth) commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed....


 * Furthermore, 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."


 * So to clarify, we can't call all other faith's beliefs about the origin of the world "Myths" and not the Judeo-Christian brand. It clearly says we need to be consistent and since the article creation myth is what we are linking to and it is a catalogue of all creation myths we need to be consistent.  I hope you understand that this isn't a POV attack on any belief but an attempt to make this article more encyclopedic and increase it's quality per Wikipedia's standards.  If you feel this is an affront or still do not understand the reasoning feel free to try and change the creation myth article's title or try editing a more judeo-christian centric creation narrative article of your own at Conservipedia.   Nefariousski (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)This subject comes up over and over again. From what I recall, it usually is resolved by turning to the Reliable Sources. Theologians, scholars, etc use myth the same way that we are using it here. Whether or not a word is offensive is entirely subjective, and is an unreliable marker. In a collaborative project like this one, there have to be ways to resolve these sort of disputes, and resorting to reliable sources is one of the best ways that wikipedia has to do it.

For those who do not like the use of the word myth and would prefer something like "account" or "sacred narrative", it's up to you to go out, spend the 8 to 50 years it takes to become a recognised scholar in the appropriate field, publish texts (essays, papers, books, etc) that can be reviewed and critiqued by the relevant community, and then have someone use your text as a Reliable Source here, have it be discussed, let the community arrive at a consensus that, yes, the appropriate community has shifted from using "myth" to using your prefered term, and voila, there's your change.Quietmarc (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hogwash. Readers are going to continue to openly rebel against this POV travesty being foisted by a few opinionated editors who are full of their own offensive POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil Til, and mind WP:AGF. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot AGF when it is already perfectly clear that some editors have an interest in using wikipedia to attempt to discredit the scriptures of a living religion, which is hardly NPOV, and more like POV pushing. As if all people who try to live by these various scriptures of world faiths, are going to be persuaded by the say-so of these opinionated wikipedians that they believe in "myths".  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User Nefariousski seems to be taking some things slightly out of context in quoting the Wiki style manual, which first says, "it ('myth') may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." It also talks about referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context . Nowhere in this article does that happen. As editors of this particular article, we are not responsible for what other articles say unless we are editing them, or come across something that talks about one religion's beliefs and another religion's myths. At such point we may feel we have a duty to correct it. Please keep in mind that Wiki policy is not deemed as dogma. We found that out when the policy on "Saint" honoraries came out and some editors of the various apostles' articles "consensus-ed" that they didn't want to change it. The ruling from Admin level, to my surprise, was that it did not have to be uniform─that matters of style were not dictated.


 * User Quietmarc's "8 to 50 years" digressive sarcasm is typical of the mentality being expressed by the "myth" proponents. With few exceptions, the editors so passionately pushing "myth" seem to understand consensus to mean "Do it my way. I really don't care who is offended by this characterization in the very first few words of the article. Don't give me any reasons. My mind is made up. I'll do whatever it takes to keep "myth" exactly where it is. I'm not even open to moving down lower in the article than in the very first sentence!" There is no room for consensus because that would mean, "Come, let's reason together. Let's negotiate." Many of the earlier comments on this page indicate this is a closed-minded slam dunk. Bringing up the Creation myth article as a reason is only the latest ploy. It has no direct bearing on this article. The very fact that WP:WTA acknowledges " 'myth' may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing " is precisely the point. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now now, lets not take anything out of context. The full sentence from WP:WTAstates "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.  If you don't like it then go try and get the creation myth article changed.  Additionally you'll see that Creation Myth is a widely accepted term that has an actual definition When I googled 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 burden of evidence is HUGE.  We use creation myth because it is a real and accepted term to describe different belief system's versions of how the world was created.Nefariousski (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for being a bit sarcastic, but while I'm not a theologian myself, I've spent years in the company of many people from a variety of faiths who have been. My own mother is a minister. I can go to her bookshelf and pull any number of texts that use "myth" exactly as it's used in this article (and next time I visit her, I may do just that so that I can add something more substantial to the discussion). My "8 to 50 years" point is that experts use certain words for a reason, and they dedicate a considerable part of their lives to the study of their chosen subjects. To arbitrarily decide to disregard their work and effort just to avoid being offensive to those who haven't bothered to do the research strikes me as wrong and careless.


 * I think any collaborative project has to set some sort of standard for inclusion. I'm certain that there are publications where it's been decided that the technical jargon is either too dense or offensive for their readers, and so they make editorial decisions that reflect that. Here on wikipedia, though, we've chosen to rely on what the sources say. In this case, the sources use "myth", so we should (in my opinion) use "myth".Quietmarc (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why can you not be honest with yourself enough to admit the truth - that theologians and sources actually do disagree on whether or not any given part of the Bible meets any of the definitions of "myth"? That is, instead of blithely ignoring or rejecting all of those sources that don't match the circular-reasoning litmus test of your POV? If you are going to appeal to "theologians" for your logic, you have be honest and concede all that those authors who disagree are theologians just as well as YOUR theologians - no side has a monopoly, nor has any "agreement" been enforced, and it's pure cynicism to pretend there is agreement or consensus among theological sources.  When sources disagree significantly, NPOV policy calls on us to outline each of the sourced POVs in neutral language, not to side outside with one set of sources based on their POV and share their hostility for another set of sources. Where exactly is your logic in calling that "neutral"?  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that within the academic circles there will be disagreement, but at the end of the day certain sources are going to be given greater weight than others. You seem to be arguing something like the fallacy of the false middle, where if person A says one thing and person B says the other, then the truth must be in the middle. That is not necessarily true. We have a situation here where the majority of experts are using one term in a certain way, and we have several users who have provided several lines of evidence (google matches, reliable sources, etc) of this. NPOV policy does not over-ride Undue Weight. I have no doubt that there are lots of sources that use other terms, but we need to give those sources appropriate weight. We can't just throw in what every Scholar X says, we need to evaluate the sources in the context of the scholarly community as a whole.
 * As I've already said, I myself am not an expert. I'm intrigued enough by this discussion that I'm actually going to go out and look at sources, including (but certainly not limitted to) my mom's bookshelf. I'm prepared to be convinced differently, and if you have suggestions of places I can start, I'm all ears. I'm not cynical, I'm pragmatic: even if the community is deeply divided, we need to use a term, and we need to evaluate which of the available terms is the best. Right now, based on what I've seen in wiki and according to my interpretation of wiki policy, Myth is the best. If my assessment changes, you can be sure I'll add that to the discussion. Quietmarc (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, be sure to read everything carefully on User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon. Contrary to the way they were summarily and off-handedly characterized by Nefariousski, most of the prominent theologians quoted on that page are specifically talking about academic (not colloquial) usage of the term "myth" - and why they feel it is still inappropriate for any part of the Hebrew Scriptures, by any definition.  It's a fallacy to pretend there is artificial agreement, where there is no agreement.  And it would be more in line with policy to describe each of the positions fairly, without endorsing any one set of opinions over another, as is currently being done. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose beginning the article with a sentence that everyone agrees with. There an easy solution! Everyone agrees that Genesis is an ancient text/story/narrative. After that we can say that most scholars refer to this as one of many creations myths, or similar statement. rossnixon 01:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion, Ross. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. It's an attempt to try and polarize the article. X is Y, but scholars say X is Z. No thanks. This article is talking about the creation myth found in Genesis, scholars and associated reliable sources agree, and as such this article reflects that in the interest of neutrality. Ben (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That suggestion is akin to putting (Most scholars refer to this as one of many religions) next to the word Christianity or (Most scholars refer to this as an element) next to the word Oxygen. The term creation myth isn't up for debate.  It exists, is universally used (even in theological circles) and is the proper phrase for a supernatural or religious story or explanation about the beginning of life/humanity/earth etc...  The point of Wikipedia isn't to pacify everyone who gets upset about something that offends their personal views.Nefariousski (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What could be up for reasonable discussion is WHERE the term goes. There is no rule, except in some people's dictates, that it absolutely positively must go early in the very first sentence. No one has explained that. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I think it's a little counter-intuitive to move the definition / categorization of a topic in the introduction I don't see any problem with moving it as long as it doesn't make the article more confusing. Why not put a few sentences regarding what the formal definition of creation myth so that we clear up all possible misinterp / contextual issues of using the phrase right from the start so that those of us who for some reason are dogmatically opposed to using the word are pacified that we're not using "myth" in the informal sense and the rest of us get to maintain the integrity of the link / formal meaning of the term in the article?  I'd personally rather clarify the confusion rather than hide it further down the article or obfuscate it by changing the formal term creation myth into a made up term.Nefariousski (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this is NEVER going to end just because you keep telling it to end, so long as a pushy minority of POV editors purposefully choose to go the offensive route. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reality isn't predicated on whether you are offended or not. Creation myth is an actual defined term that exists outside of this article.  Here's the top results from a google search on Define "Creation Myth"
 * If the word "Dinosaurs" offends somebodies religion they can't change any article that references them to "Jesus Horses" because that is not the academic term. The WP:Google test supports this unquestionably (feel free to check for yourself or read my above comments).  The defined term "Creation Narrative" doesn't exist in academia, as a theological concept or in any appreciable sources that I was able to find nor does it have an article to reference nor does it serve the purpose of making the bible's account sounding more true since Narratives are often defined as possibly being fictional or unverifiable, similar to storytelling.  20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From my view to take a neutral point that creation cannot be fully proved or disproved as a myth, I think the word myth shoud be replaced with belief as a compromise. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad writing
I'd like to ask a different question: why is the current lede: "Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis" better thant the version that was fairly stable in the article for a long time: "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."? The older version is direct, accurate, neutral and conveys more information about the subject. The new version is vague, using the phrase "refers to", and is redundant, like saying "Shakespearean history refers to historical dramas written by William Shakespeare. Explaining a term by employing jargon that means pretty much the same thing is just bad writing. The term "creation myth" can be introduced later in a proper context. It's hard for me to see the lede change as an improvement. --agr (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Creation according to Genesis refers to a whole lot more than the creation of the world and of the first man and woman. Whereas the current intro concisely and precisely explains what the topic is about - a creation myth. This conveys a lot of useful information straight up, but in the event someone is unsure of the term a wikilink to an entire article devoted to the topic that this article is a representative of is given. Finer details, including an explicit mention of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman that you like, are given in the text following. Ben (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the term "creation myth" should be introduced later. That would be like deferring the term "state" in the lead of France. However, I do agree that the first sentence is a bit clumsy. In trying to solve this, the fact that we needn't actually use the article's title literally might help. See WP:LEAD: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." Hans Adler 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD gives clear guidance here: "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." It also says "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Anyone who knows what the term "Creation myth" means learns nothing from the current version. Someone who doesn't is diverted to another article, which is bad style and completely unnecessary. Ben is of course correct that there is more than one way to structure the introductory paragraph, but that cuts both ways. The specialist term "creation myth" can be introduce later and placed in its proper, neutral context, thereby avoiding all this drama. --agr (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, "creation myth" is clearly not specialised terminology on this Wikipedia. You might have more success with such a claim over at Simple English Wikipedia, though. The German word for creation myth is Schöpfungsmythos, and the first of the 2600 Google hits that come up for that combined with Religionsunterricht (religious education) make it very clear that this is standard material in religious education in Germany, covered already in 5th form (age approximately 11). For background: Religious education in Germany is payed for by the state, but choice of teachers and control over content lies with the churches. So there is no infiltration by evil atheists going on. Hans Adler 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What the German state does is beside the point here. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. But the fact that in major Western country teaching units on creation myths are standard starting from the fifth form is very relevant to the claim that it's "specialised terminology". Hans Adler 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, a term such as light year has a special meaning as a measure of distance, but most people, including Joan Baez (listen to diamonds and rust) and NY Times articles think it is a measure of time. Those technical terms mean little to the public. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you trying to say that because some people lack basic science education and might be confused we should go edit the article on light year to include a section regarding it's colloquial use as a measurement of time and it's incorrect usage in folk music? The size of the FAIL in your arguements can be seen a light year away.  This isn't Conservapedia, we don't sacrifice truth and accuracy in order to write articles that cater to the lowest common denominator.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you made this comment on the right page? It does not seem to be related to anything else. Hans Adler 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One could ask the same question about your discussion of the German educational system. In an important part of the English speaking work, the United States, religious instruction is not permitted in public schools. In any case, we do not write our articles on the assumption that everything our readers learned in school is still familiar to them. "Creation myth" is clearly a specialized term. --agr (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet, policy. There's a forum to argue its merits, and it's not this talk page. -- King Öomie 14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Creation myth" as a formal term is specialized terminology and should be avoided in the lede, in favor of a term whose colloquial sense is less likely to be interpreted as implying falsehood. It is contradictory to claim "It's a formal term, so it does not imply falsehood or POV" and "It's not a specialized term." I work in a top institution of higher learning where respect for various religious viewpoints is an important priority. Outside of an obvious formal scholarly discussion, referring to texts that are central to anyone's faith as a "myth" would be a quick ticket to trying to find a new job.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that academia and Wikipedia policy have many disparate policy points. The relevant texts are available for your perusal- WP:NPOV and WP:DUE amongst them. WP:RNPOV in particular addresses this issue. As mentioned above several times, "Theory" is a specialized term when used professionally, and this definition is abused day in and day out ("It's just a theory!!!"). Yet, the term remains in articles without an explicit in-line definition, because that's policy. To treat religious issues substantially differently would be inherently biased, wouldn't it?  -- King Öomie  15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And to your other point, it's not Wikipedia's business to respect or disrespect various viewpoints. The relative span of reliable coverage determines the sentiment in the article, within reason (again, WP:DUE). If we were limiting ourselves to politically correct speech, there would be no images at Muhammad.
 * "Outside of an obvious formal scholarly discussion,"... Well, that's what this is. There's a lot of stuff here that's not conversational material. Try reading the article Nigger out loud at your next family gathering. -- King Öomie  15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the other policies King Öomie mentions that contradicts LEDE's imperative that the intro to articles should be written for  non specialists. I don't think anyone is arguing that the term "creation myth" should not appear in this article. The question I raised is why the current first sentence is better than what was there before: "Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis" vs. "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." The current sentence defines the subject in terms of a specialized term (which could be inferred from the title), the second defines the subject in plain English with a brief summary of the content of the story. That's just better writing. I'd also point out that the current version isn't even accurate. Many, but not all, scholars say the there are two distinct creation myths in Genesis, not one. The plain English version introduces that possibility without taking a position. Again, better writing.--agr (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. But writing is one thing, agenda is another. The agenda of the non-believers vs believers is to shape the minds of the innocent who read this article. The rest is decorative reasoning phrased in terms of Wikipedia policies. History2007 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the innocent. There's an appeal to emotion if I've ever seen one. I've maintained a single argument that has yet to be even ADDRESSED without strawmen- the opposition has been bouncing from argument to argument. -- King Öomie  18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we have some simple statements here: What conclusions do we reach? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Myth as intended here is a technical term, which policy says should be avoided in the lede.
 * 2) Policy also says that the word myth should be avoided to avoid confusion with the informal sense, which is perjorative.
 * 3) There is no evidence to indicate that myth is preferred usage when the Genesis story is being written about in a non-technical way.


 * Off of your 1. myth is not being used here, Creation Myth is being used here.  They mean two different things much like college and Electoral College.  Policy clearly states in wp:WTA that even if we were using the term "myth" all by itself it would be acceptable as long as it's used in the formal sense and as long as it is universally used across faiths which the article on Creation Myths accomplishes.
 * Off of your 2. The policy clearly states that context is key in the usage of the word "myth" and with a link to the article Creation Myth and a multitude of sources that provide formal definitions on the term that context is provided and due diligence is done to avoid violating WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA
 * Off of your 3. There is an astounding amount of evidence to indicate that Creation Myth is the appropriate term used far and wide to describe a faith based or supernatural account of how it all began as seen in the half dozen Google Tests and dozens of reliably sourced definitions and articles already posted above.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that a discouraged word should suddenly be encouraged because it is paired with another word. A creation myth is simply a myth about creation, and I know of no other definition. An electoral college has a specific definition (in the US at least) and is more than just a college that is about elections. That's why it's a special case.
 * In what way do you believe that the context changes the meaning of myth as we write here?
 * Someone above claimed that the Google test favoured myth. When I tested it the results were the opposite of what was claimed. (See my posts above). I see no explanation of the discrepancy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's where you're wrong, as cited dozens of times above there are formal definitions of Creation Myth that go into far more detail than defining the words seperately (see college vs Electoral College example. Additionally the google test regarding definitions was against definitions.  This is done by typing Define "Creation Myth" and comparing the results against Define "Creation Narrative" or whatever other substitute.  The results show that as a distinct and meaningful term Creation Myth is a defined, well recognized and widely used term while the others are not.  I don't want to re-iterate the same thing over and over but if you scroll up and look for my posts with all the citations you'll see the google test results. Nefariousski (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The word is not discouraged. Here are the relevant sentences: "However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue. 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. Furthermore, 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."
 * This says very clearly that:
 * we must not use "myth" in its informal sense (we don't)
 * when using it in a formal sense we need to make clear that we don't mean the informal sense, e.g. through one of the following means:
 * setting a mythology context (we do, since we say "creation myth", not just "myth")
 * setting a religion context (we do, since the first sentence makes it clear that this article is about a religious topic).
 * Hans Adler 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Setting a religion context" is the first good argument for keeping myth that I've seen. However I don't think we establish the context of the word strongly enough. The word is used before we mention religion, and its existence in an article about religious scripture is not enough, given that many take the document as also being a scientific one. However I could be persuaded that a footnote would be sufficient additional context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no need to make the religion context even stronger than it already is, because the words "creation myth", in this combination, refer (almost?) exclusively to the literary genre of which the book of Genesis is probably the most notable representative. But there is nothing wrong with rephrasing the first sentence and removing the schematic language ("[Title] refers to"), which we don't actually need because as I explained above we don't actually need to repeat the descriptive title in the first sentence. Instead we could have something like this: "The Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, begins with an influential creation myth." (I am sure this wording can be improved.) Hans Adler 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tying this off.
I'm sorry to start another thread, but I need to ask a couple of quesitons: Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there any valid objection to archiving the threads about the introductory sentence? The discussion seems to have reached a point of no return - the way "C.C" parts his hair - so I don't think leaving them open is going to be constructive at all.
 * 2) Are we agreed there is consensus for the term creation myth in the opening sentence? If so, I suggest we create an FAQ at the top of this page outlining the "creation myth" question with a link to the previous discussion in the archives.

There is ABSOLUTELY no agreement on the term creation myth in the opening sentence. Not even a nice try, but there is no agreement at all. Indeed the discussion has just started, e.g. why is Shiva not a myth? No one even tried to answer that yet. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We may have overlooked what appears to be a very well-thought out compromise. User:Tonicthebrown, an evolutionist by self-description above. I hereby propose that User:Tonicthebrown's suggested wording become the  first paragraph of the article.




 * Rationale: It is not what I would write if I owned the article, but it's something I agree to live with since it deals with all major objections except  for
 * (a) omitting myth altogether, which I don't think is going to happen; and
 * (b) putting myth immediately after the article title, which is the most objectionable possible place to put it. There is no  practical way to move it any closer to the top, the place of greatest  emphasis, viability, and notability.


 * Nothing is going to be either perfect or totally pleasing to everyone. One practical definition of a consensus is "a proposal we can all live with." As has been pointed out, there is a lot of rather obvious insisting on getting one's own way, and an accompanying unwillingness to negotiate or compromise. There is suggestion that some are using this as a form of amusement to insult and belittle others both personally and ideologically, not unlike the truculence that might accompany one who "picks wings off of flies." In society we honor competent, productive people of good  sense, folks who understand that for a society to thrive, its people need to care for  and cooperate with each other. Should the duty of Wiki editors be any less?


 * Respectfully, User:AFAprof01


 * Seeing as someone has brought up my earlier proposal, here's a small modification of it that may be more acceptable to the majority:




 * (By the way, I would not identify myself as an evolutionist. I am neither a young earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist.)
 * I think Afaprof has made a helpful comment, namely that none of us should behave as if we have ownership of this article. It would appear to me, having read much of the interaction above, that certain editors who support the existing lead are behaving in this way. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has not been overlooked since I replied to that proposal above. Honesty really does seem like a foreign concept to you Afaprof01. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat myself here, so if you want to reply to my comments above then do so, and I will reply there also. Ben (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For sure there's no consensus on using the term "creation myth" in the first line. I remember predicting that this would happen, so it's just as well I'm not the sort to say I told you so. Though I did. But I'm not saying it. As for Tonic's suggestion, it's not really a starter I'm afraid - "Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis"? It doesn't refer to those chapters, it is those chapters. This isn't a definition, it's a tautology. PiCo (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pico and I would observe that whenever Ben feels pressured, he insults people, as he insulted Afaprof01 just here.... He will make an interesting subject for psychoanalysis. I wonder if he fears that I will pray for him... some people fear that... Anyway, who wants to "own" this article? Not me.... it is in a neighborhood with too many insulting people. But I think if you are to propose that Afaprof the order must certainly change, namely: "This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as creation myth by some scholars." Since we can not be sure that all scholars agree. Pico, would you like to rewrite that since you know how? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence History2007, but I'd rather stay out of this hornet's nest - like you, I don't like to hang around unpleasant people. (And just for the record, I'm a secularist and an evolutionist) PiCo (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying the above proposed paragraph into the article. It's the closest we have to consensus. AFAprof01 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current intro has consensus sans minor wording changes that have been discussed above (Hans comments come to mind, for instance). Changes like this one that go against policy, as I've explained above, will be reverted on sight. Ben (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tonic's revision directly above seems acceptable. Bugs et al., to say that some people here insist on referring to the Biblical account as "fairy tales" sounds a bit like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The point has been made here countless times that the term "creation myth", based on the real definition of the term, implies no such thing. Additionally, saying lots of people might think "untruth" when they see it might be overlooking the possibility that readers might exercise due diligence and check the linked meaning of the term before assuming what it means. Those opposing "creation myth" should notice that the rest of us are not saying those words should necessarily appear unqualified; indeed, the fact that those words link to a definition of the term (which explains that the idea of "untruth" is not intended) completely removes any apprehensions I might have had as a Christian. As such, I hereby state my support for the term "creation myth". As it applies to me personally, I wouldn't care if it were called a narrative/story/account/whatever, since I do believe it to be factual – but the term "creation myth", as defined here on WP, is not incompatible with my beliefs, since it sounds plenty neutral to me. And that's all I have to say.

I disagree with Ben. He has been on the verge of an edit war for long. History2007 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben has an obsession with characterizing the Old Testament texts as fairy tales. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions & unbalanced treatment of topic
I have several questions to which no answer has even been attempted. As a start, again, why does Shiva not have a scientific label "myth" attached to it? How about the Qur'an. It seems clear to me that Genesis is singled out here, perhaps due to specific agendas. In any case, this issue goes to the heart of unbalanced treatment of the topic. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, each one of those articles has their own talk page. You've wandered so far into irrelevant territory that I'm not even going to bother replying to your comments any more unless they're directly relevant to this article and in line with this projects policies. Ben (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the obvious, as usual. But the question is highly relevant. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben doesn't care about the other religions. His need to call religions a fairy tale is limited to the Bible - as he demonstrated many months ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They're all listed under the Creation Myth article as Creation Myths Genesis is not being singled out. On the contrary not listing it as a Creation Myth does single this article out and thus violate WP:WTA.  This has been explained over and over and over.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discuss other article here. See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And Bugs, please focus on the topic, not the editors. Auntie E. (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you must not be aware that Ben has been pushing this viewpoint in a number of related articles, for quite awhile now. This article does not exist in a vacuum. This is a common theme across multiple articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're calling this a viewpoint, then I can only assume you're ignorant of the topic at hand- that is, the scholarly acceptance of the term "Creation Myth". -- King Öomie  00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You know Mr King, regarding the insult you handed Baseball_Bugs now by calling him ignorant, there is an old saying/joke in legal circles: "If the facts are against you argue the law, if the law is against you argue the fact, if both the facts and the law are against you, call the other guy a schmuck". So I guess both the facts and the policies must be against you to keep calling people ignorant. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignorant \Ig"no*rant\, a. Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware. If I'd meant to insult him, I would have kept typing and called him an ignoramus. But I didn't, so I didn't. Stop trying to stir up trouble. -- King Öomie  00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm talking about Bugs- If you're only here to talk about other editors, and have no actual input for this discussion, I'll ask you to... discontinue that activity. History2007 has that ground covered. -- King Öomie  00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have disinvited me from this page more often than it has rained in Seattle. But no thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At last count, once. -- King Öomie  01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

resolving the larger issue once and for all instead of piecemeal
Seems to me this same "myth" argument already happened at Creationism. Some of you here are well aware of that because you participated in that discussion as well. This can go one of two ways: We can have the same arguments and edit wars again and again across every page related to creationism, complete with blocks and page protections being handed out left and right until ArbCom gets involved and there is a months long WP:TLDR discussion and half of the involved users quit Wikipedia in disgust, or ya'll could have one, centralized discussion on this topic, establish a consensus for what descriptive word is to be used in all creationism-related articles, and abide by that decision whether you agree with it or not. The choice is before you now to take the high road, or the road that leads to ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation myth is the proper description by reliable sources, and some don't like it because they feel the connotation is negative. Since WP:CENSOR is policy, and there is no WP:OFFEND to point to, these discussions end with the M-word being accepted by consensus. So that idea may not be acceptable to some. The minority will wish to replay the argument again and again. See Talk:Muhammad/Images. (It's a page I watchlist, and I couldn't reasonably refute those anti-image people's arguments while simultaneously accepting the anti-"myth" ones.) Auntie E. (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You and Ben are hiding behind one technical definition of "myth" to promote the point of view that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales, as that's what the general readership understands when they see the word "myth". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. I don't consider the Bible to be fairy tales, not at all. I consider it's truth to be undeterminable. Which is what the definition of myth means. Auntie E. (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the general public knows that "myth" means "fairy tale". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RNPOV. Dictionary be damned, they know what it means. -- King Öomie  01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary usage of "myth" by the general public equates to an untrue story. Wikipedia is not written for "scholars", it's written for the general public. And when the first sentence says "the Bible is a lie", it's going to reinforce the perception that wikipedia has a liberal bias. That does not serve the interests of either the public or wikipedia well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This + this is a massive failure of WP:NPOV. Ben (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And for the 40th time this debate, someone argues against policy HERE, rather than at the policy page. Bugs, are you seriously debating that it is improper to use scholarly language relevant to the topic at hand? I think you're looking for Simple Wiki. -- King Öomie  02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a "scholarly" encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia written by and for the public. And insisting in the first sentence, that the subject of the article is a lie, is not a good start. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is doing that. Per RNPOV, worries about how many people know the technical definition of a term are irrelevant. If you disagree, argue there. -- King Öomie 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering why they (Bugs in this case) never apply exactly the same logic to the term theory? As soon as you consider how the logic applies to other terms in the English language it's patently clear that it's a non-argument, and very likely the reason this is mentioned in the WP:NPOV policy. Ben (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to use the very first sentence of the article to label the Bible stories as lies, fairy tales, folk tales, whatever. That's a POV. The first sentence as it reads right now is totally neutral and totally factual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I implore you to look up the definition of "creation myth". Please.
 * "It's a lie! A farse! Fiction, I tell you!" <- This isn't it. Stop presenting it like it is. We're only talking about Genesis, which contains the judeo-christian creation myth. Which is what scholars call it. And thus, so do we.  -- King Öomie  02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article already covers the "creation myth" scenario in spades. The problem is that you want to ram it down the readers' throats, in the very first sentence, that the Bible is a pack of lies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like Theory of evolution jams the same sentiment down reader's throats, right? I mean, everyone KNOWS that's what Theory means. I guess Wikipedia has a conservative bias? -- King Öomie  02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Theory of evolution" is a well known expression. Calling the Bible a myth is the same thing as calling it a lie. It's a POV-push. The first sentence should stay the way it is, as it's the only neutral way to present the facts. And FYI, since you accuse me of bias, you don't have a clue as to what my true opinion is on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, don't deflect. "Theory of evolution" is well-known, but not its meaning. MANY people (typically  southern Americans) think "It's just a theory!" is a legitimate  argument, because they have no idea what the word means in a scientific  context. This is the same issue, despite your protest. -- King Öomie  03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement that I consider it's truth to be indeterminable is the first logical statement I have heard from the opposition here. The Wikipedia page on Indeterminacy is alas poorly written, but a statement along those lines may start to bring logic into this discussion, although the introduction of the term indeterminable into the article may be too much. I could type 20 page son indeterminacy, but maybe not today. However, as a member of the general public I had never considered myth and indeterminable as equivalent, and my understanding of myth was what Bugs stated, i.e. a fake and untrue story used to achieve a goal. But then maybe I am just an ignoramus scientist anyway and everyone else is smarter than me .... History2007 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead text
Currently it reads "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 religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars." To me, this is worded perfectly. The first sentence describes in totally factual and NPOV terms what it is. The second sentence describes how it's regarded by true believers and scholars. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to push the "myth" POV in the first sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is talking about a creation myth, and as such should state this in the lead sentence. It's really that simple, and no valid argument has been presented against doing so. Ben (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's funny, the definition of Creation Myth is a religious or supernatural account of creation. Aren't we being redundant?  Nefariousski (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the article is about the start of the Bible. As the second sentence makes clear, the "myth" part is a matter of opinion, not fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a fact, and there exist citations for this fact (and the mainstream acceptance of this fact) in the text above. Ben (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with Ben at all. Simply stating it is a fact 1000 times achieves nothing. And I do not see the big deal here. In fact, I think BeebleBrox's comments were very much to the point. And I think BaseballBugs has said the right things again and again. However, if Arbcom needs to settle the matter so be it. I am ready for the long haul. Moreover, I think the reasonable comments BeebleBrox made to Ben on Ben's talk page were a good piece of the lecture Ben needed. A fee more such lectures by Admins will be in order. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did more than simply state something, I referenced this fact and the fact that the mainstream consider it so. Ben (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * History2007: Baseball Bugs has ignored the arguments to discuss the motivations of the editors "again and again." Not surprising you may think that is good argumentation, since you engaged in the same thing above.


 * I think using the term "creation myth" with a bit of a definition is infinitely preferrable to the inline attribution of "Scholars consider" which actually gives the wrong idea about the definition of the term. Many Jews and Christians also consider it a creation myth because they aren't ignorant of the definitions of the term. So Bugs' lede is not accurate. Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already thoroughly covered. But Ben's not satisfied with that. He wants to insist, in the first sentence, that it's a fairy tale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Insist" would be an appropriate middle name here my friend. And he also insisted that he was not close to the 3revert line. But we all learn... some sooner than others.... History2007 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Auntie E. makes a good point. Saying "Scholars consider" kind of makes it sound like scholars don't believe in the story of creation, but christian and jews do.Chhe (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a point. It's saying that only the ignorant consider the Bible to be "true". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bugs, it's not OK that you also engage in this disruption now. There may be parts of the Bible whose literary genre is that of a fairy tale, but I doubt it. (I guess I would know about them.) The literary genre of this particular part is that of a creation myth, and there is no reason to censor this fact, just like there is no reason to censor the fact that communism is an ideology or beer is an alcoholic beverage. Hans Adler 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, infinitely preferrable is an interesting term, but involves someone who does the preferring, of course. Hence a point of view. As I have said above much of the discussion here is decorative reasoning used to achieve an agenda (by both sides). Until that is accepted Arbcom is at the end of this tunnel. However, I think your point about "not all Jews and Christians" is valid and a modifier of some type may be in order. AfaProf is probably the person to craft the modifier. History2007 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Auntie E and King Öomie on this. ArbCom doesn't decide content issues, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "myth" has at least two meanings. First, the formal academic one, is "a religious account explaining how the world came to be as it was". The other, informal and colloquial, is "a false story". That means that the text This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars is to be interpreted as either

or as

The first interpretation is repetitive. The latter interpretation is outright false. Scholars do certainly not consider the creation account to be false. Geologists/biologists/Catholics/etc. say the Genesis shouldn't be interpreted as being literally true, but that doesn't mean that they say it is false. Either way you chose to interpret the word "myth", that sentence is horribly misleading. Gabbe (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At last some logic. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The second sentence of the current, protected version is not acceptable at all. Fact is that the text is regarded as both a religious account of creation and a creation myth by almost everybody, including Christians, Jews and scholars. Let's look a bit closer:
 * What does "religious account of creation" mean?
 * Mainstream reading: It is a religious story about the origin of the world. No particular claims are made about whether the "truth" of the story is to be found on a literal or a more metaphorical level.
 * Minority (creationist) reading: It is a historically and scientifically accurate description of the origins of the world.
 * With the mainstream reading, saying without further qualifications that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is accurate but misleading, because so does almost everybody else including scholars. And the continuation of the sentence suggest that scholars contradict. With the minority reading, saying that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is seriously misleading as it implicitly states that most Christians and Jews are creationists, which is simply not true. Cheap rhetorical tricks such as playing with the two possible readings of a phrase to promote a fringe theory have no place in Wikipedia.


 * What does "creation myth" mean?
 * Normal reading: It's a literary genre, see creation myth.
 * Minority reading: It's a myth in the colloquial sense that talks about creation, thus roughly a synonym for "creationist myth".
 * With the normal reading of "creation myth" most Christians and Jews actually agree with the scholars that Genesis starts with a creation myth. (As I explained previously, putting the creation myth in Genesis into the context of contemporaneous creation myths is standard material in Christian religious education at least in Germany.) The opposition Christians/Jews think vs. scholars think, however, suggests the second reading. But this is not at all OK according to WP:WTA: We are not supposed to use "myth" in this sense at all. We only use it in a technical sense, and then we must make it clear that we mean the technical sense, no go out of our way to suggest the non-technical sense.

Hans Adler 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So the long and short of it Hans? How will you say that some Christians think X and Scholars think Y. The opposing sentence wants just the scholars and no mention of Christian and Jews. So suggest 3 sentences please. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer the single sentence as it stands. -- King Öomie  14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My question was to Hans. I know what the "Ben and the King" duo wants. I would like to hear from other editors now, e.g. Hans and Aunt Entropy if they want to come up with suggestions. I would suggest that each suggestion have two components X and Y that address the religious and scholarly issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not OK at all to say that "some Christians think X and Scholars think Y". First we present the facts, and then we mention the creationist fringe view. Hans Adler 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Break
Let me try to recap the above debate, if I may. I think most of us agree that:
 * 1) The word "myth" could mean both "false story", and "sacred narrative explaining how the world came to be". Lets, for the sake of clarity, call the first meaning myth&sup1; (="false story") and the latter myth&sup2; (="sacred narrative").
 * 2) Christians, Jews and scholars all agree that Genesis is a creation myth&sup2;.
 * 3) WP:WTA suggests that we should not use the word myth&sup1; at all, but that we may use the word myth&sup2; when appropriate.
 * 4) Describing Genesis as a myth&sup1; in this article is inappropriate.
 * 5) The question is: When we say "Genesis is a creation myth", will casual readers of this article interpret this as
 * the offensive "Genesis is a myth&sup1;", or
 * the truthful "Genesis is a creation myth&sup2;"?

Am I right so far? If so, isn't there some way we can use the word "myth" in the article's lede to clarify that we mean to say that it's a myth&sup2; without saying it's a myth&sup1;? Gabbe (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much. Our point is that WP:RNPOV specifically states that the final question you posit is irrelevant, and that the formal meaning (myth&sup2;) is ALWAYS to be used. -- King Öomie  16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...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."  -- King Öomie  16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, and that if they disagree with that reasoning, that WT:NPOV is the forum for that discussion, NOT this page. -- King Öomie  16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Gabbe has a logical train of thought. However, as I stated above, I would like to hear what other opposing editors beside "Ben and the King" (whose views are well known) suggest as two sentences X and Y each addressing the religious and scholarly issues. It would be best if we just get their suggestions first, sans endless debate, then see where that leads. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Making a false distinction is not encyclopedic. The sentence that has been fully protected in the page is absolutely inaccurate, and even worse than leaving out the words CM all together. I will accept an in-line definition of "creation myth." Let's take this opportunity to enlighten those on the meaning of this phrase instead of demanding they stay ignorant. (On Muhammad, we give the opportunity for viewers to turn off the images. We don't delete them, no matter how many times those offended beg, plead and threaten.) Auntie E. (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from debate, I was asking you to suggest a new lead and different lead on your own. Then we see what happens. It will cost nothing to suggest. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except time, copious amounts of which have been wasted by you rehashing the same arguments. The lead, as it was, had no issues.Two statements are not needed to deliver the same information- the sentence there now is unambiguous pandering to Christian sensibilities. All christians and jews see Genesis as a creation myth- the term does not imply falsity. To present it otherwise  is purely disinformation.  -- King Öomie  17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you meant "pure disinformation". History2007 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the lead did have style issues. "[Long descriptive title] refers to ..." is not a good format for a lead at all. It's Wikipedia-speak of the worst kind. But it should be possible to fix this issue without giving in to creationist POV pushing. Hans Adler 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that it wasn't the sneaky, horrible atheistic conspiracy that's been presented. -- King Öomie  17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't. And I am quite surprised by the strategy that is being tried here. So far I have only heard of repeating "[Those guys who are really on our side but not extreme enough] are far, far on the other side and shouldn't be allowed to continue because they are so extreme!!!" as a strategy of the US right wing. It's the first time I see this thoroughly unethical strategy applied on a talk page. Hans Adler 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting more annoying at the tactic of completely glossing over points they can't refute, and instead focusing on a separate issue that hasn't turned against them yet. Hans Adler: Unfortunately the wording "refers to" is necessary unless we take the drastic step of changing the title to actually put in the noun that is currently missing in between the words "creation" and "according." Auntie E. (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's offensive!" Not so much.
 * "Policy is against it!" Demonstrably not so.
 * "....Let's all post suggestions for changes to the sentence with no problems!" -- King Öomie  17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have pointed to it before, but I am not sure that anyone is listening:
 * "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:
 * "A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency."
 * Simple descriptions such as “History of the United States” or “Timeline of prehistoric Scotland” should be bold."
 * This is straight from WP:LEAD. The present title is somewhere in between the "descriptive" and "simple descriptions" examples, so it would be OK to simply not repeat the title literally in the first sentence. Hans Adler 08:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (→ Auntie E.) Alternatively to biblical creation myth or Genesis creation myth, as used in books like the award winning Tree of souls: the mythology of Judaism and many many other sources. This would actually let us completely disambiguate the term creation myth in the opening sentence, for instance, The biblical 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. It would also be consistent with most other pages on creation myths on Wikipedia (Chinese creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, etc., and the countless X mythology pages). Ben (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me and looks like a good compromise. Hans Adler 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for suggestions
I would like to ask willing opposing editors to provide a different suggestion each for the lead, to see what happens. Please provide your "suggested lead" without debate just as a paragraph. That will cost nothing, and it will be best to just obtain ideas first to hear what people think on their own. Please use a different suggestion each to get your own thoughts into the picture. Please just provide what you would like to see, regardless of the justifications. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made such a suggestion. Not sure why it was ignored. You are free to copy it here. Hans Adler 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry this page is so long I am not sure where it is. Could you please just type it here, remove my comment and yours and just leave it here as a starting item for a list. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "regardless of the justifications."
 * This is counter-productive. -- King Öomie  18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs

 * 1. Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. -- King Öomie 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * * 2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Replaced below:


 * 2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth─a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 3 Creation according to Genesis refers to the Creation Myth (Defined as a Religious or Supernatural story about the beginnings of life, the Earth and or universe ) found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 4. Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation narrative (formally 'myth') as found in the first two chapters of the Hebrew Bible. rossnixon 01:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This creation myth is regarded by some Christians and Jews as a literal and authoritative account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman. (redacted, see below) Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 5. Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth (defined as a supernatural story describing the origin of the universe, Earth, and life) found in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Auntie E. (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. The biblical 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. Ben (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 7. Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible, comprising one or more creation myths describing the origins of the universe and life from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 8. Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible and the first book of the Pentateuch. Handed down from ancient Judaism and preserved through oral kerygma, this creation account is shared by both Judaism and Christianity. Most Biblical scholars refer to Genesis as a creation myth with the underlying message of an God that is a part of all things. However, there are Scholars that would maintain a literal translation of the text. CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs with comments

 * Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. -- King Öomie 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- Barring stylistic changes to the presentation of the article title, but the back half of the statement is perfectly  fine.  -- King Öomie  17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. -- King Öomie  19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly Creation Myth Isn't a literary genre and what are the disputes over commonalities and differences? Isn't the Biblical Creation Myth a religious or supernatural story about how everything was created?  I'm pretty sure there's universal agreement by all parties on that one.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. It is really tedious to have to keep explaining the notion of "myth" and "creation myth" to people who couldn't be bothered to look it up on their own. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dab, that debate has taken place, N times on this page, with N growing rapidly. Now I am just gathering paragraphs from different users to show the wide range of opinions. Please let users suggest paragraphs for a day or two, just to see what they "like to see". That may just provide a better idea of user perspectives, which are obviously diverse. History2007 (talk)
 * No more policy discussion? Done with literary deconstruction? We're down to OPINIONS now? Irrelevant. I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you're presenting this debate as continuing ad nauseum. -- King Öomie  20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy and other discussions can take place all over this page of course. This list can grow in parallel - no extra charge. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some references to contemporary theologians, specifically supporting Afaprof01's version:     . But, I suppose these do not qualify as "theologians" by the "only those who agree with us are the true theologians" litmus test. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't think those are poor references at all but do have one issue with their relevence to the topic at hand. Their writings are not regarding the concept of creation as an interfaith topic.  Nobody is disputing that Christians or any faith for that matter think their Creation Myth is holy, sacred, beyond reproach etc... I have a hard time seeing the justification or need to say that Christians believe in and hold in high esteem stories in a book that chronicle their beliefs.  That's much akin to saying that fans of Star Trek hold the Star Trek series of TV shows and movies in high esteem.  Furthermore, The concept of the differences and similarities to other Creation Myths is out of place in the intro but would make an excellent section in the article and surely those sources you found would provide for a lot of interesting comparisons between the Abrahamic Religions and the rest of the assorted faiths out there.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation according to Genesis refers to the Creation Myth (Defined as a Religious or Supernatural story about the beginnings of life, the Earth and or universe ) found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view this one makes the most sense of the five listed so far. Gabbe (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This creation myth is regarded by some Christians and Jews as a literal and authoritative account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman.
 * If all that really matters on one side of the argument is that the word "myth" is not in the first sentence, and all that really maters on the other side is that the word "myth" not be relegated to some sort of marginalized scholarly opinion, why can't the first sentence avoid the word, and the second sentence start with the fact that the article refers to a creation myth? Everybody knows that Michael Jackson is the King of Pop, but it's not mentioned until the second sentence.  Is this really that difficult?  Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Half-way there. The 2nd part is to define creation myth as a literary genre not implying fiction or fantasy. Can you propose a way to do that as well? ─AFAprof01 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, see creation myth. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Michael Jackson article is about "an American singer, dancer, and entertainer", this article is about a creation myth. Ben (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And by that you suggest that it is not about a narrative, nor is it found in the opening two chapters? No one is trying to take away your precious myth descriptor.  (Well, at least at this point I assume they're not.)  All that is being asked is that it is introduced after the first sentence.  Is that too much of a concession to make? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about a creation myth, and you're asking that the article not tell readers this in the first sentence. Would you ask that the Michael Jackson article not tell readers that he was "an American singer, dancer, and entertainer" until the second sentence? Please tell me you see how silly this request is. Ben (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is "creation myth" the only apt descriptor that you can conjure for this topic? Why not "sacred narrative"?  Why not "historical account"?  Why not "ancient story"?  Why not "religious teaching"?  All fit the bill.  There are plenty of verifiable things that the reader is not told in the first sentence.  And the first sentence makes perfect sense without any of them. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the relevant experts refer to this articles topic as a creation myth why would we not? I'm not looking for information on any other terms, I would just like to know why we would not keep in line with the relevant experts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you failed to read the actual suggestion, it doesn't propose to eliminate the phrase "creation myth". It seeks merely to move it into the second sentence to assuage the (by my rough count on this page alone) ten or so editors who agree that it's out of place as an unqualified term in the opening sentence.  My math may be slightly off, but it seems that your horn of "the only place the term can go is immediately after the title" is only being tooted by 3 or 4 editors. Wouldn't you think a reasonable compromise would be to leave the term unqualified, but move it to the second sentence? It's still a highly relevant term if introduced 16 words later.  The only significant qualifiers before it in my suggestion are "narrative" and "Hebrew Bible". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase: This article is about a creation myth (per relevant experts), why would we not introduce the article as such? Ben (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question is invalid. My suggestion includes the use of "creation myth".  Therefore, we do introduce it as such.  My question still exists.  Why are you unwilling to allow the use of that word in the second sentence rather than the first? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My question is valid. You introduce the article's topic and only after that do you use the term creation myth. My question is centred around looking for a valid reason to do that. And I answered your question already: relevant experts describe this article's topic as a creation myth, and we should introduce the topic as such. Alternate terminology can be introduced later (after the introductory sentence) if the need arises. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By it's very definition this article describes a Creation Myth. "Sacred Narrative" or any of your other suggestions are not formal terms nor do they have academic definitions that apply to this article.  There is no valid reason to shift it down or minimalize it.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In my view, the big problem with this suggestion is that it puts the view that Genesis is "a literal and authoritative account" in the second sentence. This is a viewpoint held by a very small minority, not only in natural science but in Christianity, Judaism and general biblical scholarship as well. While this view might deserve mention somewhere in the article, bluntly putting it in the lead paragraph would go against WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, etc. Gabbe (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is why I think a different version merits consideration: In general, a good definition should not use the word being defined. Therefore, to start an article on the Fall of Man stating that it is a story about man's fall from a perfect state would be poor writing. In the same way, defining "Creation according to Genesis" as a creation myth... is redundant. That's why I proposed restating it to begin the second sentence.  A good definition requires a classifier and a differentiator.  The classifier tells the reader which bucket it's in, and the differentiator tells the reader how it's unlike the others in the bucket. It should avoid the use of "refers to", if possible.  Therefore, Creation according to Genesis is a narrative [classifier], found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible [differentiator]. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case the Classifier is Creation Myth which shouldn't sound redundant with the title of the article because it's actually referring to the story of Genesis 1-2 not "Creation according to Genesis" as some well used formal term. The differentiator is the Hebrew Bible which makes it a unique Creation Myth.  I do see your point about being redundant in definitions but I don't see Creation and Myth as seperate entities in the sentance but as one term.  Much in the same way I wouldn't oppose an article on "Electoral process in the United States" having the term Electoral College in it's opening paragraph or part of a definition.  If the title of the article was "Creation Myths of Genesis" then I think your point would be 100% valid.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Maher-shalal-hashbaz, did you see my suggestion above about the article title that would then allow us to accommodate both of our preferences? Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I would like to (A) recant my statement about numbers of editors favoring the opposing sides of this issue, and (B) offer another possible compromise.  It appears after careful study of the page that there are slightly more editors favoring the unqualified use of the term "creation myth" in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph. However, there are still a significant number of editors who oppose this term. While some may wish the term banned completely, the majority seem only to wish it qualified/defined, or desire to have it introduced later in the lead paragraph.  I would like to propose the following, which simply moves the term further within the first sentence, so that it is not the absolute first term the reader encounters.  Perhaps this will pass muster:
 * Creation according to Genesis is a narrative found in the opening two chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Bible, comprising one or more creation myths describing the origins of the universe and life from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, that sounds like it would satisfy both sides of this discussion. Very well written, I think.
 * Genesis contains more than one creation myth? If this is a way of implying "there's at least a creation myth (=formal term) in it, there might be a myth (=informal term) in there as well" then that would be against WP:WTA. We're not supposed to use this informal meaning of the word "myth". Gabbe (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation according to Genesis is a creation myth (defined as a supernatural story describing the origin of the universe, Earth, and life) found in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Auntie E. (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would really like a definition template on the article that one can click to after the words "creation myth" (in fact, I remember a compromise of the sort used in a situation like this) rather than the inline definition, but I think the definition should be on the page. Our goal should be to enlighten our readers. More information is a good thing. Auntie E. (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. While I tend to not be a fan of inline definitions after a formal term that is wikilinked to the article for said formal term (seems redundant to define something that can be clicked on and read for more detail) something additional seems to be required to reach consensus.  Also along the lines of following previous compromises why not add a FAQ section to the talk page that addresses any possible points of confusion?  Nefariousski (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef: How about selecting something additional from the list of items that are already agreed upon. I will start such a list below. Thanks for suggesting it. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FAQ sections on talk pages (even edit notices) only stop users capable of stopping to read. If you have WT:SIG watchlisted, you might notice that that isn't many. -- King Öomie  19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The biblical 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. Ben (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben's suggestion makes a lot of sense. It's bold, but accurate. It has the potential to appease all sides of the debate (depending on the wording you left out in the paranthesis). It's clearly in line with WP:WTA, WP:RNPOV, and other policies. It was suggested more than 15 hours ago and nobody has (yet) said they thought it was a bad idea. Gabbe (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible and the first book of the Pentateuch. Handed down from ancient Judaism and preserved through oral kerygma, this creation account is shared by both Judaism and Christianity. Most Biblical scholars refer to Genesis as a creation myth with the underlying message of an God that is a part of all things. However, there are scholars that would maintain a literal translation of the text. CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm open to comments. I have no agenda, just an interest in the area.I'm happy to add as many references as people would like.CapHammer (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like with the redacted suggestion above, the big problem with this is that it brings up the literalist interpretation crowd in the final sentence. This is a very small minority. It would be like saying "However, there are scholars that would maintain that Genesis was written by the lizard people from outer space". It's WP:UNDUE. Also, the ones calling Genesis a creation myth is not limited to Biblical scholars, but includes anthropologists, philosophers of religion, etc. How about changing "Most Biblical scholars" to "Academics"? Gabbe (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Gabbe! Re- Changing "Most Biblical scholars" to "Academics" - That's a great idea! I should have thought of that. The broader term does encompass the larger group of disciplines that see it as important mythologically. I agree with you observation. I do see your point about creationists, but creationism using Genesis as a basis is still a very real belief. Maybe we could concede the point by saying "A minority of scholars would maintain a literal translation of the text"? or "There are a small number of people..." From a perspective of a sociological hermeneutic, there are a number of laity as well as clergy who still teach Genesis as literal. Maybe this article should reflect that, as disagreeable as that may sound. Open to ideas! CapHammer (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 (revised) Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth─a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This makes a lot more sense than your previous version. However, I still find parts of it problematic. First of all, articles generally don't start off with "scholars frequently refer it by [...]" with no contrasting opinion. See WP:V: This kind of in-line attribution is what we typically do when the sources themselves are in conflict. If there's no conflict among reliable sources, we don't attribute - we just say. The wording you've suggested implies that there's something wrong or iffy with the term "creation myth". Now, I know that you feel that there is, but if you want to include this in the article (even by way of a vague implication) this needs to be substantiated by reliable sources. Do you have sources specifically saying that a notable amount of academics are opposed to labelling the Genesis account by the term "creation myth"?
 * The lead should say something about how the religions themselves view the creation account. But since opinions about "creation" really run the gamut there isn't much we can say except that it is interpreteted in a whole lot of ways, and listing the most prominent examples. I think your last sentence could be improved to clarify this point. Gabbe (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate this feedback, Gabbe. Thanks for taking the time to critique but also provide constructive suggestions. I have incorporated some in the proposal below. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a creation myth and also about a myth that is untrue
This is an article about the creation myth contained within the Book of Genesis. I do not understand why anyone would dispute this. In the arguments above and archived, all I see from those opposed to calling a spade a spade is that they are afraid that someone coming to this article and reading that the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth will think that Wikipedia is saying that the creation story in Genesis is untrue - even though that's not what the text "the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth" actually says. However, the creation story in Genesis is both a myth and untrue. So even the unintended consequences are okay. If someone comes away thinking that creation according to Genesis did not actually happen that way, that's good because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the natural history of the Earth or the universe corresponds to this myth. So what's the controversy about?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the side of this debate with a foot to stand on. -- King Öomie  21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's already hard enough to get certain editors to understand concepts like Proper Nouns, Wikipedia Policy, the concept of "context" and that sometimes words mean different things when combined with other words. While I appriciate and value additional comments let's try not to make too many inflammatory remarks.  This pot does not need further sirring.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To wit, I've been staying away from the Science side, myself, as it's really not needed, and only serves to fuel the debate  (as one more thing to misinterpret). As with any creation myth, science  doesn't need to disprove it for it to BE a creation myth.  -- King Öomie  21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FRINGE, we should not focus on the scientific inaccuracies in Genesis at all. However, what I'm saying is that the unintended consequences of not knowing what the definition of a term is and instead using a different definition align with the fact that the story contained in Genesis lacks basis in empirical fact (similar to the creation myths from other cultures and religions). So it seems to me that, perhaps unique among these sorts of arguments, the unintended consequence of calling this story a "creation myth" is actually a positive outcome in view of our goal to write an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia. Huzzah! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Nefariousski, which part of my remarks are inflammatory exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question at hand isn't one of "truth" since there is no doubt that this article will ever state that the story in Genesis is undenyably false (that's not the intent of the article). In fact the article shouldn't make any judgement regarding whether this particular (or any) Creation Myth is true or false.  I just don't want this to turn into a proxy debate for evolution v. creationism since those articles do the job just fine on their own.  The goal here is trying to reason with everyone to gain consensus that accurately describes the story in Genesis by its proper term as a Creation Myth and further polarizing the debate only pushes us further from that goal.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the lack of scientific support for this particular creation myth is incidental to the article itself, the fact that the unintended consequence that those opposed to calling this story a "creation myth" are citing is actually in line with the self-same lack of scientific support should be viewed as a positive feature rather than a problem. I'm actually proposing that the people arguing against you are in fact giving another argument supporting plain language description of this story as a creation myth. I don't think that this is particularly inflammatory. Though I will admit that some people find facts to be upsetting, I don't think that pointing out those facts is inflammatory. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for being less than clear. I personally don't find your words inflammatory but I guarantee that there are those who will only further intrench and drag this out because they do.  Furthermore we've done a good job of holding true to WP:RNPOV by expressly not making a judgement or veracity call one way or the other regarding this or any other Creation Myth and classifying them all the same as opposed to on their individual merits.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean "no chance" instead of "no doubt"? Just checkin.

Hmm, I do not read WP:RNPOV as saying that we should not make any judgment or veracity call in Wikipedia. In fact, treating any topic that ways flies in the face of neutrality (see WP:ASF). I do, however, agree that the simple fact that the literal account outlined in the mythology of Genesis is contradicted by scientific evidence is not all that relevant to an article trying to describe the mythology of Genesis since the intention of the ancient authors and many, if not a significant majority, of the religious adherents was/is not to align their account of creation mythology to modern scientific evidence. It seems to me that those arguing against a plain categorical statement that this topic is a creation myth are arguing from the perspective of a "protected belief" in the literal veracity of the account since we often use the term "myth" in a colloquial sense to distinguish empirical reality from imaginative storytelling. But that's just it, the very protected belief that these people are arguing we must consider is itself contradicted by plain facts. Thus, we have a very problematic current version of the lede using a completely indefensible particular attribution of the term "creation myth" to "scholars" when, in fact, there are no reliable sources on the subject of Genesis 1 and 2 contradicting that categorization. While the article itself may not necessarily touch on the veracity or lack thereof associated with particular features of these myths, to point out that the stories are false is simply another data point in the discussion and shouldn't be avoided just because some wrong-headed editor might become "entrenched" in an indefensible editorial position. Either we're writing a serious encyclopedia or we're not. I'm not going to pussyfoot around uncomfortable facts just to accommodate people who believe things that can be demonstrably shown to be untrue, especially not when the fact that those beliefs are false is directly relevant to arguments the other side presents. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to create a section on the criticisms of Genesis then feel free to WP:BEBOLD and do so. The only thing I ask is that we focus on one outstanding issue at a time and not muddy the waters. Seemingly simple logical arguements are confounding some of our editors here and they're taking offense where absolutely none exists. I'm not advocating pussyfooting around or placating anyone but on the other hand consensus is the cost of doing business around these parts and there's no IQ test or other prerequisite requirement that has to be passed before taking part in building said consensus so lets keep this simple, linear and deal with one outstanding issue at a time before moving on to more. Nefariousski (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with criticism sections as a general rule. The waters, in my opinion, have been muddied by people trying to accommodate people who have demonstrable agendas which run counter to the goal of writing a verifiable, neutral, and well-sourced encyclopedia. Look at it this way: a bunch of editors are complaining that calling Genesis a "creation myth" without particular attribution might make readers think that Wikipedia is asserting that the literal account of Genesis is not true. The question I have is, "why is that a bad thing?" I'm not saying that this is automatically the interpretation one must take, but even considering these opponents at their word leads us to outcomes that we should be happy to have at a reliable, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Trust me on this one, there has been no accomodation, the edits to the current language were completely unilateral just prior to page protection. Nefariousski (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion. By the way, my simple mind has a problem digesting the Wikipedia article on Falsifiability which relates to here in the context of your esteemed use of the words "true" and "false" in a two valued sense. And being an ignoramus, I also need help in cleaning up this article on Indeterminacy, which other esteemed scientific colleagues here have previously spelled as undeteminacy - but what do I know. Any help in clarifying things for my simple mind will be appreciated, since I still seem to have a problem here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A creation myth is by definition unfalsifiable. Science doesn't enter into it at all. So this is a pointless digression. Auntie E. (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen and thank you. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a means for clarification for History2007, if someone says, "the Moon was formed after the Earth's oceans", that statement is false. If someone says, "the Earth's oceans formed after the Moon", that statement is true. Creation myths as a concept are unfalsifiable since the truth-value of the myth is not necessarily the interpretive value of the story. However, many literal statements about about natural history derived from this creation myth are false. There is no debate in the reliable sources over this fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I am not as dumb as I would like to be. I know all that. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Then I guess you are now convinced that since there are giant aspects of the story which are prima facie false, we shouldn't worry about readers coming away from the article with that impression. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RNPOV very specifically states that we aren't to worry about people mistaking the formal meaning of a word for its colloquial meaning, so even outside the science argument, you are right the hell on. -- King Öomie  19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist raises a really good point. A creation myth has no truth value, but in the event a reader comes to this article and interprets the term creation myth as assigning a scientific truth value to the claims made in the myth, well, this interpretation is unintended, but it is still correct. Why worry about the unintended interpretation then unless you're trying to hide an scientifically obvious fact? Ben (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would that be "a scientific fact" or "an scientific" fact? But, logically speaking, it does have a truth value, although said value may not be in the set {true, false}. But don't let me get started on Multi-valued logic now... I could write predicates for ever... As an aside, the value it gets does not need to come from a three valued logic and just be "unknown" for there are multiple shades of decidability, indeterminacy, etc...., If you like, after all this is done, I can provide a correspondence course in formal logic for those interested.... But the long and short of it is: Auntie is right. Let us drop this. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not feasible to scientifically disprove an unscientific, unfalsifiable claim. Thus, such ventures are fruitless. Nevertheless,  the current weight of scientific evidence and thought stands  diametrically opposed to the notion of a supernatural creator of ANY  religion.  -- King Öomie  02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the right word would be "possible" rather than feasible, given the rest of your sentence. History2007 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's functionally no difference, unless you're of the opinion that the latter word grants more credibility to the religious standpoint (an opinion I soundly and firmly reject). -- King Öomie  06:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually your majesty, they are not equivalent, in that "not feasible" includes the possibility of being possible, while "not possible" excludes the possibility of being feasible. And I think you meant "no functional difference" in the above since again, as I pointed out before, the use of an adverbs there was less than proper. By the way, is functional difference a new linguistic construct I need to learn about? Or did you mean "semantically equivalent"? Thank you and Long Live the King. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing indeterminate about the fact, for example, that the Moon formed before the oceans. If people come away from this article thinking that the order of creation as described in the first few verses of Genesis is not true (which, I agree, is not the same thing as false, but then, the truth-value for a myth is actually "not true" rather than "false") then we've done them no disservice. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the calculus of multi-valued truth values does not work that way. You are still thinking in a two valued format..... I guess the details will have to be provided later in my correspondence course on formal logic mentioned above..... Or you could read a book about it beforehand.... History2007 (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your red herring about "multi-valued truth values" (which surely wins an award from the Department of Redundancy Department) does not have any bearing on the facts I pointed out. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The unfalsifiable claim I refer to is the notion of a supernatural being creating the heavens and earth over a period of a week. Obviously the specifics are open to scientific interpretation. -- King Öomie  06:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In a dumb Omphalos hypothesis sense, I guess that claim is unfalsifiable. But it certainly violates Ockham's razor, or, at the very least, is a Russell's teapot idealization that can be dismissed as a fairy tale in any case. Of course, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the heaven and earth did not come into existence over the period of a week. In that sense, the hypothesis can be falsified. But this is pure digression at this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the evidence for the cosmos not having been created in a week can be dismissed using the same mechanisms with which all conspiracy theories dismiss facts. We only need to assume that an omnipotent being planted fake evidence to confuse us. (Sorry, I couldn't refrain from adding to this digression.) Hans Adler 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the point of Omphalos, certainly. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that a "God did it to test our faith", "The devil did it to tempt us", or a "God works in mysterious ways"?  I never could understand which canned rebuttal applied where.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip Henry Gosse, it seems, thought that the natural world just worked better with the appearance of age. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A myth is not "untrue", a myth is a myth. Falsehood only begins to creep in when misguided individuals try to defend a myth as an account aiming at factuality. A myth states what is "true" as opposed to the merely factual. If you believe truth and factuality are the same, you should perhaps read the truth article. Truth is an innate human emotional or moral judgement. Factuality is the materialist attempt to detach the exterior world from emotional and moral judgement. You cannot blame a bit of Iron Age Hebrew mythology for the stupidity of some modern interpreters, the Iron Age mythological text remains what it is, an Iron Age mythological text. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ^This. Science-minded individuals had little interest in arguing against religious stories before their supporters began to shoehorn the religion into the science. -- King Öomie  13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some 'popular' definitions of 'myth' according to Google and Bing:
 * an unproved or false collective belief
 * any invented story
 * an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
 * fiction, fantasy, talltale
 * e.g., urban myth
 * It surely is incorrect to say A myth is not "untrue". Some reasons why labeling a Bible passage that way without defining "myth" is so offensive to those for whom the Bible is sacred (like me). As a scientist and as a follower of Jesus Christ, I've never found the two incompatible. There are many interpretations of Genesis 1-2 besides literal.
 * Sadly, some who make such a sport out of guffawing a Creator God and his son Jesus Christ (who believed the Genesis Creation account) may find it a bit awkward to meet their Maker in a time of judgment. That's certainly a time one cannot say, "Get outta my way. YOU didn't make ME!" Even if you don't believe in and honor/respect the Creator God, why work so hard to offend those who do? Let's don't play games: that is what is going on here. In this life, it's each person's human right to decide for themselves what they believe. It's really sad when scoffers, some in the name of being "apologists," are so uncouth in making fun of believers, their personal faith, their Creator, and their Bible.


 * To label the Creation narratives "myth" without explanation is essentially saying the whole Bible is "myth," because the Genesis narratives are reaffirmed throughout the entire Bible&mdash;both Old and New Testaments. Just for the record, they are affirmed by Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark,. Was he delusional?  Those narratives are also affirmed in  ; ; ; ;, , ; ; ; , and others. &mdash;AFAprof01 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about you try the exact same search with "Creation Myth" and come back to us with the definitions and citiations... Nobody is using the stand alone word "myth".  Nor are we using it out of context or in a way that patently leads people to belive we're using it informally.  Feel free to read my "The Electoral College is not an institute of higher learning just because it contains the word College" arguement above.  Proper nouns have distinct definitions apart from their component nouns.  As a "Scientist" I would expect you to understand that concept.


 * I seriously doubt "Divine Retribution" is a valid arguement against using the phrase Creation Myth. This is not the place to preach.  You'll have much better luck here.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Afaprof, I think you are not going to get people on the other side of the table to change their minds by quoting from the New Testament. As for "why work so hard" they all have different reasons, but given that people are so passionate about it on both sides of the table means that the reasons are deeply buried in the respective mindsets and are unlikely to change. History2007 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What is actually being disputed here?
First off, does anyone here actually dispute the fact that contained within the first part of Genesis is a "creation myth" as formally defined? I'd like a show of hands. As far as I can see, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is an established fact not in dispute. Auntie E. (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Auntie E.I do not object to "creation myth" being in the article&mdash;provided (a) that it is not placed in such a prominent place as the 3rd/4th words after the title; and (b) some explanation of what "creation myth" means as a literary genre, rather than allowing an assumption or suggestion that the use of "myth" implies a fantasy or fable. I've attempted to do that in my proposed first paragraph. &mdash;AFAprof01 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this creation myth not a fantasy or a fable exactly? Please provide a reliable source which shows that creation as accounted in Genesis is not a fantasy or fable. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose a trade: 7 suggestions for a lead paragraph, then I will say what I think. That is a promise. History2007 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Say what you think? Have you been holding back? -- King Öomie 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Roll up folks. Not enough choices added to the List_of_suggested_paragraphs yet! rossnixon 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * History2007, please, this is a serious conversation. Your sarcasm and cutesy terms in referring to others seem designed to provoke, and it's becoming difficult to take you seriously. Do you honestly wish for me to make seven suggestions for a lead sentence before you even tell me what you consider the facts to be? Really? I did add one proposed lead sentence which I thought I had added before (but didn't), with commentary. If you object, please tell me why, but in a straight man style. Auntie E. (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not asking you for 7 suggestions Auntie, but asked the general public, namely the 20,000 people a month who click on this page. And it did help generate more suggestions. As for my being lectured on being cutesy, is it not unfair that you do not lecture those who use words like fool, crazy people and voodoo? That might suggest that you prefer some nephews to others. Is that not the definition of Nepotism in fact? In any case, thanks for making a suggestion. My initial proposed trade now just needs 3 more suggestions. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (sorta off topic) That's not exactly 20k people per month – only that many visits. Also, by your reckoning, one could argue that only 2,000 people have actually been to this page this month (and even less the month before).


 * Sure, I agree with your statement. Ben (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. -- King Öomie  02:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * King agrees with Ben? I am in shock! History2007 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What point does this remark have? Please see disruptive editor and decide whether you fit the bill, History2007. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ^This. I'm sick of it, History2007. Ben and I agree because we've both read and understood the policy. Perhaps you can join us? -- King Öomie  04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this an invitation for me to join the team of "Ben and the King"? Alas, I think we have fundamental differences on your use of adverbs to modify nouns (as pointed out in the posts above), so I would probably not fit into your team. Add to that my differing views on muli-valued truth values discussed above and I doubt we could have a fit. But I do thank you, your majesty, and Long Live the King. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you to stop nit-picking my writing style. We aren't on terms anywhere NEAR good enough for me not to take that as harassment. -- King Öomie  19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a way forward? Everybody agrees that Genesis is a "creation myth" (at least when careful to note the word's non-colloquial meaning). Afaprof01, History007, et al. disagree with using the term creation myth in the lead without commentary, but they don't disagree with the appropriateness of the word itself as a description of the article subject. Given that, I see a handful of ways in which this debate might (realistically) end: The latter has been suggested by Auntie E and Nefariousski above. I know that Afaprof01/History007/etc. would prefer to have the article not use the word "creation myth" in the lead at all, but I think that is an unrealistic ambition. I believe they could agree with #3, depending on how the in-line explanation is phrased. Similarly, ScienceApologist, I know that you think #1 is a good idea, I assume you're OK with #2 as well. But would #3 be acceptable with you, per WP:JARGON?
 * 1) Describing Genesis as a creation myth in the lead, with no further commentary (other than a wikilink). This seems to result in perennial edit-wars.
 * 2) Describing Genesis as a creation myth in the lead, with an explanation of the meaning of "creation myth" provided in a footnote. I suggested this above, but my suggestion did not seem to have met wide acceptance.
 * 3) Describing Genesis as a creation myth in the lead, with an in-line explanation of the meaning of "creation myth".

If so, then this discussion is really about how to provide the in-line explanation of the term "creation myth" without bloating the lead. Gabbe (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gabbe, I do not know about AfaProf's preference but what I wonder is "why the lead has to be so telegraphic". Is there a shortage of keystrokes to expand it? Given the extreme brevity of this talk page, maybe... But more seriously, why can there be no statement in the lead that says what Jews and Christians have taught for centuries? That is a well referenced fact and clearly relevant to the book. Jewish and Christian "teachings" have included specific items about the Book of Genesis. The words to express that can be selected later, but why can there be no mention of that in the telegram, excuse me, I mean the lead? Would you like to make a suggestion to that effect Gabbe in the list above? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You ask "why can there be no statement in the lead that says what Jews and Christians have taught for centuries?" Short answer is: Depending on what you mean by "what Jews and Christians have taught", that viewpoint might not be notable enough to warrant mention in this article's lead section. Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with including an explanation of the term "creation myth", so long as it's short, unobtrusive and subtle. Making sure we don't offend creationist readers unnecessarily is OK. Doing it in an obvious way is not OK because it would give undue weight to creationism (and thereby offend readers who are not creationists). To quote from WP:UNDUE:
 * "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
 * The subject in this case is the biblical creation myth as a text. Creationism is significant enough in this context to get its own section, but not enough to shape the first lead of the article in any significant way other than by its being mentioned. Hans Adler 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Hans, I was not referring to the modern concept of creationism as defined in Wikipedia. I was referring to centuries of Jewish and Christian "teachings" before creationism became well defined as a "side" in the debate against science. Creationism seems to include specific rejections of biology etc. while said teachings existed before biology was defined as a branch of science. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant that these "teachings" that you vaguely refer to predate biology as a branch of science? Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of the fact that until some time in the 19th century most western scientists took the biblical creation myth for granted as a historical account. This is just one of countless misconceptions that were once current in the academic community and have been revised. These obsolete misconceptions don't shape how reliable sources write about these subjects now, and they don't shape how Wikipedia writes about these subjects. E.g. the anachronistic proponents of humorism have no influence at all on the lead of myocardial infarction, as you can easily verify. Hans Adler 09:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * History2007 refers to the medieval scholarly mainstream. Medieval scholarship is indeed a venerable encyclopedic topic in its own right, but Wikipedia does not accept medieval scholarship as expert opinion to be juxtaposed controversially with modern scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually dab my goal was not to encourage medieval scholarship, but to reduce the "contempt for religion" tone that permeates this talk page (e.g. via the use of words and phrases such as "crazy people", "voodoo", "nonsense", etc.) The Captain & Tennille team has used the word "fool" to refer to a humble soul like myself more than once, and the local representative of the German state seems to like the word "crazy people". This has then been reflected in the attempts to craft a lead that in the name of scholarship denigrates the Book of Genesis. The decorative reasoning provided quotes science, policy, etc. They have not used global warning as an excuse yet, but give them time.... But the tone is unmistakable. If you have a solution, please make a suggestion in the list of suggested paragraphs above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop blanking the default section-linked edit summary when you post. This page is close 150k- it's extremely inconvenient to not even be able to tell what SECTION you're posting in. I brought this up on your talk page, but you opted instead to blank the section with no response. -- King Öomie 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction- closer to 250k. -- King Öomie  15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To your comment: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Creation Myth is NOT a value judgement, so there is NO 'denigration'. The issue here is that you're intent on replacing a neutral value-statement with a POSITIVE one, in the name of "npov". Kind of reminds me of the attitude over at Conservapedia- if it doesn't actively promote Jesus, it might as well be satanism. -- King Öomie 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it may imply a value judgement. As in, a high value, as opposed to, say, "Creation according to Genesis is an item of US Bible Belt folklore". --dab (𒁳) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * to History2007, you appear to think that the current lead section "denigrates the Book of Genesis". If you wish us to take this for anything other than an idle personal sentiment, please substantiate this opinion, preferably based on quotable sources. In my opinion, the 25 centuries old Hebrew text is denigrated by people who attempt to abuse it for petty squabbles of religious ideology of the 21st century. This is a venerable, encyclopedic piece of Iron Age literature and I resent the attempt to smuggle items of current affairs into its discussion. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion above that allows your third suggestion to happen in a stylistically reasonable way. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is actually agreed upon here?
Nef made a good comment above that made me think of the positive version of the section above. Namely, what is actually agreed upon here. I see a few items, and please suggest others. Wordings are secondary here, so those can change later:


 * This article is about the the text found in the first two chapters of a specific book. I think that is obviously true. That book is Genesis.


 * Most (if not almost all) modern scholars label it with the technical term "creation myth". I think that is not 100% agreed upon, but is probably true (although I have not done a survey of all scholars) and is certainly well referenced.


 * ''Several people have agreed to include a definition of "creation myth" along with a hyperlink.


 * As Auntie first stated and many others agreed thereafter, creation myths are in general not falsifiable. That is logically true and also agreed upon above.


 * Some IP will come out of nowhere in 18 months and change a lot of this anyway.

Are there other items here that are generally agreed upon? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * People other than scholars label this story as a creation myth as well including some people who profess belief in the story.


 * Commentators generally acknowledge that there are two distinct myths that can be distinguished from close analysis of the ancient Hebrew text.


 * There are parallels and distinctions that can be made between this creation myth and others written in similar time periods in nearby locations.


 * Certain claims derived from literal interpretations of the text (for example, the claim that the oceans were formed before the Moon) are directly contradicted by scientific evidence. However, this fact may not necessarily be relevant to the lead section.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that after all this time, it can be agreed upon that the term creation myth (wherever it first appears in the lead paragraph) can stand unqualified (so long as it is wikilinked). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should make it clear that I meant "what has been agreed upon here so far". So whatever may be debated and agreed upon separately in the future is another issue. E.g. I am not sure oceans have been discussed at length here. I am trying to make a list of items that already have consensus among those debating here. I still see these items as the ones I started with. Are there any others that have clear consensus among the editors here? History2007 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with any of the statements I think are uncontroversial and I think generally have consensus, please let them be known. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you agree with them. According to our consensus ideals, it is not necessary to have an endless debate to establish consensus. Some proposals are simply things that are uncontroversial enough that the consensus of reasonable editors is to agree with them. I believe my proposed additions to the list are perfectly fine in that regard and I submit they all represent clear and unambiguous consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I did not see any items that "I" would call error prone in most of your list Apologist, but I do not see some of them discussed here. But I do see some of your items as diving into way too much detail right now. My goal was to come up with a list of top level items which would form the basis of a consensus. Adding detail will make the debate go into 2012. History2007 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is nothing you disagree with in my list, then I think we're okay. Let's wait for someone to object for real rather than just as a hypothetical exercise. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not rubber stamp it, but as I said it has too much detail, and there are a couple of things I do not agree on, but not big deals. History2007 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if you're not willing to point out the specific details with which you disagree, then there is no actionable objection to the list and we have consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether you call this a "creation myth" has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or Jew, but whether you happen to understand the concept of creation myth. The people driving this "discussion" consistently fail to make clear what they think is the problem. The current reading of the lead, "This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars" is utter nonsense and flies in the face of the established revision. Everybody considers this "a religious account of creation", that is what a creation myth is for crying out loud. The suggestion that there is a dichotomy between Christians and Jews on one hand and scholars on the other is uttrerly ridiculous. The implication being that you cannot be educated and religious at the same time. The suggestion that there is a dichotomy between "religious account of creation" and "creation myth" is even more ridiculous. This entire exercise is a disgrace. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Current agreements/options and move to consensus
It seems that now the differing views have been expressed in multiple forms in this list and a set of stable elements has emerged from which a consensus may be crafted. There are 8 suggested leading paragraphs now and they overlap enough that they just leave 2 main options with a secondary variation as follows.

First, the agreements:


 * Agreement1: Everyone agrees (reluctantly or otherwise) with the use of the term creation myth. There is no longer the need for "any debate" on that.


 * Agreement2: Everyone agrees that this article is about (or refers to, etc.) the Book of Genesis. There is no longer the need for "any debate" on that.

Next, the variations:


 * Option1: The lead first mentions the term creation myth, then the Book of Genesis.


 * Option2: The lead first mentions the Book of Genesis, then the term creation myth.

Next, the definition variation:


 * Some people prefer a definition of the term creation myth within the lead, others prefer not to have it.

There seems to be some support for a discussion of Jewish/Christian views, although most editors here seem to prefer to skip that.

To a newcomer to the scene this would look very close to consensus and further debate would be much ado about nothing. I think the key issue is the selection of Option1 vs Option2. Technically, these are semantically equivalent, i.e. "A and B" is the same as "B and A". But I think people on different sides of the table will argue for Option 1 vs Option2 based on the impact on the reader in that seeing the word creation myth first may have a different effect than seeing it later. But apart from wording that seems to be the only point of contention. If that issue can be resolved, then there is consensus.

Furthermore, some of the items from the second list of "agreed upon items" may find their way into the top section, and in fact "give and take" on that will probably lead to consensus. Comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * History2007, this is a very well-done analysis and systhesis. I for one appreciate it. &mdash;AFAprof01 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point, I think the correct thing to do is revert back to the version that this page had before the December edit wars and then move forward with proposed revisions rather than trying to decie between different options. That's the easiest way forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That would almost certainly restart the February edit wars. Why avoid a discussion of consensus? History2007 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After your warring to the current revision, and subsequent protection request, I find your protest disingenuous. -- King Öomie  14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I have only done 3 edits to this article ever, one of which was a typo fix. So I have edited this article only twice, a few days apart. But I would like to add art later. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We can ask an administrator to enforce an article parole on this page to prevent the edit wars. It shouldn't be too hard. I really encourage rolling back to the last stable version and moving forward slowly. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you have made your preference clear. Let us see why anyone else wants or does not want to achieve or discuss consensus. History2007 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion can continue, but in the absence of the threat of an edit war, this page shouldn't be full-protected. I'd suggest downgrading to semi-protection. -- King Öomie  15:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from ScienceApologist, the suggestion to unprotect is put forward by and myself above. For what it's worth, he and I are both administrators, though I'm unsure whether everyone here would count us as "uninvolved" considering we've been discussing here on this talk page. Anyway, we could try unprotecting the page and putting it on WP:1RR for about a week or so, to see what happens. If chaos breaks out anyway, we could always protect the page again. As I've said, I'm all for consensus-building, but continuing with these endless walls of text on this talk page won't build any more consensus than we already have. Gabbe (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been fairly impartial. dab has spoken up. Personally, as long as they're backed by policy, I don't care how involved an admin is when they take action. Obviously there are exceptions, like wikistalking to find an excuse to block someone they disagree with. Alright, so, backed by policy and abiding by WP:DICK :P -- King Öomie  15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who originally complained about the edit warring and 3RR violation here, which resulted in the current page protection. I'd support unprotect and 1RR at this point. I'm also an admin, but I've been active in the talk page discussion. Since unprotected is the preferred stautus and 1RR is still quite restrictive, I think it would be acceptable for one of you to make the change after notifying the original admin who protected the page.--agr (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally I'd like to ask that we consider adding a FAQ box to the top of this talk page So that we don't end up having to rehash this whole discussion every couple of weeks when a new group of editors come across the page. Nefariousski (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An ounce of prevention, certainly- but as I said above, it would likely not have much of an affect. WT:SIG is a testament to people ignoring the hell out of edit notices- and people will ignore just about anything to stay offended when religion is in play. Nonetheless, draft it and post it, you'll receive no complaint from me. -- King Öomie 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming it's going to quell anyone's feelings of righteous indignation. I'd just rather have it available so when responding to tired arguements editors can just post "Read the FAQ, section blah blah blah".  Not to mention those more biblically learned cound contribute to the FAQ regarding the actual topic of Genesis so that the FAQ could benefit those actually coming to this article to read about the Creation Myth and it's various interpretations and messages.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with reverting the article backward to anything. Let's work with what we have.
 * Recommend that we do not remove protection until we have selected a single paragraph which a clear majority accept. It's unlikely that unanimity is possible. Then, let's ask an uninvolved SysOp to substitute that paragraph in the article and then change to semi-protection (registered users only). &mdash;AFAprof01 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the AfaProf strategy. Going backwards would only result in an attempt to remake an online version of Back to the Future. I think there have been enough remakes of that movie. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "What we have" is a logic rubiks cube. Let's NOT work with that. Either you read it, understand the meaning and become confused as to why anyone would phrase it that way, or you DON'T understand they're the same and get the wrong impression of religious people, scholars, or both.
 * "A bicycle, known to riders as a two-wheeled transportation device[1][2][3], and to engineers as a transportation device with two wheels[4][5][6][7], is a self-propelled vehicle utilizing two wheels for locomotion[8]." Yes, surely this is the best starting point. -- King Öomie  19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't give Undue weight to terms or phrases that don't have formal definitions. Colloquial terms used by a single group of people don't warrant equal footing to broadly used formal academic terms.  We don't put the word "Jesus Horse" in the article about Dinosaurs just because some people believe that Dinosaurs existed along side mankind and are offended at stating the fact that they went extinct millions of years before mankind came to be.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A revision of earlier #2, taking into account some suggestions and criticism:
 * 2 Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars frequently refer it by its literary genre, creation myth&mdash;a neutral term that takes no position on accuracy or inspiration. Jews and Christians in varying degrees esteem the text as religious authority while interpreting it in a wide variety of ways. &mdash;AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out, 'myth' to some implies inaccuracy and uninspired by a divinity. The literal&mdash;allegorical controversy among adherents represents a huge chasm. IMO, we are doing a great service to the large remainder of the article to make it "perfectly clear" (with apologies to R. Nixon) that the article is committed to neutrality, that myth doesn't imply real or imaginary, that the article takes no position on the wide range of interpretations of the passage. Hopefully, then, it will be accepted without defensiveness on anyone's part. The fact that we (collectively) have worked VERY hard to desensitize the lede is "proof pudding" that we editors are committed to go out of our way, when necessary, to "stick to just the facts" (another apology to the original Dragnet).
 * PERSONAL NOTE: To the extent that I have offended some of you personally, I humbly apologize. One of my many human frailties is that when I perceive personal attack, I get defensive. That's not appropriate here. I sincerely regret my errors. &mdash;AFAprof01 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "As has been pointed out, 'myth' to some implies inaccuracy and uninspired by a divinity."
 * WP:RNPOV makes it clear that we are to completely ignore this. As a general request to you, Bugs, History, Til, etc, PLEASE stop bringing this issue up. A wikilink should be sufficient to point confused readers on their way- your inline definition (or disclaimer, from the look of it) is superfluous. To wit, WP:NDA. -- King Öomie 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the fact that the current debate has this form simply confirms that going backwards will be an attempt to remake Back to the Future. And I think that will then start a secondary debate on who will play Marty McFly, and that will also be a long debate. So we should try to resolve things now. History2007 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a resolution- change it back to the way it was before this mess started, because the complaints of those involved are entirely unfounded. To continue your analogy, this is the equivalent of four editors becoming VERY incensed that Marty McFly doesn't make it clear the character was played by Martin Sheen- and attempting to reach a compromise in which the lede states that Michael J Fox quite resembles Martin Sheen, but is in fact a different person. (At least one, and possibly two of those editors are still convinced that Mr. Sheen played the character, but they have tired of the debate). -- King Öomie 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus proposal (moving forward)
I submit that there is a consensus to remove protection, revert back to this version, and proceed slowly with 1RR and [{WP:BRD]]. I submit that User:Dbachman, User:Gabbe, User:Nefariousski, User:Kingoomieiii, User:Ben Tillman, User:Hans Adler, User:Aunt Entropy, and myself all agree with this idea (though I'd like to reconfirm). I submit that User:Afaprof01 and User:History2007 disagree with this approach. However, consensus is not unanimity and 8 in favor with 2 opposed is pretty good.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so fast - the discussion has taken place for a very short period of time and still continues. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We can continue to discuss even while we remove protection, revert, institute 1RR, and follow WP:BRD. These are not mutually exclusive events, but it is clear to me you and Afaprof01 are in the minority and, sadly, sometimes the minority must get out of the way so that we can move on. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorse this motion with the fiery approval of a million suns. -- King Öomie 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * King, I got from you the idea of reworking my proposed paragraph (above). I would appreciate feedback on New Option 2 before we unprotect. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Too wordy. The long 'myth' explanation could be covered by "(formally myth)" as per my suggestion option 4. rossnixon 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Prof, I bet you a nickle to a doughnut they will not buy that. History2007 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'm not opposed. Ben (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is opposed to civil discourse and feedback on any of the proposals. Nefariousski (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just reconfirming per the first comment. Ben (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa there, are you sure that's the right version you are linking to? I'm not going to agree to a version that censors the words "creation myth". I think the clear majority find this edition closer to the mark. Auntie E. (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. Although I would personally prefer one of the early January versions that doesn't have the comparison to the Koran in the second sentance since it seems a little misplaced in an intro.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just echoing what dab suggested. I figured after we restored the new version we could work in new versions of the lead. I'm fine with Auntie E.'s version or with Nefariousski's version, so don't let me stand in your way! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this version, and not with this version. I would very strongly oppose the latter.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So being that pretty clear consensus has been built around what revision to start with has been established without any dissent for the past day why don't we roll back to said version already? Nefariousski (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Oh, no! Not AFAprof01 again!" Sorry, 'tis I. I am concerned about roll back to &oldid=337109226. That's where it was before the huge debate and debacle. Although I wrote the present version, I wrote it based on what seemed to be consensual attitudes on that day. It reflects some of the thinking and compromise that came through the blood, sweat and tears. Starting with where it was before "the war" is not unlike erasing the 38th parallel. Canadian Christian theologian, apologist and author Clark Pinnock writes:

I'm surprised that neither I nor anyone else thought to call attention to the Wiki article Christ myth theory (sometimes called the Christ myth, Jesus myth, or nonexistence hypothesis). Its lede defines it as the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person. Since there is major precedence for using the word "myth" in such a negative manner, is it little wonder that the term is so offensive to many of us? Is it so completely implausible that the word "myth" with the "Creation" prefix is prone to conjure up visions of fable, fairy story, and superstition?

Today, taking into account many of the objections and suggestions that have been raised, I would write it something like this as an amendment to my proposals:

─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Pinnock quotes is interesting, and in my view could be included somewhere in the article, perhaps even in the lead. The comparison between "Genesis creation myth" and "Christ myth theory" merits a lengthier response. I think the most meaningful difference is the level of acceptance among experts. While most historians are in a consensus opinion that Jesus was a historical person with an actual, literal existance (with a slight minority of the opinion that he was merely a literary character), the opinion among experts regarding the creation account in Genesis is the opposite. With Genesis, most are of the opinion that it is a not a literal account of an historical phenomenon, but a literary device meant to explain how the world came about. What I mean to say is, it would be undue weight for us to claim that Jesus did not literally exist, but it would not be undue weight to imply that Genesis is not to be read literally. The latter is not the same as saying that "Genesis is false".
 * The term "Christ myth theory" is used to describe the theory that Christ is a mere literary character, rather than a literally existing factual and historical individual. This theory is not widely held to be true. The term "Genesis creation myth" is used to describe an account that is widely regarded (among scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, etc.) to be more literary than literal. Gabbe (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote it based on what seemed to be consensual attitudes on that day. - Afaprof01  Laughable at best, and in more ways than one. Anyway, since ScienceApologist's original post seems consistent with the responses here, I'll put in a request that this be carried through. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoration to this version and unprotection so we can move forward per the above discussion. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Version restored. For the sake of a few hours I don't think it's worth removing the protection. Please continue to discuss things on the talk page after the protection expires. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no ongoing discussion. I just see User:History2007 making coy remarks all over the place in violation of WP:TALK. We need to restore the last stable version of this article. If anybody wants to set off a bona fide discussion after that, they are certainly most welcome to do that. --dab (𒁳) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with this version? It includes both sides, is neutral in tone and reliably referenced. Why the POV pushing for including only a "myth" lede? 140.247.38.208 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that "creation myth" is the best wording for two reasons. First, because it is the literary genre of the work, and thus is important for the same reason that it's important that Stranger in a Strange Land is identified in the lede as as science fiction novel.  And the reason I think that's important (besides clearly locating the work within its genre) is that it allows for the link to our article on Creation myths, so readers can link to similar works from other traditions- that will be very useful for readers using this article for research or curiosity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There have been about 3 pages written so far about why it is inappropriate to split scholars and the religious on this issue, as there is no real separation. -- King Öomie  21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, it does not have to parallel science fiction novel. It has been pointed out many times that the characterization of Genesis 1-3 as a “mythic” text can make some people uneasy. This is largely due to the fact that in our American culture, “myth” has become synonymous with “not true,” according to theologian, apologist and author Clark Pinnock. We should have two objectives here: 1) be NPOV, 2) state facts correctly. It has been pointed out that Wiki is not seeking "truth," but "facts." What does it hurt to use a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, à la Mary Poppins? ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of your points, 1 and 2, are already satisfied. You're asking us to bias this article in favour of American culture, but that is greatly frowned upon. Ben (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, 'myth' means the same thing in the US. My middle-school students have some of the same questions when I talk about creation myths, and I tell them, "a myth is a story that people somewhere, sometime, believed was true, and that tries to explain why the world is the way it is.  Whether it's true or not is not even important."  My 12-year-old students understand this, and so do most Christian and Jewish people- even in America.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Afaprof01: I think you are absolutely correct in that using the term "creation myth" we are bound to make some people uneasy, just like Pinnock says. And I also think Pinnock could be an appropriate and academic source for citing something in the article (perhaps even in the lead) to the effect "usage of the term myth makes some uneasy" or something more properly worded. But that is not, by itself, a sufficient justification for not using the term. WP:RNPOV (part of WP:NPOV) expliticly 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) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Afa, I have, personally, just me, quoted that portion of RNPOV directly at your text digestion apparatus AT LEAST five times. It specifically outlines why your concerns are irrelevant. Why do you continue to bring them up? I would point you to WP:ICANTHEARYOU. -- King Öomie  00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One person's spoonful of sugar is another person's spoonful of crap. Using kiddie gloves to touch the subject of Genesis while using the sometimes harsh gloves of reality for all other faiths makes the adherents of Christianity and Judaism warm and fuzzy and just riles everyone else.  That's the whole point of WP:WTA and WP:RNPOV.  That's not to use the old adage "You can't please everyone all the time but you sure can piss them all off at once" but more along the lines of not taking a particular stance that favors any one belief over another in the interest of maintaining integrity.  We (editors of Wikipedia) have policies and guidelines to refer to in the case of disputes such as this and we have to err on the side of policy, that's just the cost of doing business here.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, you got it. The approach suggested plays no favorites - treats Christians, Jews, Egyptians, you name it, the same way... Brilliant. Reminds me of: ..... History2007 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Break #993,840
The full quote from RNPOV reads: "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. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid." The "words to avoid" link goes on to say "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." No one is saying the term "creation myth" should not be used. Indeed the version of the article from the January 3, before all this drama started, uses the term five times. The argument is about making clear that the term is used by academics as a neutral term, not in its ordinary negative meaning. Why there is such strong objection to making the context clear, as our policy and guidelines suggest, is beyond me.--agr (talk)
 * The problem is that is an encyclopedia for 'ordinary' people; not for academia. You should "write for your intended audience", therefore the common usage/meaning of words is normally expected. rossnixon 01:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Entirely wrong. Everything in that statement goes against policy. You're talking about a complete rewrite of something like a dozen policies and style guides. Coming back to the OTHER oft-repeated, oft-ignored point- if you disagree with policy, THERE ALREADY EXISTS A FORUM TO VOICE YOUR CONCERNS- and it is not this page. -- King Öomie  01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I please bring Book of Genesis and its recent edit history to the attention of editors here. Sorry for the off topic comment, but I figure most people here are already familiar with the issue. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, ross is entirely correct. Here for example is WP:PCR: ''Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and metalanguage, linked to articles explaining the metalanguage, are appropriate. An article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article.'' --agr (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant here - the term creation myth is not jargon. Ben (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it is jargon, and I submit it plainly is, the guideline says "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." That means explaining terms they may be unfamiliar with, or worse, may misunderstand as pejorative when they are not. "It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." Why are you so resistant to clarifying the meaning of creation myth when it is first used?--agr (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, clarifying what "creation myth" means in the lead sentence is part of the proposal Ben made above. Gabbe (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "...may misunderstand as perjorat-" RNPOV says "Be quiet". I'm tired of this debunked argument. -- King Öomie 13:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * RNPOV says the exact opposite: "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." Words to avoid, which RNPOV links to, goes on to say "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..." All I am saying is that we should word the introduction to make it clear that creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense. If others can agree to that perhaps we can move on and end this drama.--agr (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And what kind of introduction do you suggest? -- King Öomie  15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Arnold, do you not agree that establishing a religious context makes it clear that the term creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense and that this establishment then satisfies RNPOV? In the same way that establishing a scientific context makes it clear how the term theory is being used in any number of articles? I'm not opposed to making it clear what the term means by establishing context, and I believe the current intro does this, I'm just opposed to making it clear what the term means by forcing a dictionary definition where it doesn't belong (for the record, I would oppose the same technique to disambiguate theory). After all, there is a little bit more to writing well than being unambiguous, and repetition for the sake of disambiguating something that is already unambiguous in a religious context is not.
 * If a dictionary definition can be naturally introduced into the lead then I'm all for it. As Gabbe noted, I've offered a suggestion on how this can be done in the first sentence. I don't know of any other way this can be done in the first sentence, but to echo King Öomie, suggestions are welcomed. Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that establishing a religious context makes it clear that the term creation myth is being used in a non-pejorative sense. More care is needed as evidenced by the month-long argument on this talk page. I think "theory" is a good model here. In situations where there is potential controversy, our articles make an effort to provide context. Special relativity uses the term "physical theory," which it links to theoretical physics. Evolution avoids the word entirely until the fourth paragraph, and then introduces it in a carefully explained context. I would start the article with a short, neutral and accurate summary of what the first two chapters say. (The present text is wrong on the chapter division and no one seems to have picked up on the POV "sanctity of marriage" bit.) I would then introduce the term "creation myth" in the context of the question of one vs two, something like, "Many Bible scholars claim the Genesis account combines two distinct creation myths." This introduces the term in the context of Bible scholarship while providing new information to the reader. Other wordings are possible, of course.--agr (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking- Evolution is a special case, as it's not necessarily a 'theory', until you start talking about the 'theory of evolution'. See Evolution as theory and fact. So it's not really fair to say it 'avoids' the term until the fourth paragraph. Sort of like claiming that Bible skirts around its connection to Jesus until the sixth paragraph- while a significant part, that's not all the book is about. -- King Öomie  16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanctity of marriage nonsense removed. -- King Öomie  16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon Arnold, you must see the parallel here.
 * I don't agree that establishing a scientific context makes it clear that the term physical theory is being used in a non-pejorative sense.
 * I think "myth" is a good model here. In situations where there is potential controversy, our articles make an effort to provide context. Creation according to Genesis uses the term "creation myth," which it links to creation myth.
 * If that reasoning was given by an editor of special relativity in the hopes of shuffling off the highly relevant term theory to later parts of the intro, even though it was preceded by the the word physical, would you be convinced? And the evolution article isn't about a theory, so that term doesn't belong in the introductory sentence. I stand by what I've been saying all along: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". In our case, the subject is a creation myth, and it's notable since it's a part of the Hebrew Bible. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that Special Relativity attempts to put the word theory in context by adding additional text, it doesn't just link to theory, which would be the parallel to our treatment of creation myth. And evolution, as discussed in our article, is certainly a theory. Earlier versions said so in the second sentence for many years. e.g. "Often the word evolution is used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection." Evolution then evolved. In any case, I made a suggestion as requested. I'd really appreciate comments on that.--agr (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Theory of Evolution is a theory. Evolution is not. It has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt that life undergoes iterative changes. Said theory is an attempt to explain WHY and HOW. Compare and contrast Gravity (elementary knowledge), and the Theory of Gravity (theoretical physics).
 * Your suggestion doesn't actually posit a new lede. What happens to the first sentence when we move Creation Myth away? We go back to calling the subject an 'account'? -- King Öomie  19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest something like "The first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew Bible, describe the creation of the world and the first man and woman. Many modern Bible scholars say the text combines two distinct creation myths, while more traditional interpreters dispute this." (I'd drop the summary paragraph in the intro, by the way. I fixed the chapter division stuff after King deleted the sanctity of marriage sentence, so it's better, but I still find it too interpretive and unnecessary. We have a summary in the body of the article and the original text is only a couple of pages.)--19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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. <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 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). <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 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. <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 19:34, 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. <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 20:37, 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. <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 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)
<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 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.

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. <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 00:45, 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. <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 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. <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 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? <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 12:38, 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. <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  21:13, 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. <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 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. <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 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. <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 21:31, 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. <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  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)

-

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. <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 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. <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 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. <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 21:31, 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. <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  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)

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)

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,  blacklisted->pantheon.org/articles/c/creation_myths  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 [blacklisted->pantheon.org/articles/m/mythology 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 [blacklisted->pantheon org/areas/mythology/middle_east/judaic/ 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 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)

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)

The box is awful. Awful. What are you editors thinking? you hope all these boxes and notes at the top of the article and discussion will keep your version set in stone? Consensus yesterday means nothing for consensus tomorrow, you know that. You have crossed the line when you talk about wanting to ban users who change.

It is recommended that every controversial edit on every wiki article be talked about first on the talk page. This messge box on this particular page is not needed. Unless, you think you can keep your wording set in stone. Which again, is against policy. 75.144.70.141 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, you've paid attention to nothing said to you. -- King Öomie  14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * you object to the box for the entirely wrong reasons, but I agree that the box was a mistake. You are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Such message-boxes are entirely adequate in many cases where there is in fact a solid consensus, see e.g. Talk:Muhammad. We have better things to do than to rehash stale discussions. As soon as we sort out this mess here, I hope that we will also be able to prevent circular debates of the kind this page currently sees. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * i appreciated your insight in the post below this, but i disagree with you here. this will be my last post on it in order to keep this short.  This box was placed by one user, who was not an admin, when clearly he/she had no consensus whatsoever.  It was undiplomatic and uncalled for.  If I put one there that said do not use the word "myth" then imagine the uproar from the very people who put "their" box there? 75.144.70.141 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uproar indeed. But still not censorship. -- King Öomie  14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 75.144., you should apply some perspective. I would endorse a message box asking people to look up the definition of "myth" or read up on creation myth first, so we won't get the perpetual misconception of "myth" being somehow a controversial or pejorative term. I object to the message box claiming there is a consensus for the current article title. As it happens, the current title is the result of an unilateral move, and as I show below, the current title is very probably not the most commonly used name for the topic. People need to come to grips with the concept of "myth" as opposed to "narrative" or "text". Genesis is a Hebrew text. The text gives a version or an account of one or several Hebrew creation myths (not "is a creation myth"). It is completely undisputed that what we find in Genesis is mythological. It remains to be discussed, as in the sources collected by Til Eulenspiegel, whether the actual Hebrew text as preserved is "typical" for mythological literature, or if we need to assume that it has been redacted with some theological agenda. In this case, what we have in Genesis is not the unadulterated creation myth alive in 8th century BC Hebrew culture, but an indirect echo of such a myth, redacted in the Hellenistic era to make it conform with the monotheism then current. This is a complicated question, and it deserves careful treatment. Your hubbub surrounding the word "myth" hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of the actual questions involved here, and I strongly recommend that the noise on this page should subside so the voices of those editors who actually have a clue about biblical philology can be heard. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * " would endorse a message box asking people to look up the definition of "myth" or read up on creation myth first" -- good.  because that's already there (look up top -- it's quite lengthy).  i did not delete that.  so we agree.  the message box crossed the line though  75.144.70.141 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the move unilateral, but I understand your point. You can lose entire short stories (err, narratives) on this talkpage. -- King Öomie  15:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, 75,, - it appears that my edit swiped yours away rather than show me an Edit Conflict page. It wasn't intentional. -- King Öomie  15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies if the message box I added hurt some feelings. That wasn't my intent.  It's safe to say that consensus has been reached on this issue and it's fair to warn editors to read discussions and the FAQ prior to making an attempt to edit against said consensus so that they aren't making the same tired arguements that where shot down in the RFC and other discussions.  Nefariousski (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UCN
wow, this discussion has become derailed completely. Time to ask the question that should have been answered first and foremost, what is the most common title by which the Genesis creation myth is referred to in academic literature in the field of biblical studies.
 * (any others?)
 * (any others?)
 * (any others?)
 * (any others?)
 * (any others?)
 * (any others?)
 * (any others?)
 * (any others?)

Just looking at the google books hits, it is evident that "Genesis creation myth" is the least frequently used of these versions. The most common is probably either "creation story in Genesis" or "Genesis creation story". Of course these results need to be refined by looking which books are academic and which aren't, but I daresay it does give a good impression. This is simple WP:NAME. POV and drawn-out ideological debates have nothing to do with it. Use neither the "myth" title nor the "according to" one, but pick one with either "story" or "narrative". Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And what should be done about the clear bias in presenting the Genesis creation myth significantly differently from all other creation myths on Wikipedia? -- King Öomie  14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This section addresses the question of article title exclusively. Article content is an entirely different matter. But your complaint is misguided in any case. Each article is treated on a case-by-case basis. If (and only if) it transpires that the "significant difference" is in fact present in academic literature, Wikipedia must (not can, must) reflect this "significant difference" in its coverage. What Wikipedia cannot do is introduce a difference in coverage that has no counterpart in academic treatment of the topic. Please take any further debate not about article title out of this section. Wikipedia is not "unbiased", that's a very fundamental misconception. Because "unbiased" is no absolute, "bias" can only be fixed with a view to some point of reference. This point of reference for Wikipedia is mainstream academic literature. Wikipedia is bound to reflect the bias present in mainstream academia as accurately as possible. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew all of that, yet somehow it escaped me. At this point I'm irritated by the whittling down of the concessions demanded by the other side (for various reasons, including but not limited to the same reasons over and over again), and it's getting in the way. I"ll take a step back. -- King Öomie  14:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a wise suggestion considering the ink that has been spilled so far on these pages. How do we do this so it is clear to follow?  Whatever the results I hope we can all agree to submit to.  For example, I will begin:
 * "The Hebrew Creation Narrative" -- Washington State U. (see here)  75.144.70.141 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hebrew creation narrative" is fine. As is "creation narrative in Genesis". I hope it is uncontroversial that "story" and "narrative" are more or less synonymous, and also that the variant "Genesis creation story/narrative" and "Creation story/narrative in Genesis" are equivalent. Combining these four readings as variants of a single title, I daresay it will become apparent that they outweigh all other options. Which of the four we end up choosing is really immaterial. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hebrew creation narrative" is misleading. Only the language of the Genesis text is Hebrew, but this creation story was likely not held by ancient Hebrews or Israelites. The narrative is a Jewish myth out of the period of the "Babylonian Captivity" and later. <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 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How does this line in WP:TITLE-

The ideal title should be: "Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." -Weigh up against WP:UCN? For example, "Genesis creation story" gets less scholar hits than "Creation story in Genesis", but the former is more consistent with existing articles. -- King Öomie 15:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a reason wikipedia has WP:GOOGLE. If we slap

then we can claim these results shows clearly "creation myths" way outweigh usage for either of the other in scholarly circles. If you want to narrow it down to only those that mention genesis, then slap a +genesis in the search terms, all three are then equal. What does this all mean? It all means we need to be extremely careful trying to claim search results mean anything because it introduces bias, and let popularity trump notability/neutrality. Tendancer (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done damn near every variation of the google test (you can see results half a dozen times about a mile up the page). The results are astoundingly in favor of using the term creation myth since that is the almost universally used term to describe this concept.  We're not in the business of inventing terms here, "Creation Narrative" has no definition or meaning as a distinct term nor does "Creation Story" and we shouldn't be using colloquial terms or jargon when a perfectly acceptable, widely used, formal and defined term exists.  To do so is a slippery slope, and would end up violating WP:WTA and sets the way for weasel words and peacock terms like "Sacred Narrative", "Divine History" etc...  The subject of this article is a creation myth, not a "creation story" or "creation narrative" because neither of those terms exist in a formal sense.   Nefariousski (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When I google Define "Creation Narrative" there are 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 preferred term / usage is so abundantly clear as to be almost undebateable (not like that will stop some of us). This talk page (and many others related to this issue) is turning to one desperate fork after another. First the use of "creation myth" at all and then once that was resolved, then the use of it in the lede, when that was resulved, then it was the use of it in the title, etc... Nefariousski (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dab - use some form of story. There is also the issue of whether a story known from a single written text should be called a "myth" at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A megabyte of text in the archives of this talk says that no, that's really not an issue. -- King Öomie  18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to mention UCN is more focused on using common names instead of formal names people or places. The spirit of UCN doesn't really apply to this article since we're not using some uncommon archaic term. Nefariousski (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, UCN applies fully here. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appriciate your detailed explanation of why you think it applies here I still disagree, the reliable sources for this article reference "creation myth". Usage of "creation myth" is hardly rare or uncommon and thus doesn't fall under the umbrella of UCN since its purpose is to avoid using obscure terminology.  UCN states that we should  "observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals" all of which almost exclusively use "creation myth".  Failing that it instructs us to use whatever name we reach by consensus which we have done.  Additionally UCN directs us to look toward WP:WTA for further guidance on neutrality (which we've done in making the decision).  UCN furthermore directs us to use more accurate terms over colloquial terms as long as the more accurate term isn't overly obscure and has an abundant body of reliable sources that use said term (see the Tsunami vs. Tidal Wave example).  Nefariousski (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Look at Dab's stats above. "Genesis Creation myth" has precisely 74 Gscholar hits! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Genesis creation account" has five times as many. 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you direct me to a definition of the term "creation account"? precision means something and considering that all options seem to have significant usage we should defer to the more accurate and precise usage not just the one with more hits.


 * * Creation: cre·a·tion /kriˈeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kree-ey-shuhn] –noun 1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering. 2. the fact of being created. 3. something that is or has been created.
 * * Account: ac·count /əˈkaʊnt/ Show Spelled[uh-kount] –noun  1. an oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative: an account of the meetings; an account of the trip.  2. an explanatory statement of conduct, as to a superior.  3. a statement of reasons, causes, etc., explaining some event.
 * Hope that helps you. Cheers, SAE (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So by your methods the Electoral College is a university where students learn about elections? Define the whole term, not its component parts.  "Creation Account" as a term has no definition and means nothing while creation myth is a very clearly defined term.  In short "Creation Account" means nothing outside of colloquial usage it is two imprecise words joined together in a string and could just as easily apply to non religious or supernatural accounts of creation.  For that matter any recipe, furniture assembly manual, or home video of a baby being born could be defined as a "creation account" Nefariousski (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The term is "Genesis creation account"; but many here are using a generative meaning for the word "Myth" which classically meant other worldly, while Genesis purports to describe what happened in this world, though using a Mesopotamian story telling format which most likely valued meaning over factual events. Hardyplants (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Swift as an Eagle: Yeah, however, "account" refers to the oral or written description of particular events or situations that actually exist/ed. The creation narrative in Genesis is not the description of something that anybody witnessed or that has indications pointing towards it. Genesis narrates the origin of the world achieved by supernatural forces. That is not an account, that is a myth.
 * And of course Nefariousski is right in pointing out that you cannot really break the term into its parts and thus destroy the compund's meaning. <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 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is an account and oufcourse it has been whitnessed ..... but this isnt realy a creteria of an account anyways.--Templeknight (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * -- King Öomie 22:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity who witnessed the account? And who recorded said account?  Nefariousski (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The question of how Moses (who wrote the Book of Genesis) knew how God created the world was a problem for the classical rabbis. The usual explanation was that God told him - after all, he met God on Mount Sinai. But according to the oral torah Moses already knew some of the stories in Genesis before he met Yahweh - so the explanation was put forward that Adam had written it down. Not that Adam witnessed the first few days, of course, but he did have the chance to talk direct to God. So, now you know :) PiCo (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See, that there, that's what they call a Retcon. -- King Öomie  03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pico, I've never heard or read of such an 'oral tradition'; the one recording religious events before the deluge was not Adam but Enoch, according to the oral traditions I've encountered. I do agree with dab that there are surely a few people getting lost in the crowd, who are familiar enough with such lore to know what they're talking about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So Enoch wrote down an oral account a few hundred years after it happened. Did this document get passed down through the generations and end up on the ark during the great flood or was it rediscovered after the water level dropped? Nefariousski (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question, but it's hard to find a specific answer in any written sources. I believe it is a tradition that Noah himself being righteous, passed certain teachings and/or writings to certain of his grandchildren. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok so I understand that Noah was considered a righteous man, and I know there's a lot of detail regarding what the Ark was made of and what living things were brought on the ark and so on, but do you know of any sources that document any other items that might have been brought on to the ark? Is it a best guess based on what is understood of Noah's nature that he brought along written histories or is it assumed that the once written history (enoch's) turned into oral history and then back into written history?  Are any writings actually attributed to Noah himself? Nefariousski (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have actually seen very little exploring that type of specific question; some conjecture identifying Noah with Manu, and of course parts of the Book of Enoch and other Dead Sea Scrolls are attributed to Noah. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Til, from the Shemot Rabbah 5:22 (Moses is speaking): "I opened the book of Genesis and read it and saw the acts of the generation of the flood..." So Moses had the book of Genesis before Sinai. There are similar passages elsewhere in the Talmud. The question the rabbis were addressing was how Moses came by this knowledge. The Book of Enoch is of course earlier than the Talmud, but the age of the Oral Torah is unclear (supposedly equally as old as the Written Torah). Rashi was of the opinion that each of the Genesis patriarchs wrote an account, and that these were the originals of the toledot. PiCo (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Look through this list of the use of that terminology: and you will see that the restrictive meaning of the term "account" is incorrect. Hardyplants (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong approach
In my opinion, dab's approach to this is wrong. The fact that he could think of so many ways to refer to this article's topic should have raised alarm bells. I can think of many more titles to add to his list, and I'm sure someone else can think of even more. Throw in permutations of {Bible, biblical, Hebrew, Christian, Jewish, Judaic} and phrases involving those words (something random: "the creation myth in the Bible") to get a seriously long list started. The problem is, there is no title. This article does not have a name. All of the examples we come up with are descriptors.

On top of that, choosing this article's title from a list of descriptors as long as we can come up with because it has the highest hit count is to give undue weight to one over many others whose combined hit count easily outnumber the hit count of the highest hit count descriptor. Since there are so many permutations there may even be a higher hit count descriptor we haven't thought of. Finally, we have obvious relevance and reliability issues associated with search engine tests.

So now that we've established that this article's title will in fact be a suitable descriptor and that search engine hit counts are essentially irrelevant, we analyse relevant and reliable sources and choose a suitable descriptor based on the descriptions given in those sources. It has been established that the term creation myth is near universal descriptor in the relevant and reliable sources, Genesis is an obvious modifier, Genesis creation myth is already used throughout the literature (so no original research), Genesis creation myth is consistent with our other articles, it allows us to include a short definition of creation myth in the first sentence to allay the concerns of those editors that can't shake the association of myth with false, and so on.

Am I missing something here? Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Creation myth" may be the most common "umbrella term" (to quote from the FAQ here) but it comes out very poorly as part of a term in RS for this specific creation myth. There are millions of things whose specific names use a different term from the usual general term for the sort of thing they are. The Isle of Man is an island, but we do not call it Man Island, and so on. The google test is highly relevant to WP:COMMON which should be the guiding principle here.  Despite attempts to complicate the matter, & a discussion mostly dealing with side issues, the core of the matter is really very straightforward.  The current name is a construct, as Ben admits above, which can indeed be found in RS, but at much lower frequency than others.  WP:COMMON is very clear; there may be many names in use, but we go with the most common. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understood my point. I tried to explain there is a difference between a name and a descriptor: Isle of Man is a name, not a descriptor. On the other hand, the small sampling of descriptors listed above are all, well, descriptors. Only descriptors were listed above since this article's topic has no name, and so we must choose a suitable descriptor for the title of this article. Now, a Google test may give an indication of a common name in the case of names, but it's unlikely the same test will work for descriptors, especially when the possible descriptors are so varied. Instead we have to rely on relevant and reliable sources on the topic to guide us. I've quoted several dictionaries and encylopedias aimed at the non-expert below, and given quotes that talk about Genesis containing mythical being a mainstream view, all from highly reliable and relevant sources. Ben (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All beside the point; most WP article names are "descriptors", if you choose to so describe anything that is not a proper name (a rather OR view). WP:COMMON says we just try to choose the most common, which is clearly not the present one. That has been chosen for POV reasons.  You need to be clear that whether the Genesis story is a creation myth is an entirely different question from whether "Genesis creation myth" is the correct title for this article. Almost all the vast amount of discussion here has addressed the first question and ignored the second.  The article should include & link "creation myth" early on, but it is the wrong title. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course most Wiki articles are proper names, but that is beside the point. And I think you mean WP:UCN. Anyway, I'm sorry that you think what I wrote is beside the point, but I must repeat. I don't think a Google test is reliable in this case (reasons listed above) and the relevant and reliable sources I've come across, some of which I've included on this talk page, almost exclusively use the term myth, not story, to introduce this articles topic. That last point is consistent with this articles topic being a creation myth (your first question), but that doesn't mean I'm arguing that since this articles topic is a creation myth that term should appear in the title (your second question). And I'm sure I could shop around the WP pages and find something that says reliable sources trump a Google test, but in that case WP:COMMON does apply. Ben (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Phooey! Your sources mostly show Genesis being described as a creation myth, but not that being used as a title or name for it. If you have found "myth" being used "almost exclusively", you are looking at a very narrow selection indeed. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 1-2: Ancient cosmology
In the definitions and synonyms, I have been reading right through and past the word cosmology. Yet, in many places it is used as a synonym of "myth." Particularly with the adjective "Ancient," it isn't confused with scientific cosmology or cosmological.

This term should solve our issues (both "sides"). A major case is made for it by John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College), professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School, in The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology.

Apparently it is also what the late Jewish scholar

A Google search returns quite a few phrases such as et al.
 * "The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon,"
 * "The Cosmology of Early China," a book entitled Ancient Cosmologies (ed. Carmen Blacker, Michael Loewe, and Martin J. Plumley; London: Allen & Unwin, 1975), 90-92.
 * "Classical Hindu, Buddhist and Jain cosmologies"
 * Explorations in Early Chinese Cosmology
 * "Ancient Indian Cosmology"

While "creation myth" is unquestionably a popular terms, "Cosmology" is a synonym that includes the term, and even more so when prefixed by "Ancient" which disambiguates it from scientific cosmology.

Please consider this as a "thinking outside the box" suggestion. To the "myth-ers," it is a comparable term. To the "nonmyth-ers," it avoids the very ambiguous term "myth." It's worth more study and consideration. Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'm not convinced that "Ancient Cosmology" is preferable to using creation myth I do think the page warrants having the category:Christian Cosmology added. Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cosmology works for the planets etc, but does not cover Adam and Eve. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod is right - Genesis 1-2 is more than cosmology. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Please see following notes. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Secular scholarly evidence against use of "myth"
The following are excerpts from the book Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth. By Alan Dundes, Prof of Anthropology and Folklore, U of Calif, Berkeley. They are available online through Google Scholar at "Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth" (ed. Alan Dundes)

These scholars recognize what many of us have been saying: :There is nothing pejorative about the term "myth." The term mythos means word or story.... It is only the modern usage of the word "myth" as "error" that has led to the notion of myth as something negative. In common parlance the term "myth" is often used as a mere synonym for error or fallacy. "That's just a myth!" one might exclaim to label a statement or assertion as untrue.

The authors say "...there are disagreements about what myth is and how it should be analyzed. There has been a dramatic shift in theoretical orientation from the nineteenth century to the twentieth." With scholarly disagreements about what myth is, and dramatic shift in theoretical orientation, how can we—in "clear conscience" and NPOV—persist in demanding that this and other articles present themselves as being about 'myth—creation or otherwise?

Some in arguing for "myth" here have claimed that it is a well-recognized term, particularly when preceded by "creation" or "deluge." Yet, this book says:
 * Nowadays, myth can encompass everything from a simple-minded, fictitious, and mendacious impression to an absolutely true and sacred account, the very reality of which far outweighs anything that ordinary everyday life can offer. The way in which the term myth is commonly used reveals, too, that the word is loaded with emotional overtones....

Please note that this is coming not from theologians, but from mythologists who cannot agree in the pages of this book. (There are multiple articles within.)

More quotes from the book:


 * (Different terms) are used for different religious genres but would seem to be more neutral than myth. In "terminological demytheologisation," the actual word "myth" is avoided but the account, the story itself is retained. To call the Resurrection a myth may be a dastardly insult to a Christian for whom the concept myth has a pejorative sense. He would probably prefer some such expression as holy story or sacred history: perhaps quite simply history, for in Christianity as in Judaism there is a marked tendency to transform religious traditions into history.


 * Christian theologians are faced with certain difficulties when using the terms myth, history and sacred history. It is possible to imagine that someone might try to classify the Creation as a myth, the Crucifixion as history and the Resurrection as sacred history.


 * The conception that we have of myth has continually to be revised in the light of modern scholarship. Myth is undoubtedly a very complex concept.


 * Cosmogonic in this sense comprises all those stories that recount how the world began, how our era started, how the goals that we strive to attain are determined and our most sacred values codified.

"Traditional oral tale" is the only safe basis for a broad definition of myth.


 * The negative use of (the creation myth view) of myth was as follows. It was part of the magical outlook of ancient Israel's neighbors that they saw the process of nature, especially of fertility, bound up with human activity.... The religion of the OT broke with this pattern of religion. Its thought was dominated not by the cycles of the natural world, but by the promises of God being worked out and fulfilled in the historical process. Thus history was opposed to myth, not in the popular sense of true as against historically false, but in terms of conflicting views of reality. One view (that of ancient Israel's neighbours) was a primitive and pre-scientific view, its attempt to direct natural forces being based upon ignorance of scientific laws. The other view, while no less pre-scientific, was enabled by God's redemptive action in history to be lived above a crude relationship with the world of nature to a notion of transcendence in terms of a personal God.

The above final bullet point explains how Judaeo-Christian's Book of Genesis accounts are in a different category and class from those of ancient Israel's neighbours—a question that has also been raised and unanswered in the discussions.

Nef, please include this material in your writing for Admin Notice Board on our collective behalf. None of us is an expert on myth, so far as I know, and this "professional" non-theological opinion needs to be considered.

Thanks, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice attempt. However, this author makes a crucial error: he assumes the history that is narrated in the Bible to be true. But of course we all know that nothing in the Bible prior to, say, 850 BCE has any historical veracity whatsoever (and religiously it is even wronger, because before the 6th century BCE Judaism did not exist at all, Israelites were not Jews). In reality "Israel" was the backlot of the Egyptian empire, a people of illiterate goatherds while the "neighbors" were the ones who took part in the exchange of culture and goods throughout the eastern Mediterranean. To say that Israel was somehow culturally or technologically superior to its environment is a reversal of the actual situation, stemming out of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism that seeks to present an alternative history of "God's people".
 * We do not actually know what stories about the origins of world the Israelites told their children, but we do know that the Genesis creation story did not come into existence prior to the extension of Mesopotamian rule in the Levant and the subsequent Babylonian Captivity which resulted in the birth of Judaism. The Genesis creation story reads just like a distorted version of the Enki and the Abzu, and there is no doubt that the beginning of Genesis is the result of Israelites coming into contact with Mesopotamian traditions (and of course the following tales about the Flood and the resettlement after that are originally Mesopotamian as well).
 * The Genesis creation narrative is one told by people who didn't know any better. It is not an accurate description of how the world came into being in reality. There is nothing about an expanding universe, cosmic microwave background, oscillating virtual particles, or anything else in it that we know today. nd why? Because it is a myth. In any sense of the word.
 * This article is about a theological issue, not a historical or otherweise scientific one. A creation myth is the tale of the world coming into existence through supernatural forces. That is what the beginning of the book of GEnesis is. Nothing else. <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 07:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, did we read the same book? You refer to "this author," when in fact the quotes come from several articles, each by a different author in the book Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth. I appreciated your nicely presented Genesis opinion. The articles are written from a scientific perspective by various credentialed mythologists. Your statement, "he assumes the history that is narrated in the Bible to be true," is an incorrect jump to conclusion. Sincere question: I'm wondering if your analysis of Genesis comes from formal training and therefore personal expertise, or from secondary sources. If the latter, it would be nice to know the source(s). ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well at least now we are clear on your true argument, for pushing that opinion of yours as if an undisputed fact contested by no one. Thanks for your candor, it's much more refreshing than those who pretend the word implies no falsehood and is thus perfectly neutral. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I too thank-you for showing your clear bias. We all have presuppositions, to be sure, it's just that many try to deny that they do.  You have not and now we know where you stand.  I imagine that all others here who are fighting for the word myth come with these same presuppositions as you. SAE (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Really this is the WHOLe point:

|en&hl=en&q=myth| myth / m'ɪθ / Synonyms:  o noun: fable, legend o A myth is a well-known story which was made up in the past to explain natural events or to justify religious beliefs or social customs. N-VAR + There is a famous Greek myth in which Icarus flew too near to the Sun. + ...the world of magic and of myth. o If you describe a belief or explanation as a myth, you mean that many people believe it but it is actually untrue. Synonym: fallacy + Contrary to the popular myth, women are not reckless spendthrifts.


 * As long as this definition appears in Google, you cannot begin an article on a current and very popular religious belief, with the word "myth" and remain at the same time npov. It's not possible. You say "myth", I say "true" -- those are the opposite extremes:  both are pov.  Would you allow "true"?  Then why would I allow "myth"?  Please, let's see through our bias, and let's meet in the middle ground. SAE (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I have been very open from the beginning that the connotation "untrue" of the word myth, while not intended, is perfectly appropriate in the context of this article. As a statement of fact about the history of the physical world, the Genesis creation story is simply false. There is a consensus among competent scholars that the story was originally not meant in such a literal sense, and this consensus is reflected in how we, as Wikipedia treat the topic. Creationism is fringe (or anachronistic) even as a theological theory; and even more so if gauged as an attempt to explain our physical word. There is nothing wrong or POV about hinting at this fact. And the mere use of the word "myth" with its connotation cannot amount to undue weight to debunking this fringe, either.

As to the passage quoted by Afaprof, this would be a lot more convincing if it wasn't quoted out of context. When read in context, it is clear that the author does not argue against using the word "myth" in its technical sense. Instead, he defines the technical meaning of the word, and he does so in the introduction to a book about the theory of myth. Defining the technical sense of the word and talking about its distinction from non-technical uses is an obvious thing to do in such a context and does not prove the existence of a scholarly debate about the use or abuse of the word in question. The author does not argue against the technical use of the word "myth" any more than he argues against the non-technical use:
 * "But untrue statements are not myths in the formal sense in this book—nor are myths necessarily untrue statements. For myth may constitute the highest form of truth, albeit in metaphorical guise."

Nice try, but this is not going to fly. Hans Adler 19:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a fatal flaw in your reasoning. You say your bias wins because science proves it.  However you are wrong.  Every scientist who means anything in this world will acknowledge that science does not disprove God.  Science nowhere disproves Creation according to Genesis and it doesn't claim to.  If this article claims that, then it is sub-par academics. SAE (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. I rest my case. Hans Adler 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great comeback! Try another exclamatory, it might help you further. SAE (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Adler→) As I have asked Cush, did we read the same book?  You refer to "this author," when in fact the quotes come from several  articles, each by a different   author in the book Sacred narrative,  readings in the theory of myth. Several  authors, each of whom provided a "Reading," are quoted. Some points  they collectively make are  that (a) Mythologists cannot  agree on the theory of myth. "There are disagreements about what myth  is and how it should be analyzed." Who are we, then, to force that term  onto the Genesis Creation article? (b) the word is loaded  with emotional overtones. Does that make it appropriate as the  only way to describe Creation according to Genesis? (c) In  "terminological demytheologisation," the actual word "myth" is avoided  but  the account, the story itself is retained. That is precisely what one  "side" has proposed for this article. (d) Ergo, "myth" is not a  well-understood term, contrary to what another "side" has claimed in  this debate. "Nowadays, myth can encompass everything from a  simple-minded, fictitious, and  mendacious impression to an absolutely true and sacred account, the very  reality  of which far outweighs anything that ordinary everyday life can offer."  (e) "Myth is undoubtedly a very complex concept." How, then, is  it the only appropriate choice for the title and first paragraph of  this article?─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathematicians cannot agree on a definition of the term number. So far as I know most mathematicians wouldn't even bother trying to define it. Who are we, then, to force that term onto the 1 (number), irrational number, complex number, hypercomplex number or aleph number articles? The reality is that reliable sources generally agree that the topic of these articles is that of number, though I can probably find reliable sources that disagree in the case of some of the example articles I linked (finitism?). What say you? Ben (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Though some mathematicians may debate some of the finer points of the definition of "number" in fields such as abstract algebra, group theory, complex analysis, etc., I've never heard of any disagreement regarding the definition of number in the plain, common sense usage employed in education including college coursework up through Calculus, Differential Equations, Statistics, etc. For the common person, including most physicicsts and engineers, there is not any ambiguity or negative connotation regarding the use of "number."  There is a lot more ambiguity and disagreement in biologists' definition and use of the term "species" and exactly how the concept is defined often becomes readily apparent in advanced high school or early college course work.  However, either point is something of a red herring in the present discussion, because in neither case is there much ambiguity in common (non-technical) usage, nor is their any perception of a negative connotation.  In contrast, in most common usages, "myth" implies falsehood.Michael Courtney (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point: the lack of a generally agreed upon and precise definition of a term does not mean we shouldn't use the term (see AFA Prof01's point (a)), else we would have few words in the English language at our disposal. I'm still fairly sure there is no "generally agreed upon and precise definition" of the term number (I would like to be pointed to a discussion refuting me), but if my number example was a poor choice then I simply apologise. The above point still stands though and I'm sure you can come up with your own examples to convince yourself of its truth. Finally, a word having a negative connotation associated with it isn't a reason for avoiding it either: an example that comes to mind is the term theory. At the very least it would (in general) be a highly subjective criterion to work with, and I have no doubt that it would be unworkable. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you have algebra at university??
 * But back to "myth". King Arthur is a myth. So is King Solomon. Why? Because there is no extrabiblical confirmation for his existence. All there is is the single biblical source that narrates who this Solomon/Jedidiyah allegedly was and what he allegedly did. But he is absent from the archaeological and historical record. There are no artifacts bearing his name, and the events narrated in the bible for his reign do not match the nonbiblical historical record for the time period and geographical area in question. The same is true for everything else in the Bible before Solomon, including the very beginning of Genesis about the creation of the world. There is nothing that gives these biblical tales veracity. Nothing.
 * So, "myth" to express falsehood, or at least historical inaccuracy is acceptable as a designation for what is at issue in this article. This does not touch, however, what religious truths the Genesis narrative may contain. There is just no literal truth involved. There are so many creation myths in the world that it is completely ridiculous to expect Wikipedia to treat the judeochristian one differently and give it an elevated place only to please the fundamentalists. Wikipedia must treat all religious stories about the origin of the world in the same way. <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 10:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that true about Solomon? If so, I didn't know that. I'd love to see an article about which parts of the Bible are actually backed up by non-biblical evidence. -- King Öomie  14:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please read before questioning Cush's motives further- Appeal to motive. It's not enough to say "Oh, you're only arguing this because of X". This statement does not debunk Cush's thesis- it merely dismisses it. You can hold an 'unsavory' base point for your arguments without being wrong. -- King Öomie  14:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the notion that the use of the word "myth" as being solely academic rather disingenuous. The reason being, there are many other words that can be used that are acceptable, that don't carry such controversial overtones, such as "story" or "account" or countless or words. Why the lexicon absolutely must be "myth" is rather baseless in light of much less disputed words that are perfectly viable from an academic perspective. There is an obvious "truth" component in the use of the word myth, from both sides. The same people boasting that "myth" carries no negative connotation are the ones questioning the truth value of the Creation account. I'm no Creationist, but it's rather transparent that this endless war is based on two groups of people fighting a battle for truth, and trying to push the viewpoint to readers. Let the readers decide if it's a patently false myth, I don't understand why they need to be steered toward one ideology or another. Both sides are guilty of it. Sugaki (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but have you read any of the discussion threads here? <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 · 11:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sugaki — thanks for your input. A title I've suggested I think avoids all implications that have been seen as problematic by one side or the other: Genesis chapters one and two. Do you have an opinion on that? What I feel is the beauty of the title I'm suggesting ("Genesis chapters one and two") is that it identifies only the subject of this article. I think it contains nothing additional that one side or another can possibly construe as being expressive of a point of view that they are opposed to for any reason. Thank you for any feedback. Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth or story?
I'm only adding yet another section in order to boil the question down to its essence. If I'm wrong please add another section after this to replace mine.)

As many have pointed out above, "story" is less pejorative than "myth" because of the latter's connotation of falsehood.

The advantage I see of "story" is that it can be understood as meaning a simplified account of creation that is not so much false as merely omitting the sorts of details that more scientifically inclined people feel constitute adequate corroborative detail. For example, why did God not tell us about DNA from the get-go? That's easy, we weren't ready for it back then. Same for the Big Bang: any pharisee discoursing on the Big Bang would have been marginalized appropriately for that era, the same fate as befell Galileo, who was a few decades ahead of his time regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism.

I continue to be amazed at how many atheists and agnostics there are in the world. In order to be either, one needs to be in possession of a definition of "God," otherwise how can one say that God does not exist? If for example one defines God to be the universe, are these atheists and agnostics going to claim that the universe does not exist? What fraction of atheists and agnostics have a working definition of "God" by which they can reliably judge their atheism or agnosticism? Those that have such a definition strike me as just as unqualified to debate the myth-story question at hand as those that insist on the literal truth of the story.

Based on these considerations I support changing "myth" to "story". --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that babies developed a working definition of "God" at some point along the conception-birth timeline. Or my dog for that matter. But thanks for letting me know, and thanks for starting another thread! Cheers, Ben (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vaughan Pratt, for the atheist-bashing. But you know what? Why don't we just stick to Wikipedia rules? As long as nobody can come up with reliable sources that Genesis isn't made-up crap, we'll call it a myth in the very sense that it is a narrative without any grain of truth or reality in it. If the religionists have nothing to offer but attacks then there is no other way than to let them prove their claims of truth and superiority. Once and for all. This is Wikipedia, not some fundamentalism platform. <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  09:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a rather famous scientist does not make one either correct or incorrect. However, for those unaware, Vaughan Pratt didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and is not a religionist─at least not professionally. We have had myth advocates who have flashed their scientist credentials; here we apparently have a world-renowned scientist who does not flash his. In any case, Cush and Ben were very dismissive of his very logical discussion─inappropriately so, I believe. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Logical? He apparently doesn't even grasp what the term agnostic means. (Hint: it means "not knowing.") He's not supporting this argument on logic, but on straw men. Sure, if you want to define god as "the universe," that's your choice. If I wanted to define god as my left foot I could, too, but it wouldn't help us in this debate any. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Vaughan Pratt is trying to make a point. Vaughan Pratt only suggested one possible definition for God. In my opinion a discussion of this sort could use a little definition. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This page isn't the proper venue for discussing the definition of 'God', or the efficacy or Athiesm, or the moral justification of agnosticism, or the divine nature of the Universe. The first two sentences of his post (after the preface) are the only ones not soapboxing. Our individual qualifications for debating this subject are immaterial to the issue at hand. -- King Öomie 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was part of an argument. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A soapbox-ey, irrelevant argument. "I think 'story' is less insulting to laymen than 'myth', and these atheists don't know what they're talking about". Please point to the part of that sentence that ISN'T appropriate. -- King Öomie  15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Creation myth" in the title of this particular article might be considered by some to be a bit "soapbox-ey" too. Maybe we should take that into consideration and tone down any such implications in the title? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing pejorative about the term "myth." A myth is a story with a primal impact, hence the current hollywood obsession with creating mythic structure in their storyforms.  Certainly the creation account in Genesis is more than an account, and more than a story.  There is a point to it, and an impact on those who read it, even if they don't objectively "believe" it.  The impact makes this account a myth.  C.S. Lewis was an avowed atheist until his friend J.R.R. Tolkien convinced him that the Gospel narratives were "myth."  Once he got the point (that there was a point), Lewis converted to Christianity.


 * That said, whether "myth" is a good or bad word is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We're trying to tie in articles that relate to each other, and the Genesis account certainly relates to other religious and mythological accounts of creation.  It is the ease of cross reference that makes the current title the one of choice.EGMichaels (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't cross referencing be as well accomplished by creating Category: Creation myths? Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make the category. It won't have any effect on the name of the article, though. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request admin closure of this thread via WP:SOAP to cease the edit-warring keeping it open. -- King Öomie 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * move to reuest closure seems to be a case of WP:IDL, i count three deitors in this discusion who dont think it is unreasonable statment. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Requesting closure makes it an admin judgment call. But thanks. -- King Öomie 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the person whose voice you are trying to suppress supports the move of the title back to the old version. Is that just a coincidence? Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm outsourcing the decision because I refuse to argue it with you. I'm not sure I appreciate your assertion (or propagandist word choice). -- King Öomie 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which word is propagandist — "suppress?" If that is the word, I would think collapsing the box in which that editor's comment is contained constitutes a type of "suppression." Again: that editor expressed support for the move back to the previous title. This would be the relevant comment by Vaughan Pratt:


 * "Based on these considerations I support changing "myth" to "story"."


 * I apologize for using the word "suppress." Maybe that was unfair of me. But I think "obscure" would be an appropriate word to describe putting Vaughan Pratt's comments in a collapsed box. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual the mentality of some people here astounds me. Everyone has been given two chances to comment on this article's title, and one of those threads is still open and receiving active comment. Yet a move to archive someone's soapbox thread is seen as suppressive and attracts "numbers trumps common sense" rationales for unarchiving it. Is a little critical thought too much to ask here, or are arguments and accusations that conjure images of a pack of zombies noming on an old bone the best we can expect?

At the end of the day the admin flag doesn't given someone more weight in discussion so I don't know what asking for admin intervention will do, but hey, I'm out of ideas too so /shrug, it can't hurt. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF ???
The issue of the article is the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity as a theological and literary issue, but definitely not as the actual origin of the world. It is a creation myth like any other. Can we please stop having this pointless discussion that only derives from obviously creationist editors who seek to present Genesis as factual or possible history? Do we have to have these kinds of warring every few months when new editors show up? <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 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a "creationist editor." And nobody is arguing that the information you are referring to does not have a rightful place in the article. All that is under discussion is the title. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Labeling every one as "Creationist" "Fundamentalist" or "Religionist" because you disagree with them is not helpful. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But people other than these would never insist on presenting Genesis as actual history. There are no reliable sources for such a position and the position is fringe anyways. <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 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * no one has said that is proposing thatWeaponbb7 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How so? That's the only reasonable stance one can have against calling it a creation myth like we do with all other faiths.  The only way it can be removed from that category and not meet the definition is if it is some how proven to be historically accurate reality.  So, not to jump to conclusions, or judge motivations but it's pretty evident that only those who have a strong opinion in favor of biblical literalism or creationist ideology would have much grief with calling this a creation myth.Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The refusal to call Genesis a "creation myth" as it is done for all other religions is solely based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and a faith in said interpretation. Such literal interpretations are only conducted by a very limited number of groups and adherents inside Christianity and Judaism. <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  17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why another thread? Why?! Now we get to hear the same thing again! Please, for the love of your deity and/or pasta of choice, self-archive! Abort man, abort! Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel this is improper. Highly improper. (Joke.) Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the laugh Ben, It's a shame you can't add klaxons and audio of a computerized self destruct countdown to your post. Nefariousski (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, you have an obvious prejudice here, and your interest does not appear to be for NPOV collaboration. You may want to recuse yourself for a while to gain perspective.  I initially agreed with your choice of title, but I cannot agree if you are merely trying to use a title to make an end run around neutrality.EGMichaels (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your support or opposition shouldn't depend on any editor, perceived prejudice or not. Ben (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ben, it can. When I came here I was under the impression that there was an honest disagreement about what was more neutral and useful for a non specialized reader.  What I found was that the "myth" title was not being used in a neutral POV manner, but instead being used in a pejorative sense.  Wikipedia editors cannot support end runs around neutrality.


 * Because of this, I must withdraw my support for the title's inclusion of the word "myth". Wikipedia must maintain NPOV, and Cush's obvious, public, and clear bias means that no neutral editor can support it.  The choice of title is tainted as long as Cush is an active editor on this article.  If he withdraws his biased statements, fine.  If he cannot, then he must withdraw himself from the discussion until a truly neutral consensus is reached.EGMichaels (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On that note, because you're withdrawing your support on the basis of a problem with a single editor's actions / opinions / perceived bias your support one way or the other becomes more or less tainted and moot. Protest votes don't count towards consensus.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't a protest vote. It's a vote toward NPOV.  I originally believed that "myth" represented NPOV, until Cush demonstrated otherwise.  We CANNOT violate NPOV, even if we initially "like" something.EGMichaels (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think neutrality is a product of editor intentions you're sorely mistaken. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, neutrality is a product of collaborative editing from good faith editors who have different POVs, using notable and verifiable sources. We help each other achieve a balance. But we cannot do so if someone is merely trying to insult another editor or another POV. I'm merely arguing in favor of civility and neutrality. If you have a problem with that, then... cheers.EGMichaels (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course we can, we just ignore them. All work doesn't grind to a halt because one person hurts another person's feelings or just comes around to stir the pot.  I'm not going to start going to church just because my athiest neighbor is an asshole and isn't nice to me.  We all love civility and neutrality but when someone becomes uncivil or tries to skew neutrality we shouldn't resort to "I'm taking my ball and going home", nor should we resort to "I don't agree with x anymore because a person I don't like supports it"  Nefariousski (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're still not getting me. I actually DO agree with Cush's view of geologic time.  But I do NOT agree with the promotion of any POV.  If we mean "myth" in a scholarly neutral way, it is a possible term to use.  If we mean "falsehood" then we have a problem.  Until Cush stated his intended meaning I supported the term myth, but NPOV requires that I reject obvious bias.  While we don't take our balls and go home, we DO park our biases out of the discussion.  If we as a group do not reject such stated bias, then we are complicit in it, and as such, are prohibited from using the term "myth."  Either the term goes, or the bias goes.  I really don't care which, because the avoidance of a biased laced term will accomplish the avoidance of the bias in the article.  Your call.  Shall we park the bias and keep the term, or toss both out?EGMichaels (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a poll. Your promise to contradict Cush's vote based on his attitude is inappropriate- argue what you actually believe (or can back  up). If his views are absurd or deliberately offensive, they will be  ignored. Duplicating response from below. Why are there two threads for this?  -- King Öomie  20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels, I don't have a problem with civility and neutrality at all, and I don't have a problem with you working towards them. I also agree that offering an argument based on a POV (as opposed to reliable sources on the topic) is unhelpful, and in the case of articles like this likely inflammatory. Still, you need to distinguish between neutrality as a concept and the neutrality-value of an article. The neutrality-value of an article, as a measure, depends on a concept of neutrality. Any contribution you make to an article, from a direct edit to the support or opposition of some proposal relating to the article (in this case a requested page move), should be guided by the concept of neutrality with the hope of moving the article toward the (unattainable) goal of an neutrality-value of "neutral". Notice that at no point here does some other editor come into play. Of course there do exist other editors, and they may not have neutrality as a concept in mind when editing, but who cares? If they present an argument based on a POV you simply point out that it's an invalid argument, you don't use their invalid argument as your new guide to making contributions. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, I appreciate your somewhat idealistic view here. My only problem is that I cannot support a title that means, "Genesis Creation Lies."  If that is a stated meaning of "Myth" on this talk page, AND OTHER EDITORS SAY NOTHING, then I cannot support the title.  It's that simple.  Either we can the MEANING of "Lies" or can the stated SYNONYM for "Lies."  I'm astonished that you're differing with me, here.  Cush is the one who is preventing us from using the term.EGMichaels (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that last comment just crossed the threshold of sanity. Your righteous indignation is starting to come off as outright ranting.  Go for a walk around the block, have a drink, take a few deep breaths, read the FAQ and the footnotes on the article and if it helps skip over Cush's comments in your re-read.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As a demonstration of the advice I just gave: The argument "I support this title because it means LIES" is just as invalid as the arguments "I oppose this title because it means LIES" and "I oppose this title because X thinks it means LIES". Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job, Ben. Your turn Nef.EGMichaels (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is having trouble following, Ben threaded the needle here. I still disagree with his conclusion, but not his stated neutrality.  Ben is trying to show his choice to ignore an invalid argument when making his own choices.  I'm arguing that we oppose a stated biased hijacking of our term so that we can be very clear that we are not ourselves biased when using the term.  If we do not oppose the biased meaning, we shouldn't use the term, because other editors cannot read our minds, and silence could just as easily be complicity as not.  Although Ben and I disagree with how neutrality is demonstrated on a talk page, I think we would each agree that the other is TRYING to accomplish neutrality on the talk page.  This is what I meant by his "threading the needle."  While I do not agree that my own approach is invalid, I DO agree that Ben's approach (once stated) is valid.  I'll repeat my concern for other editors on this thread: I don't see you even stating some kind of neutrality here.  I only see you arguing against my problem with using a term that we refuse to clear of bias.EGMichaels (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Prove me wrong -- don't tell me that insisting on clear NPOV usage is not sane. Instead, disagree with the editor who means, "Genesis Creation Lies."  It's a simple thing for you to do.EGMichaels (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your entire POV arguement is based on things Cush said and prior to saying those things you felt the usage was fine. Therefore if cush ceased to exist at this very moment then the article would magically be NPOV?  Please keep in mind the actual ARTICLE hasn't changed its text or usage throughout this entire discussion.  We insist that the article have clear NPOV usage (which by way of citing definitions, a footnote, a FAQ, a wikilink to the main creation myth article etc...) we do very well.  None of that is taken away because Cush made a POV comment on a talk page.  Last I checked talk pages didn't have to be NPOV...


 * Frankly, I don't agree with either of you, I agree with the FAQ I posted above, and I agree that there is and should be no value judgement regarding veracity one way or the other when using the term "creation myth". I agree that due diligence to ensure readers and editors understand the formal meaning of the word "myth" is being used on this article and just a quick FYI, I've spoken out against editors who I thought were trying to stir the pot (although not with the fervor to which you seem to be partial) feel free to read archive 5 under the heading "This article is about a creation myth and also about a myth that is untrue".  Nefariousski (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nef, I did note your tweaking of the article itself, and that was very appropriate. Nevertheless, people DO see talk pages. We can't very well expect people to believe we mean nothing pejorative when we SAY we mean something pejorative on the talk page. Cush said it, and NO ONE (until Ben) opposed it. That's a problem. Heck, even the creationist side said it was pejorative. That makes BOTH sides of the discussion agreeing on a pejorative meaning, with no opposing voices. In that situation, you either have to correct the talk page or the article. As I said before, I DON'T CARE WHICH. Either oppose the stated pejorative meaning when stated, or don't use the term.EGMichaels (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then "BE BOLD" and request that the comments you think are contrary to talkpage guidelines be archived. When Lisa made a whole new section calling attention to said comments and then a robust discussion regarding said comments takes place it only draws more attention to them.  We don't feed trolls nor do we react when someone tries to kick over the beehive.  I'm not saying that Cush intentionally stirred the pot but the end result was the same.  As for the ultimatum I'd like to point out the FAQ above that many of us contributed to to specifically oppose any assumption of perjoritive usage and to clarify neutral intent.  Just because we seek sanction of users or create talk page sections to call them out doesn't mean we haven't made our stance clear.  It just means that we care more about making progress than arguing about who said what and who made who angry.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, add up all the lines you spent arguing that you didn't need to disagree with Cush's stated meaning. All you had to do was disagree with it in a single line.  You're trying too hard to avoid work.  Consensus, unfortunately, is an ongoing thing.  I came in here because there was a note for me to pop in with a fresh view.  I didn't read all of the archived material and am not sure where to look.  What I did do was take a look at the issue, and suggest that "myth" was appropriate as long as it wasn't being used by the editors to mean "lie." (those weren't my exact words, but the drift of it).


 * So I see the "story" side saying "myth is being used to mean lie".


 * And I see the "myth" side saying "myth is being used to mean lie".


 * And I see no opposing views.


 * That's consensus. Did you or someone else say something in the distant past?  Maybe.  But if I read your silence wrong, all you had to do was correct your silence.  Instead you keep arguing with me that I'm not reading your silence right.  I'M NOT A MIND READER -- nor should I have to research archived material supposedly written by a person who is refusing to merely repeat it NOW.EGMichaels (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias and bad faith
Cush is an editor who refuses to edit in good faith or assume good faith on the part of others when it comes to anything he deems even marginally "theist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush

This RfC ran without any results, other than the fact that it made Cush's bias known to some people who weren't already aware of it. Maybe the next step needs to be a post to the Admin noticeboard. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But this page is for improving the article. Quietmarc (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Quietmarc, if you have concerns address it on his talkpage dont escalate hereWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not create sections about or directed at specific editors. -- King Öomie  19:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone has some form of bias Lisa and considering the majority of your talk page comments are edit war / WP:3RR warnings a good case could be made that you have a solid history of not assuming good faith on the part of other editors when it comes to anything you deem to be marginally critical of your beliefs. Calling such things out (criticisms of a particular editor) on a talk page of an article is in poor taste and only makes you guilty of the same AGF violations of which you accuse others.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it very much belongs here, since Cush's obvious bias is causing trouble reaching consensus. As I stated before, I came here with the same conclusions Cush does about the proper titling of an article, but the sheer arrogance of his statements, insulting the intelligence of other good faith editors is making me wish I was not in agreement with his choice of title.  This isn't what Wikipedia is here for.  Lisa's link is both helpful and pertinent to the matter at hand: if arrogant statements can make people who agree want to back off, how much harder is it for those who disagree?  Collaborative editing cannot thrive on this or any other article with this kind of bias being paraded around.  The problem this article is having isn't the title -- it's Cush.EGMichaels (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that is true (even though i completely agree). Wikipedia says we should use his talk page first.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And what next, should we now all create sections to point out the obvious POV / AGF issues each of us think all of the other editors have? How about we just redirect the talk page to witch hunt.Nefariousski (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a general problem with Cush's editing style, this is not the proper avenue for discussion. See my link above. -- King Öomie  19:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @EGMichaels: What do you want? Discuss forever and ever because some Christian and Jewish editors cannot accept that WP has to treat all faiths equally? And when editors start to make statements that they very well know are false, then the patience is over. We have had this nonsense going on for 5 years already. Every few months the fringe opinions that seek to make faith equal to actual research come up and mess up the articles that touch on issues concerning the Bible. You can see the sheer amount of useless talk on this page, can't you? And what is the reason for this? Faith. Fundamentalist faith. Is that the way to maintain an encyclopedia? <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 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How, in practice, would we "treat all faiths equally?" They are, in fact, different. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, the only "fundamentalist" behavior I see at the moment is your own. Perhaps you are a fundamentalist atheist.  Whatever ism you have, you need to collaborate in a neutral and non-insulting manner toward other editors.  I'm religious, and have the exact same understanding of geologic history that you do.  I came here promoting the same article title you do.  But I cannot abide by willful insults against the integrity and intelligence of other editors.  It's abusive, uncivil, and is precisely the reason there is no collaboration here.  I AGREE with your title and can't collaborate with you.  Take a breather and be civil, Cush.EGMichaels (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EG, if you honestly believe Cush has some sort of agenda, sinister or otherwise might I suggest that you not feed into it and fork discussion towards editor vs. editor bickering. When, in the history of this article other editors make fire and brimstone, you're going to hell type comments to those in favor of current wording they were generally ignored instead of argued with over their beliefs.  It was a personally difficult lesson for me to learn but in the end cooler heads prevail.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariosski, please take a look at Cush's talk page. He makes no bones about it.  I cannot support his choice of title because he claims to do so for non neutral reasons.  We are not ALLOWED to violate NPOV, and therefore I am not ALLOWED to agree with his choice of title until he withdraws from the discussion.  This is quite simple: either he stays and my vote for neutrality negates his vote for bias, or he takes a breather and at least gives neutral editors the option of considering his title.  But no neutral editor is allowed to do so when the purpose is to violate NPOV.


 * So on that note look at Lisa's page, AFAPROF's page, Til's page etc... and notice how they make no bones about their beliefs either. Should we invalidate all of their statements because their obvious beliefs conflict with an assumption of neutrality?  By that logic you can't vote either way because doing so would violate NPOV the other way and therefore the only choice (by your logic) is for you to not participate at all until anyone with a personal opinion one way or the other leaves the discussion.  I suggest you read the WP:NPOV section on bias.  We all have some sort of bias one way or another, because some choose to wear their bias on their sleeve doesn't necessarily mean that you have the same bias if you agree with them on an issue.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nef -- you're not getting me. I SHARE Cush's POV about geologic events. But I do NOT share his need to crush or belittle all other POVs. We are here to collaborate, not obliterate. Anyone, from ANY POV who seeks to destroy collaborative editing must back off. That includes theists and atheists.EGMichaels (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a poll. Your promise to contradict Cush's vote based on his attitude is inappropriate- argue what you actually believe (or can back up). If his views are absurd or deliberately offensive, they will be ignored. -- King Öomie  20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that but I don't think you're getting me either. I SHARE your POV about how editors should be civil etc...  But I do NOT share your need to switch sides to protest one editors actions.  Nor do I share your need to drag out what amounts to a personal argument on the talk page of an article as opposed to a user talk page or the applicable noticeboard.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Even a broken (analogue) clock is right twice a day. Even if Cush has an extreme bias (I can't be bothered to care), in THIS case, he is on the side of wikipedia policy. There are reams and reams of archived pages here to pore over and think about on the subject of whether "Creation Myth" is appropriate and/or the best wording for this article (short answer: it is), and this debate - which has gone on for about 2 months now with no new arguments or (more importantly) valid sources - is getting tiresome. Those who disagree with the current wiki policies should take it up on the appropriate policy pages and instead use this space to improve this article 'within the bounds of Wikipedia policy'. Quietmarc (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quietmarc — The subject of the discussion is the article's title. I don't think anyone is discussing whether or not "creation myth" has a place within the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree (and did agree) with the term "myth" if the editors actually mean it in a NPOV way. However, Cush stated an intention that myth would mean a biased synonym for "lies."  Well, we can't title this article "Genesis Creation Lies."  And we can't use synonyms for such either.


 * Had the other editors here immediately opposed Cush, then we could justifiably use the term "myth" and not be complicit in the NPOV violation. However, I see opposition to me instead of Cush.


 * As I've stated, I would support (and did support) the term with a clear NPOV usage. Cush has supported use of the term as a biased synonym for "lies."


 * Exactly WHICH editor do you really wish to disagree with?EGMichaels (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EditorS? I thought this was about Cush. And it can't be both? If you arguing on the side of Wikipedia policy results in someone else's hollow pedantic little victory, why the hell not? It seems silly to refuse to argue your own position because someone else might 'win' for the wrong reasons. -- King Öomie 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Kingdom, it's not hollow or pedantic to suggest that we don't title articles with a stated bias. Cush has stated the bias, and when I object, you disagree with ME.  Well, that's a problem.  Ben was able to thread the needle above, try it.EGMichaels (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, you agree with the 'creation myth' title, but refuse to argue that side because of WHY Cush agrees with it. I'm saying that doesn't matter, and you should argue the side you agree with, regardless of who's standing next to you. Also, that's an O, not a D, in the name. -- King Öomie 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * King, I agreed with the creation myth title IF we don't mean myth as a synonym for lie. I stated this in my first post. Cush expressly stated that he DOES mean it as a synonym for lie. The creationists AGREE that he means it as a synonym for lie. And no other editors were disagreeing with that stated meaning. That crosses the stated caveat in my original post. Either correct the talk page, or the article. But we cannot violate NPOV by using a term that we do not disagree means "lie." I'm not a mind reader, and other readers aren't either.EGMichaels (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So if a Nambla member came in and said that he supported the use of "Creation Story" because little boys like stories would you rush back to the Creation Myth side? Nefariousski (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd respond, but the example is a little weird.EGMichaels (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If Cush's POV was instead that Story was preferable because he sees it as 'more' untrue than myth, would you hold the opposite view? -- King Öomie  21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If that was the stated argument on the talk page, if the opposing side agreed, and if there were no stated dissenters, then there would be an expressed neutrality problem on the talk page. Here's the rub -- we edit by consensus, and that includes our stated meanings.  Those arguing against myth argued on the basis that it meant "lie."  Cush argued FOR myth on the same grounds.  NO ONE stated a disagreement (except for me).  That made the STATED consensus to be that myth was in fact being used in violation of NPOV policy.  We aren't allowed to do that.  I'm STILL waiting for you, King, to express a disagreement with Cush.  The silence leaves the consensus of meaning to be "lie."  We aren't mind readers, King.  If you participate in a discussion, don't leave a consensus of meaning unopposed... unless you agree with it.  Do you?EGMichaels (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might want to read about how "consensus" works on Wiki. Silence doesn't equal consent here esp considering that you can't expect every editor to be on and reading the same article at the same time.  Do you honestly expect everyone to actively rage against every comment or editor that goes over the line?  For the record I disagree with any value judgement regarding "truth or lie" or any other informal meanings being associated with the term "creation myth".  So now that I've spoken out opposite of the "lie" statement I've neutralized the pov in your eyes right?  Can we move on and continue with some semblance of constructive work?  Nefariousski (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have directly stated that Cush's motives and methods of argumentation are not my own. From above:


 * "...Cush said, 'The point is to treat all religions equal around here and to not give in to the judeochristian proselytizers.' Bus stop (talk) 6:22 pm, 16 February 2010, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)"
 * "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 11:06 pm, 16 February 2010, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)" -- King Öomie  00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nef. That wasn't hard, was it?EGMichaels (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we archive this thread, the next thread and the thread above please? Ben (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. No need to waste the talk page with this clutter.  I think I stated the summary sufficiently below.  But we may need to leave the summary statement in place for a few days.EGMichaels (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can point anyone to it if need be. It won't be archived fully for another 15 days. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Side note on this discussion
An RfC on User:Cush's behavior has been opened at Requests for comment/Cush2.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What's up with your edit summary?? I didn't delete anything, Although since 90% of the examples on the RFC are totally unrelated to this article maybe this section should be deleted.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * uhm review your edits, i think it might have been accident but idk. secondly it is on topic for this thread of dicussion Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward (derailed)
Now that the second page move request has closed, I think we can move forward. A few things that I can think of that need doing are: I'm sure there are more suggestions, so feel free to list them. Perhaps one point at a time can be dealt with by creating a section on this talk page and chipping away at it. Additional thoughts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further development/refinement of the FAQ at the top of the page.
 * Rewrite the introductory sentence. It should be absolutely clear what the term myth means from the start.
 * Develop a section on the classification of Genesis 1-2 as myth, including the history of, disagreement with, etc, this classification.


 * Ben, ignoring input, moving input, or archiving input, does not help us move forward. This is a COLLABORATIVE effort.  You need to include the relevant POVs, but shut them down.  Have a little patience.  I'm getting information from the other (silenced) participants to find out what is needed to have a stable article.  Collaboration seems slower, but it ultimately is the only thing that sticks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, the only thought I have at the moment is that no consensus was reached to move OR retain the page title. The last two statements on the subject were mine and the person who archived the discussion, and both of us desired a less contentious title than either option.
 * This subject will keep coming up and creating way too much overhead. It's primarily the reason that I'm hesitant to edit articles on religious subjects -- too many editors are concerned with establishing or debunking someone's absolute truth.
 * As for your third point below, all meaningful accounts can be classified as myth, whether true, false, or happening right in front of your eyes. If it is a paradigm establishing event, it is mythical (I'm using the literary application of the term, but I'm into story structure).  A fiction can be mythic.  History can be mythic.  Even a disagreement can become mythic because of the meaning created in the conflict itself.  Even worse, however, is the problem of editors trying to establish within the article itself what is "myth" and what is "history" as if they are mutually exclusive.  Isn't that assuming that no "myth" can be truly "historical?"  And isn't that betraying the very meaning of "myth" you and I have collectively denounced?
 * Rather than closing the problem here, you are multiplying it in your very proposal.EGMichaels (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We went through an RM to get the page where it is now, and it succeeded. A new RM was created to move the page back and failed. I would say those two events constitute consensus for the current page title. I would welcome you to disagree, but, as this sections title hints at, I think it's time to move forward. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wrote too little in my first post. I've clarified the third point since I think you misunderstood. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. It's now worse.  The classification of the Genesis account as myth will force you to argue in the article itself whether or why something is true or false.  As for the RMs success or failure, my concern is that both titles are failures of true stability.  The level of contention brought on either side and the length of history on this means that you will encounter this problem long after I'm gone (and others will encounter it long after you are gone) until a truly stable title is explored.  While we don't have to do it now, we definitely need to keep this in mind for the next time (or the time after, or the time after).  Sooner or later both sides will sit down and come up with a title they can live with.  Simply subduing the opposition will not do the trick.  And, even more to the point, pulling a fiat induced title into an active eploration on the article page itself will only multiply the problems.  I don't care enough to beat this.  But I don't care enough to pursue a course that will keep blowing up in our faces when another -- neutral -- alternative may be easily available.  Do you WANT collaboration of all points of view?  You seem decent enough.  I would think so.  Then trust me -- this isn't going to work without a LOT of elbow grease and constant babysitting.  You're a braver man than I.EGMichaels (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was and is "Genesis chapters one and two." It does not even touch upon the questions this issue has been about. It makes no mention of creation; it makes no mention of myth. It avoids all additional commentary. It only identifies the article. Bus stop (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your belief that the title question is closed is entirely misplaced. The last RM close specificly leaves the matter open, & the two discussions are very odd. The first one, only open 4 days, had only one explicit "support" vote, apart from the nom also voting without disclosing that fact (did the closing admin realize?). The stated rationale for that support is just wierd, and other comments, such as Dab's, clearly favoured a Keep. The second one was arguably actually a "no consensus", despite the clear balance of votes in favour of a move, but defaulting to the dubious previous decision leaves the whole matter open, imo. Does Deletion Review take requested moves cases? That would be the best next step. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Balance of votes... WP isn't a democracy... Consensus is judged by quality of a position not by number of votes... you know the drill.  What is another RM or RFC going to accomplish in so short of time?  The above discussions will just be cut and pasted, someone will canvass for a change back to the original article title, a dozen editors will come in and write I agree that the article should be changed and nothing more and some folks will think that this actually counts towards consensus and then call the next closed RM or RFC to question as well.  I'm not saying that the title is here and it's here to stay, but we can't expect different outcome in so short a time without any further development in the article, more research, fresh perspective etc...  How about we just focus on improving the article, FAQ etc... through standard BRD for a month or so before we open up the can of worms again.  Nefariousski (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't very well improve an article without trying to reach a consensus. I see people trying to do anything but that here.  An article has to have an agreed upon premise before people can figure out just WHAT to improve.  The sudden closure and claim of victory with people so clearly troubled on one side and at least one person so clearly troubling on the other negates any consensus.  You may create an article that pedantically argues in favor of "myth" to such an extent that people finally either come in to delete the entire article, or else create some kind of fork with another.  Imagine that you mythologize this article and then someone else has a master article detailing the chapters of Genesis in a context that "myth" doesn't really serve the purpose of a literary summary.  Then what?  Then you have a finely constructed article that is so specialized that the only people who ever want to look at it are people who already share the singular POV shoehorned into the article.


 * I'm not comfortable wasting a lot of work trying to marginalize an article that should have a wider audience. The Genesis Creation Account is too notable and well known to be limited in this way. Should "myth" be treated in the article?  Absolutely.  Should the ENTIRE article be a pedantic attempt to force "myth" down the throats of half the world's population?  uh, no.  There is clearly no consensus for the current title.  Maybe not one for the original one either.  Neither side should be so married to their POV that they marginalize themselves into creating an unstable article.  It's a huge waste of everyone's time, including your own.


 * Just take a look at the latest edits in the lede. Ben is forcing a series of sloppily written lines that can have only one purpose: pedantic editing.  "The Genesis creation myth is the account of how the world was created according to the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis. It is made up of two consecutive narratives:"


 * Why have "myth" when you have "account"? Why have "account" if "myth" is the best word?  A term should be clear enough to stand on it's own.  "The book of Genesis opens with an account detailing the creation of the world in two consecutive narratives."  That's tighter, clearer, less pedantic, and less repetitious.  The only reason we can't have a well written article here is that we are trying to "move forward" from a pedantic premise.


 * As I've indicated before, I PERSONALLY have no problem with "myth". It does not offend me in the least.  But no serious Wikipedia editor tries to alienate half of his readers and co-editors.  Let's be serious here.  There is no consensus for either title, and neither half of the planet should be marginalized.  The article should represent BOTH POVs related here, and accurately report who says what and why.  The current title, fine with me PERSONALLY, is an editorial fiasco.EGMichaels (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The time for discussing page titles is over. There have been two Requested Moves and an RFC processed and here we are at this article title. You can loathe that fact all you like, you rationalise it as "odd", "no consensus", whatever you want, but leave it off this talk page for at least the next few months. If participation in the development of this article is not something you want to do while it's titled this way, then don't. No-one is forcing you to be here, but it is time to move on from the article title. Ben (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's never time to proceed without consensus. Is it time to leave you alone with a fair warning that you are wasting your time?  Perhaps.  I do have a life.  But keep in mind what you are doing: "we are forcing a fake consensus and telling you to shut up."  That's not stable editing.  Your "time to move forward" reminds me of an old southern expression: "the hurrieder you go, the behinder you get."  Try to get consensus.  A real one -- not a fake one -- and you greatly expand both your editorial work force, and your audience... with a tenth of the effort.EGMichaels (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already noted that the first sentence needs to be rewritten, it's the second point at the top of this thread. Remember? It was just before you derailed this thread. Your assumption that half the planet (presumably every Christian and Jew and then some?) have a POV that would be against using the term myth is ridiculous. Your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are appalling. Enjoy that life of yours, ok? Ben (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, you invited help rewriting the first sentence and then undid whoever tried to help rewrite it without comment. You need to make up your mind.  You're also trying to get help moving forward, and I'm actually TRYING to help you here.  Having written a number of books, I can tell you that nothing is more painful than having 300 pages of manuscript that paints you into a dead end because of a bad premise.  As I mentioned, I PERSONALLY have no trouble with "myth."  And yet you say I "loathe" this somehow.  The only trouble I have here is a certain POV pedantically trying to silence all dissent -- and now you're apparently trying to silence me for pointing out that you are silencing others.  That's not collaborative editing, it's not moving forward, and it's not what Wikipedia is all about.  This is a NPOV resource meant to give people information and citations they can use for further research in whatever direction their interest lies.  Rather than derailing this thread, I'm trying to help you do exactly what you claim to want: move forward.  Well, Ben, you are stuck in a cul-de-sac.  The best way "forward" to the interstate is to "back out of your own driveway and get to the common road."  Try it.  Collaboration is pretty painless, and requires far less words like "loathe" and "get a life."  Play well with others, and you'll have a nicer sandbox.EGMichaels (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Handy link to the "help" I undid for anyone wanting to check up on the first sentence in EGMichaels comment. The rest of the comment is of the same calibre as the first sentence. Ben (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly -- someone reworded a line that has caused (apparently) MONTHS of contention and megabytes of discussion. That looks like real help to me, and your threats to the person about "vandalism" were misplaced in this instance. I DO note that the individual did appear to vandalize an unrelated page, but your own threats on his talk page were not appropriate in this instance. Let's leave out the "loathe" comments (about a word I would PERSONALLY prefer if it weren't causing trouble), as well as the "appaling" comments about my attempts to foster real collaboration. And let's please stop threatening IP users when they aren't actually vandalizing our own article. You really do need to slow down a bit and seek COLLABORATION. That involves OTHER POVs. Your "enemies" here are really your best friends. Heck, I originally came in here supporting your own title (until I realized what a disaster it was). I was big enough to admit I was wrong. It didn't hurt at all (not even when you were jumping up and down about it).EGMichaels (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough. You've gone straight into personal attacks here, and that is not welcome. Consider this a warning. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, Hand. We need people helping keep things civil.  Please visit my talk page and help us brainstorm.  I'm not allowing personal attacks there and will delete them when they occur.  Neither side is allowed to attack the other.EGMichaels (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The warning was directed at you, EGM. And I would suggest you also be wary of WP:OWN. You've made several statements here that you "will not allow" things, and generally have given a very combative attitude. I would personally suggest you back off for a bit, as you seem to be taking this rather personally. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You missed, Hand. I'm the editor who doesn't care which title is used, since "myth" and "story" are synonyms.  I'm also the editor trying to keep this offline in a civil forum where neither side is allowed to attack the other.  I've offered to referee.  If you'll look at my talk page, you'll note that so far "Genesis creation myth" has the greatest number of interested backers.  It's not helpful to warn the wrong editor -- I'm not the one using terms like "loathe".  Let's keep it civil, and please come to give your two cents.  Right now your "side" has the most going for it.  EGMichaels (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The wrong editor," eh? I'm sensing a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The discussion is about this article, and should remain here. I've made my stance clear already, and have no intention of feeding into your ownership issues. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I for one will immediately revert / fix any colloquial usage in the article or any attempt to use any informal synonyms. My stance isn't one of dogma or belief, it's one of using correct and precise terminology that is widely used and accepted in academic, encyclopedic, scholarly and theological circles in addition to ensuring uniform use across articles that discuss the different beliefs of different people (I don't just aim for proper usage on this article).  Nefariousski (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, to quote other people from your side of the argument: move on already.  We've discussed this already, and your view of 'formal usage' is clearly not the world-wide academic view.  I for one, will continue to immediately revert/fix, any pov that is continually being pushed through here.

Talkpage Roundtable
I'm creating a neutral place to discuss the pros and cons of each option on my talk page. Mythologizers and non mythologizers are each welcome, but only in certain sections of the discussion. I think I can referee the organization of the page and give people some leeway.

My volunteering to be referee doesn't mean that I'm neutral. It just means that you all have a single person to blame if the waters get muddied. Everyone will KNOW it's completely my fault.

Another advantage is that we can move some of the discussion off this talk page and allow other subjects and sections to be discussed. There are itemizations that may need to be discussed about specific subtopics that are being ignored because of the title debate.

First, I want to know what options there are (a brainstorming section) and then the merits and demerits of each. The rules are my rules, but I'm being fair. I want to know what all the options are, what the real interest is, and what the merits of the various options are.

It may well be that those who are most interested in changing the title are least interested in building the article. If that's the case, then the weight of title choice should be for the editors who plan to hang around. I do NOT plan to hang around for a long time, and so I really have no stake either way.

But it does seem that the discussion has been unfair to both the article (too much clutter) and the dissenting view (too little regard). Hopefully taking it off page for a few days can enable us to remove the clutter and come back with a summary statement that ALL sides can agree with.EGMichaels (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion has already happened three times via an RFC and two RMs. You are of course welcome to discuss whatever you want on your talk page, but it will likely get little input from people who have had to justify the use of the term myth through those three discussions. It is also unreasonable to expect that input from people after three long discussions. I repeat my earlier suggestion, leave it for a few months. At this point any attempts to open another RM, RFC, or whatever are likely to be seen as disruptive per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree discussion needs to continue. I would like the admin who closed this article to give more explanation.  This is what it says here, "However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name. In the event what the most recent stable name is is itself a matter of dispute, closers are expected to use their own judgment in determining the proper destination.  If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, you may elect to re-list the discussion, though it is entirely optional and up to the closer."  I would like to know these 2 things from the closing admins:
 * * they chose not to move it back to the "most recent stable name." Why?
 * * they chose not to "elect to re-list the discussion." Why?  Cheers, SAE (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the current article title was the result of an RM, it is the stable version. The current title is not the result of a drive-by move, which is what the text you're quoting is referring to. Ben (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think the result of the page name move and the past week is "stable" then you live in a different world then me. SAE (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked above about whether the RfC was widely publicised. I received a correction on my mistaken understanding of WP:CENT (for which I am grateful) but no response on my main point. Was it widely publicised? WikiProjects? Signpost? VP? --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to do an RM or an RFC. I'm trying to make a safe place to clear the air without cluttering this page.  And in the process I'd like to catalogue the options and pros and cons for each.  Part of the problem in this "discussion" so far is that people start arguing before they finish brainstorming.  You have to look at the options first before you really know what you are discussing.  For the record, I do see pros in the use of "myth."  But there's no way to get a consensus if people aren't allowed to be included and fully listened to.  As I said, you are welcome to list the pros and cons.  I'm not going to allow argumentation -- just LISTING of what and why.  We can use it for a reference later if another RM or RFC comes up.EGMichaels (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * * Con : Myth as it is used in the academic world continues to have the strong connotation of fable and legend. In a lay man's sense, it almost 100% means untruth.  Editors here arguing for myth have shown that this too is their clear understanding of the word myth.  Two reasons why myth cannot be used on a living religion, and at the same time remain npov.  SAE (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People keep making this claim, and I'm calling shenanigans. I support "myth" as the most neutral term. Second, "consensus" does not mean "unanimous," and it would do people well to quit saying that people aren't being listened to. The arguments were heard twice, and nothing has come of it. We've driven this subject into the dirt, and shouldn't have to do it again so soon. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three times, an RFC and two RMs. Ben (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Hand "We've driven this subject into the dirt, and shouldn't have to do it again so soon" -> then don't. it's this easy: stop refreshing this talk page. Now, I hope you're not trying to freeze a copy of this article right where you want it... that's not it, right?  For a user that hasn't contributed at all to this article (except a few reverts in the last week that you call pov), I wonder why you are so vocal on the talk page that it not receive any further edits or discussion. SAE (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here because of concerns brought up at a notice board. Thanks for not WP:AGFing. That said, are you expecting us to debate this ad infinitum? At a certain point, we need to stop and get back to improving the article. If folks want to bring up the debate again in a few months, fine. Consensus can change, but right now it seems like the anti-myth folks want to sledgehammer their way into the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are you coming from? Please do not accuse me improperly.  Do I expect to debate this ad infinitum?  No.  But is there consensus?  No.  What makes you think we're done discussing?  You, Tillman, and anyone else who says, 'move on' at this point seem just to be attempting to push your pov through.  There is not yet consencus, and therefore the discussion will continue.  If you are tired of it, than remove this page from your watchlist. SAE (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm coming from you making snide accusations that I'm here just to push an agenda. Again, consensus does not mean "everyone agrees." We've had this discussion three times already. I'm not going to just run away because you don't like me. I don't see any point in beating a dead horse. I've yet to see a reason for changing the article's name except "I don't like it" or "It might offend someone," neither of which is valid. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks -- let's please get this off of the article page. It's not constructive. Everyone knows that "myth" is a synonym for "story", and those who truly think so don't care which word is used. I'm one of those who doesn't care. If "myth" is a synonym for story, then "story" is a synonym for myth, and they are thus interchangable. However, it is certainly clear that some folks feel very strongly about this, and those who do (on both sides) are thus demonstrating that they do NOT regard them as interchangable. As Hand said, there may BE no possible consensus -- but (as Ben said), it's been beaten to death HERE and THIS page needs a rest.

As I said, I personally DO regard "myth" and "story" to be synonymous in the academic sense, and therefore interchangable. I therefore do not care which is used. But I DO care about civility and clutter on an article page. Let's move this offline and see if consensus is possible or impossible. If impossible, then the editors with the most permanent interest (possibly the "myth" side) should prevail.EGMichaels (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to misunderstand what WP:CONSENSUS means. It does not mean "agreement by all parties." If you agree that there is no further point to debating on this talk page, then the matter is closed. User talk pages are not meant for forking article discussion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand, you may want to discuss this with Ben first. Do you REALLY want me to move all of this here?  I'll be happy to do so if you both insist.  But I think Ben wants to give the page a break and I think he's right.


 * Let me know which you want -- a disussion here or there. If here, I'll move everything here.  So far, your side has the most support.  But that would simply be because there are so many other options splitting people's views.EGMichaels (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you and Ben want to discuss it, that's fine. But it would not be a centralized debate for the article, just two users discussing the article. It would have no bearing on establishing consensus here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * [I]t would not be a centralized debate for the article .. [i]t would have no bearing on establishing consensus here. <--- This is correct in so many ways. Though don't interpret that as an invitation to continue talking about the article title here. As I said above, I think it's time to move on. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, Hand -- you two can't have it both ways. Either the eight editors who've posted on my talk page are allowed to be here or there. But you can't just say, "You aren't allowed here or there either." You can own an article, but not a user page. Again, please make up your mind WHICH you want, and I'll have the postings listed either place you two agree on.EGMichaels (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EG, Before we continue this further would you do me the favor of reading through the FAQ and the linked policy pages. Particularly Q3 and Q2.  We need to steer debate away from the generic term "MYTH" and focus on the term "Creation Myth" They have two distinct meanings different from one another and never once is "myth" used alone (see electoral college vs. college example).  Arguements regarding the definitions of the word "myth" should be ignored all together per Q3, arguments that amount to an appeal to sensitivity or emotion should be generally ignored per Q2.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Nef. Thanks for the suggestion!


 * "Creation myth is a formal and proper term used by a wide range of academics and scholars (religious and secular) to define a supernatural account of how life, Earth and everything in general came into existence. This term does not imply falsehood unlike the way that the informal use of the word myth can."


 * Agreed. It should be used in this way.  I think the concern is that it may not be used in this way.  There's really no way to know with the heated nature of this talk page, and in fact the very heat of that nature gives me concerns that neither side is truly observing this ideal.  A good litmus test is to find another word synonymous with the intended meaning.  Those at peace with the synonym really are observing this first point.  Those insisting on "myth" probably aren't using the term in this neutral sense.  I'm personally fine with "myth", but I'm also fine with "story" as a synonym.  I'm concerned that I may be in the minority (on either side) here.


 * "Wikipedia:WTA#Myth and Legend clearly states that myth in its informal sense should not be used but also clearly states that we should treat all faiths and beliefs the same (e.g. Not referring to a Christian belief on the one hand and a Hindu myth on the other). Thus all faith's creation myths are referred to as such in their respective articles as well."


 * As I've noted both here and on my talk page, consistency with other articles, including the "Creation Myths" article is an argument in favor of the use of the term. If you'll look on the chart on my talk page, I've put my name in the "Pro" section of "myth" for this reason.  Nevertheless, Hindu "myths" are not listed in this article, and INTERNAL to this article, "myth" is therefore not required.  A synonym is allowed (such as "story" or "account").  The Con (as I've listed for these two alternatives) is that all linking articles would have to be edited so that they read "Genesis creation myth" in the context of other creation myths while still linking with this present article -- regardless of how it is titled.  Further, it has been proposed (I think it was Avi) that all living religions be treated the same, and I've made a comment to this effect on the talk page of your link above.  "Myths" could be used for dead religions, and "Beliefs" or "Stories" could be used for living ones.  I don't think anyone would be confused and suddenly convert to Hinduism/Christianity/Taoism (at the same time!) because the word "story" is used in all three.  Wikireaders are more intelligent than that!


 * "Wikipedia:RNPOV states "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." This is also the main thrust of WP:NOT#CENSORED."


 * I think the concern is not to censor terms, but to use equally reliable terms or synonyms. It is a known convention in the real world to use "beliefs" or "accounts" or "narratives" or "stories" in place of "myth" when dealing with living religions.  I think even Strunk and White would agree.


 * Ultimately the catch 22 here is the refusal to use synonyms. This was the first red flag for me. I initially came in promoting "myth" and am still fine with "myth" as long as the FAQs you've pointed out are truly being used.  But the proof that they are NOT being followed is the refusal to substitute a synonym.  If you cannot use a synonym, then you absolutely do NOT mean that synonym.  I'm personally fine with "story" precisely because I DO mean it as a synonym for "myth."  But my editorial concern with the title stems from the fact that I'm very much in the minority with that dual comfort level.  In other words, the mutual discomfort on both sides is proof enough that neither side is following your FAQ sheet.  And if not, then we need to use a synonym for what that FAQ claims to MEAN(instead of what it claims to SAY).EGMichaels (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The refusal to use synonyms comes from the fact that no other religious creation myth on Wikipedia uses a different term. We try to keep similar articles using similar name systems, per Article titles. Using a synonym sets Judeo-Christian religions apart from the other religions on Wikipedia, thus creating an appearance of favoritism. If this is the crux of your issue, what you need is to propose a guideline to get all these articles named the same, not keep hammering on a single article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EG, you really need to give up your ownership issues. I never said "they aren't allowed," but that discussions on a User talk page have no bearing on an Article talk page's consensus. You're free to keep discussing it on your talk page and here if you want, but debates on your talk page cannot be considered for determining consensus here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm willing to move all of those signed comments from eight editors here if you prefer. But then we'll have a problem with the real ownership issue, trying to prevent discussion both here AND there.  Please list a place where those editors will be listened to, and I'll comply.EGMichaels (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times are you not going to listen to what I'm saying? I'm not owning anything, I'm telling you how Wikipedia works. If they want to discuss it there, then come back here and present their argument, fine. I'm saying that if the discussion happens there, they still have to reach consensus with editors here afterwards. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused about what you're saying. You're talking about Myth, the scholarly term,  and Myth, meaning  'lie', like they're homonyms, not different definitions to the same word. If the context works for the first  one better than the second, whatever secret intentions a given editor  has don't matter. It's not like he's  adding  to the  page every time he types it. No additional meaning coats the term beyond  its context. It sounds like you're saying "editors have to promise they  won't MEAN one thing" instead of "editors have to promise that the  context will point to the SCHOLARLY definition"- which it currently  does.  -- King Öomie  18:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is what the title should be. The title should not have larded into it anyone's pet perception on what Genesis might be. I hear from no one that the title should invoke the holiness or the sacredness of this tract from a central document to one or more religions. But I hear numerous editors calling for a title that identifies that document and at the same time proclaims its inaccuracy. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia should realize right away that we (editors) are not supposed to be utilizing Wikipedia to promote our own personal views. Scientific evidence may demolish any shred of credibility this religious document may have. But the religious document itself should be identified in value neutral language. It is a story. There is no word in the English language more natural than "story" for referring to to the verbal description contained in Genesis chapters one and two. Myth implies spuriousness. Is it Wikipedia's role to take a stand on matters only tangentially related to the identification of this article? I don't think so. I think our sole responsibility is identifying the subject of this article. Some word should probably be used to refer to the contents of Genesis as covered by our article, and "story" does this with the least fanfare. "Story" accomplishes this without applying any "spin" vis-a-vis a science/religion debate that should play no role in naming this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's your question. And that's Cush. -- King Öomie  18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Myth implies spuriousness."
 * Good god. Is it POSSIBLE to win this whack-a-mole game? -- King Öomie  18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * King -- all I'm saying is that the scholarly use is strongly (though not totally) synonymous with "story." The only advantage to "myth" is the greater specificity of meaning (to include something both supernatural and not objectively true).  Personally, I like the word "myth" better than "story" because a myth connotes something SUBJECTIVELY true -- i.e. a story with meaning.  However, as I've noted, my comfort level with the synonym is in such apparent minority, that it appears that neither side is USING the term as a synonym for story.  If I call a woman a lady (and I mean a synonym for woman), and she objects to the term because she's no one's wife -- I'll shrug my shoulders and call her whatever synonym she likes... because I truly MEAN the synonym.  As I said before, it's a catch 22.  Only those comfortable with BOTH "story" and "myth" are in compliance with the FAQ.  Right now I'm the only person with that comfort.  And you?EGMichaels (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Busstop, Genesis being a "Creation myth" is no more someone's pet perception than an alligator being a reptile. As for "story" i'd like you to compare the definitions of "creation myth" and "Story" and see which one has more of a fairy tale, false spin to it.  There's no alternative definition for "creation myth" that implies fiction or falsehood as there is with story.


 * EG, I for one will immediately revert / fix any colloquial usage in the article or any attempt to use any informal synonyms. My stance isn't one of dogma or belief, it's one of using correct and precise terminology that is widely used and accepted in academic, encyclopedic, scholarly and theological circles in addition to ensuring uniform use across articles that discuss the different beliefs of different people (I don't just aim for proper usage on this article).  Nefariousski (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Nef -- I've noticed that you were doing that and appreciate that. In any case, I think we can satisy Ben's request that we minimize the impact here, and Hands requirement that everyone be ignored unless posting here.  We can finish the categorization on my talk page and make a clear summary listing of each pro and con -- and people can just sign their own views with a quick four tildes once it moves here.  But there are more people to hear from.  Right now "Genesis creation myth" has a plurality, but not a majority.  While consensis is not necessarily a vote, people's concerns should be clearly addressed and listened to, rather than dismissed out of hand.  I'd like to make sure you're fairly represented in the summary as well.  I wouldn't want the summary list to ignore the "myth" points.EGMichaels (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've set up a false dichotomy here. I'm not comfortable with "story" because it goes against WP:TITLE by making this Abrahamaic religious creation myth stand apart from all the other creation myths on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we don't just "shrug our shoulders" for folks because they personally take offense to a scholarly term used in a scholarly manner. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, after you did that, I'd be wondering why it is that there are 40 "ladies" in the room, and one "Ma'am". -- King Öomie  19:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL King!!! :-)


 * Hand, it's not being used in a scholarly way if its synonym gets THIS much opposition. Methinks thou dost protest too much.EGMichaels (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. You haven't assumed good faith since you started editing here. And I'm rapidly running out of good faith in you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting statement, since I've seen a lot of good faith here (take a look at my talk page). My problem is that a lot of good faith editors are being told to sit down and shut up with "let's move on" or "this is a dead horse" etc.  All I'm suggesting is that everything be clearly expressed, so that you at least know WHAT you are disagreeing with (and they know the same concerning you).  And you have a problem with this because...???  Maybe I missed it.  I'm saying everyone should be fairly considered, systematically presented, and neutrally reflected in the article.  Well, that's just normal Wikipedia stuff.  Granted, it seems abnormal here, but that's not my problem.EGMichaels (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of banging my head into your wall, so this will be my last reply to this thread. We've hashed and re-hashed this issue several times already. It's in the archives, hell it's on this very page. If people don't want to be bothered to read the history of this debate, I don't know what to tell them. It's a dead horse because we've beaten it to death and nothing new has come of it. All I'm saying is let it be, and we can revisit it at a later time (hopefully when people have something new to contribute). I have a problem with people arguing for argument's sake, because it's disruptive to actually getting anything done. At a certain point, you need to put the stick down and work on something productive. But, some people seem to think that making the same arguments repeatedly is "discussing" things. As an example, see Bus Stop's comments below. We've already pointed out Article naming, the fact that "creation myth" is neutral naming, among numerous other points, but it's the same old same old from him. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand -- that's why we're systemetizing the options, pros, and cons on my talk page. When we are finished, we can present the summary here, and everyone interested can put their four tildes on it.  It's obvious that at least one side isn't listening (and maybe both).  So, it's useful to at least explore clearly and accurately what everyone is saying in an accessible format.  The problem is that neither side is satisfied, and neither side (you included) feels like they've been heard -- and you are all correct about that!  In any case, your own view still has a plurality.  Relax, consensus and mutual listening CAN be achieved, even on a religion page (personally, I have a love/hate relationship with religious pages for that very reason: no one listens to each other... they're all afraid for their soul or brain).EGMichaels (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The title and the body of the article are two different things. What is good for the body of the article is not necessarily good for the title. The title merely introduces a topic. It should do so in the most plain manner possible. The title, as far as possible, should find its language in common terminology. "Story" is an especially common term in English. It also has the added benefit of being equally applicable to that which is true and that which is false. The reader doesn't come to the article to have their preexisting views supported or challenged, and the right title should reflect this. The right title should be a reflection of the open-mindedness that Wikipedia assumes to characterize its readers. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Story is also an incredibly imprecise term that is often defined as Fiction (feel free to google the definition). "Creation Myth" on the other hand is very precise, only has one definition and does not imply any falsehood, or make any value judgement regarding truth one way or the other  It is completely value neutral it just lists the simple boring facts.  Additionally it is a common term across faiths which helps categorize this article and also keeps it in line with the vast majority of other encyclopedic sources and academic / scholarly research and literature.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, if you were right, then the atheists would be demanding "story" and the theists would be demanding "myth." Er.... doesn't seem to be happening that way.  Chin up!  It WILL be okay.EGMichaels (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not OK to assume bad faith in your opponents so long as there are perfectly fine alternative explanations for a phenomenon. In this case, a bunch of biblical literalists or sympathisers of such started this whole affair with an absurd attack against use of the correct technical term "creation myth" in the lead. It seems quite possible to me that they were influenced by a belief in Wikipedia's "liberal bias" and motivated by assumptions of bad faith. Since there is nothing wrong with the term and they used an invalid argument against it (namely that any choice of words that implies the obvious and uncontroversial fact that the story is not literally true is somehow POV) opposition from the opposite camp was absolutely predictable. Since they were pushing a fringe theory (creationism), the fringe noticeboard was notified. The attention drawn to this article led to the discovery of the problem with its title. Please note how this natural interpretation of events does not involve anyone's bad faith. Hans Adler 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans Adler — are you conceding that there is a problem with the title? You say, "The attention drawn to this article led to the discovery of the problem with its title." I am not trying to speak on your behalf. I am merely asking you a question. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to Creation according to Genesis, which was a bit of a descriptive "plot summary" title. Hans Adler 06:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. You feel that there is a "plot summary" aspect to the previous title. That is fair, and I appreciate your response. Please tell me what objections if any you would have to "Genesis chapters one and two" as a title. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me see... it's not ok to assume bad faith (agreed), but somehow it is perfectly fine to assume "a bunch of literalists" (not the ones posting on my talk page... at least half of whom -- including me -- don't even believe the account) or "absurd attacks" (again, all I see are expressions of neutrality and concerns against assumption of truth as well as falsehood) or "invalid arguments" (NPOV isn't invalid here) or "fringe theory" (neutrality expressed from disbelievers on my talk page do not resemble anything fringe). Uh huh.  Gotcha.  Feel free to check out the equal concerns against "account" (because it implies truth).EGMichaels (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EG, This isn't athiests vs theists. You are a prime example of someone of faith who is at least attempting to look at both sides.  Lets for one minute remove obvious polarizing editors from the equation (on both sides) and you have those who for reasons stated in the FAQ prefer a precise, formally defined term "creation myth" (Not Myth as a stand alone term) and policy that supports said usage.  Then you have those who support some alternative because they either don't grasp the concept that "Creation Myth" doesn't imply falsehood and they keep pushing on the component word "myth" (see the electoral college isn't an institute of higher learning because it contains the word college example) or they oppose the usage on a basis of feeling it is somehow offensive and that we can't expect users to understand that the "myth" in "creation myth" isn't being used informally (despite definitions, footnotes, wikilinks to the main CM page, a FAQ etc...).  Nefariousski (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels, here are some aspects you seem to have missed:
 * I said "biblical literalists or sympathisers". Having been accused of being a homeopath on Talk:Homeopathy for trying to keep the insult "quackery" out of that article, I added the second part for a reason. (Just like the US has an unusually large number of biblical literalists, Germany has an unusally large number of homeopathy fans. This is an important factor for deciding how respectful to be when dealing with the respective fringe theory, resulting in conflicts even between non-believers from different cultural backgrounds.)
 * Apart from that, it appears to me that Historian2007 and Til Eulenspiegel are openly creationist. (Correct me if I am wrong.) These seemed to be among the most active opponents of the term "creation myth" when I first came to this article.
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that Genesis isn't literally true is uncontroversial fact. Believe it or not, but that's how it is. If you don't believe it, get input from noticeboards. Saying that Genesis isn't literally true only touches WP:NPOV where it comes to matters of weight, see WP:UNDUE. It has been argued on this talk page that use of the term "creation myth" is POV because: (1) We only use it in bad faith to push an atheist POV (wrong). (2) It means "false creation story" (wrong). (3) It's a highly technical term (wrong) and therefore inappropriate (wrong). (4) The story might plausibly be just as literally true as the scientific view of the world's origin (wrong). How much more nonsense do you have to chain together before an argument becomes absurd?
 * "Creation account" is transparently a formation designed to avoid the word "myth", which is otherwise standard in this context. I maintain that "account" does have inappropriate connotations of literal truth, in contrast to the appropriate connotations of folklore that "myth" has. The term "creation account" likely predates the realisation that Genesis contains no more than an example of a literary genre; nowadays the term functions as a euphemism that is still used only for the Judeo-Christian creation myth. I admit that as far as I know it is probably the standard way of referring to this particular creation myth in English (I know that it is in German), which is a symptom of a systemic bias of the English language. We might be able to have an intelligent debate about the interesting conflict between two Wikipedia principles: Use of standard English and NPOV. We might. But we are not having such a debate because some people insist on pursuing red herrings. Hans Adler 21:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Contemplating deleting your sig and taking credit for that post. -- King Öomie  21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cant blame the guy, damn near everything we can say on this topic at this point has already been said a dozen times over by a dozen different editors, I've seen Gabbe use my Electoral College analogy a few times and so on. It gets boring just cutting and pasting your own previous comments ;)  Nefariousski (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about the body of the article. No one has ever suggested that the term "creation myth" should not appear in the body of the article. The topic of this discussion is what the title of the article should be. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks -- sorry I've been tied up. Geeze, a lot more words trying to keep me from finding out what people want! Whatever it is, it must be crazy scary. ;-)

In any case, to your points:

Nef -- my faith is not an issue. My editorial concern is. If you really must know, I approach "myth" and "religion" from a Joseph Campbell perspective. Of course religion is mythical! EVERY paradigm is (including atheism). "Myth" is what Robert McKee calls the "archplot" -- which he defines as the pattern of the human mind. C. G. Jung regarded this pattern as the collective unconscious, and Erich Neumann argued that all myths reflect the drive of the human being to separate his individuality from that core of basic human instinct (in Jungian terms, this is individuism). This depth psychology is the monomyth expressed by James Joyce to be the pattern of all narratives.

And the Bible is a narrative.

Also to quote McKee, "biography is fiction; auto-biography is fantasy." Rather than being a true believer, I'm probably the most pure religious cynic you'll ever meet. I don't buy ANY of it -- not even the atheist stuff. If I had to choose between the Pope and Hawking, I'd pick Hawking in a nanosecond. But I also see limitations from the best of our theories, and I also see that all of them, no matter how tied or divorced from "reality" become "myth" as soon as our reptilian overgrowth brains get a hold of them and start processing ultimate reality into some kind of pattern that's supposed to make sense.

So there you have it. My supposed "sympathy" with faith is no more profound than my sympathy for your own positions -- which is why I've asked for input and fairness all around.

You folks remind me of a woman in the mountains of North Carolina who gasped in shock when she found out that I liked to watch Star Trek: "you don't actually BELIEVE all of that stuff do you?" Well, sure I do. I believe any well told tale with a controlling idea. The Bible is "true" precisely BECAUSE it is "mythical." It fits the pattern of the human mind and creates meaning for billions of people.

I believe in Captain Kirk when the storyform is well designed.

Let's get out of the sandbox, stop shouting at each other, and actually listen to what is needed here.

The Bible is "myth". I mean "myth", not in a neutral sense, but in a positive sense. If a movie lacks myth, I walk out of it. If a book lacks myth, I trash it -- and this is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to history and science. We are human beings trying to communicate with other human beings, and that can only be done through "myth."

I find, then, that for all of your protestations, the "myth" side of this disagreement is the most enslaved to myth. You folks are the true believers pronouncing from on high that only one term can be used. You are the ones trying to dictate what ultimate "truth" all readers MUST embrace. And you hide behind scholarly "norms" that were merely created by other Wikipedia editors on the manual of style pages. Well, I didn't learn to write from Wikipedia. I learned from real sources like Strunk and White (love that delightful little tome of Anglo-Saxon sensibilities).

Strunk and White counseled writers to avoid "myth" when dealing with a living religion. Why? Because real writers want their readers to get their point, and they won't do it if they won't read it. So, according to notable and reliable sources the Wikipedia manual of style is not infallible.

As I said, I regard the Genesis account to be a "story" of the highest sort: "myth". "Myth" is my greatest compliment.

But because I MEAN a compliment, I refuse to be so sloppy a writer that I'll alienate my audience too quick to see my point. Now, in your case you are still arguing, but I suspect that's not my fault. When I suggest that all sides should be fair, you argue. When I suggest that all sides should be listened to, you argue. When I express sympathy for the "myth" side AND the "story" side, I'm treated as a "theist sympathizer." What is that like, a Nazi sympathizer?

It seemed like I was pulling teeth yesterday when I was trying to get SOMEONE, ANYONE to state an objection to Cush's insistence that "myth" really is intended to cure readers of their childish theism.

And I have the "myth" side arguing that "myth" really does mean "story" in a specific scholarly sense -- and yet demonstrating that they don't actually believe that statement because they so profoundly argue against the very synonym they claim to mean!

Sorry, folks -- but the supposed fanatics on my talk page have expressed a concern that neither "myth" nor "account" be used in the title -- since "myth" connotes "lie" and "account" connotes "truth." The DENOTATIONS are the same, but the connotations are too assumptive in a title.

Are they right? Maybe, maybe not. But those saying they are not allowed to breathe their view are most profoundly wrong.

Although consensus is not built by sheer numbers, nor even unanimous agreement -- it is neither built by silencing all dissent.

What is this, the all republican congress of eight years ago, or the all democrat congress of today? Your "enemies" are your best friends.

And yes, you "myth" folks are the best friends of the "story" folks. You each have human limitations of perspective, and need each other to save yourselves from POV violations.

Nef -- it's not that the "story" folks don't understand that you mean "myth" in a neutral way. It's that they do understand that you do not. The proof? This very disagreement. The proof that you don't MEAN "story" is that you refuse to even CONSIDER "story." I have a "wife". She is my "lover." To me those are synonyms, and I'll smile at either choice. Were I to object, you'd have every reason to question the state of my marriage.

Hans -- I'm a sympathizer with "myth" as well. Sue me.

As for the openly creationist folks... you know what? We NEED their input to help keep this article accessible to other creationist readers. Does that mean we have to censor what we say? Hardly, but if we REALLY mean "story" when we say "myth" then why not use the term? If you asked about my "lover" in a public forum, I might request you use the term "wife" in order to avoid any misdirection. Unless you were trying to insult my marriage by implying something neither of us CLAIM to believe, then you'd simply smile and use the synonym that means the same thing.

Again, avoidance of a synonym proves that you do not MEAN that synonym -- you in fact mean the opposite.

As for "uncontroversial fact" -- hogwash. I don't believe Genesis is literally true, but I don't CARE either. Wikipedia doesn't care any more than I do. It's not designed as literal truth. There are two narratives overlaying a Babylonian construct meant to create a paradigm of how humans are to regard their deity. This patriarchal construct uses parallelism to the two stories to show that man's relationship with God (the first narrative) is the same as a spousal relationship (the second narrative).

But arguing "this is true!" or "no, you dumbhead, it's not!" keeps everyone too distracted to see what the story DOES say. It's quite a lovely narrative sequence, but you'd never know from THIS discussion.

I'm reminded of a writer's conference I was in, where we discussed the controlling idea of the Godfather ("love of family leads to life of crime" a delightful ironic twist). One person kept arguing that crime was a bad thing. Well, sure. That's the whole point of an ironic controlling idea.

If you'd stop shouting for a spell and listen, you'd figure out that the other editors are reflecting half of the potential audience who will never read your pronouncements from on high ("this is MYTH, you dumb readers!"). No writer worth his salt deliberately turns off his audience. Instead, he co opts that other side and uses the other person's favorite terms to communicate the point that the writer wanted them to get -- much the way I'm ATTEMPTING to use your own term here to get my point across. If I don't succeed -- at least I tried.

I don't see you trying. That might work on Wikipedia, because you don't need to actually sell your hard work. You get the same zero pennies for half an audience that you'd get for a whole one, so why should you care?

Well, you shouldn't, if you like to continually argue and stop out any dissent when other editors try to help you improve the article.

Who knows? Maybe myth REALLY IS the best word! But you'd never know if you didn't at least listen to the other side.

And finally, the people posting on my talk page didn't like "creation account" any more than "creation myth" on the grounds that both violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Go figure.EGMichaels (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This debate will not stop until a real consensus is found. Masterhomer 08:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This debate will not stop until everyone has understood that NPOV does not require us to pretend that the idea that everything in Genesis is literally true is reasonable. It isn't, and that's an uncontroversial fact. Hans Adler 10:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This debate will not stop until everyone has understood that you don't have to force-feed everyone your own pov. Lay the facts out as they lie -- this is the Creation according to the Book of Genesis -- then in the body of the article we lay out the two main points:  some see this as myth, and some as sacred history.  But as long as you feel your pov needs to be pushed (heavens forbid we leave the reader to come up with their own conclusion based on the evidence and arguments!), then we keep spinning our tires in the mud. SAE (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * SAE — I would add that there may even be more than "two main points." My argument goes beyond concerning itself with whether Genesis is true or false. There are potentially any number of characterizations of Genesis, and we are doing this article a disservice when we contemplate locking this article into but one characterization. That is what is primarily wrong with the "creation myth" appendage. It is hung on to the end of otherwise acceptable titles, the effect being to narrow the focus of the article. There is zilch reason for narrow focus, since what really matters in a title is the identifying of the material covered in the article. In fact, carried to its logical conclusion, no other characterizations of genesis would be permissible in this article — because the title says that this article is only about the "creation myth." Logically speaking, it would be improper to show within this article that there are those who accept Genesis as a literal account of how the world came to be. That is because the title, containing "creation myth," says that the article is only about Genesis as a "creation myth." Similarly if one wished to add (sourced) material about Genesis as a cultural influence, one would be technically restrained from doing so by the narrow focus implied by the title. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus: I agree with you fully. My point above is that one side keeps pov-pushing because they want to force readers into their conclusion, instead of allowing them to reason for themselves.  They're afraid that being npov in this article might allow a person to think instead of swallowing their pre-made conclusion whole.  But I am right with you. SAE (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, SAE, stop right there. That's a personal attack, and not allowed. Second, in regards to Bus Stop, you're in the wrong place. We've got Book of Genesis, Creationism, and Genesis creation myth, each with a more narrow focus than the previous. This article isn't about Genesis in general, that's what Book of Genesis is for. This also isn't about describing people who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story. That's what the Creationism article is for. This article is just about the story itself, and we can describe it exactly as what it is: a creation myth. Further, we can go into more detail on its influences in literature & the arts (aka Cistine Chapel's mural). We can mention that some people take it literally, sure! But, it would be a small section (a paragraph or two) with Main article: Creationism below the heading, leading the reader to an in-depth article on the subject, rather than trying to cram that whole subject into this article. That's why your argument is invalid, and has been from the start. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward: take two
Since the last thread was derailed almost instantly, I am trying to move forward again. I wrote above that I can think of a few things that need doing: I'm sure there are more suggestions, so feel free to list them. Mildly Mad has had a go at rewriting the lead and I think it's much better, so perhaps we can just strike that one for now. I am a little concerned about it giving the impression creation was ex nihilo without discussion, but maybe we can discuss that issue in a separate thread (it will have to be dealt with at some point since it's mentioned in the third paragraph explicitly). Perhaps one point at a time can be dealt with by creating a section on this talk page and chipping away at it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further development/refinement of the FAQ at the top of the page.
 * Rewrite the introductory sentence. It should be absolutely clear what the term myth means from the start.
 * Develop the section on the classification of Genesis 1-2 as myth, including the history of, disagreement with, etc, this classification.
 * The FAQ has been removed. Not only is it not necessary, it's trying to justify a POV that is still in a major dispute. Please refrain from adding such things to this page without a consensus on it's contents. Masterhomer 08:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The FAQ was developed collaboratively throughout the last RFC. Removing it without discussion, and then undoing a revert of your removal is at the very least disruptive. Ben (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The FAQ was written by a total of two people, both with the exact same agenda (keeping the "myth" in the title). It's entire purpose is to justify the last several debates from an entirely "pro-myth" perspective. And it's not exactly needed if someone wants to see the arguments presented in the most NPOV manner, they simply have to read them. I will remind you that this is still a topic in dispute, and it will probably remain in dispute until a real consensus is made that represents an actual compromise between the various thiest and athiest editors. Masterhomer 08:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The FAQ was written with the purpose to keep "creation myth" in the title, which is exactly what this article is about, and the naming of which is consistent with other articles about the creation myths of other religions. "creation myth" is the accurate academic and reliably sourced term for what the first chapters of Genesis are from a NPOV. This whole discussion about personal preferences is superfluous. <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 12:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — "Creation myth" has nothing to do with the title. The addition of "creation myth" to the title is merely commentary; it is uncalled for. It is nonessential material, from the point of view of what is required of the title. The title needs to identify the subject of the article. That is accomplished succinctly by "Genesis chapters one and two." The body of the article is the space in which to wax eloquent on those characterizations of the subject of this article that are sufficiently well-sourced for that purpose. If certain other articles may contain this same problem (of commentary in the title that is gratuitous) they would have to be addressed separately. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, we've been over this many times. Unless you're going to start attempting to change every other article on creation myths, you're attempting to change standard naming conventions to favor this one religious creation myth. That is POV, and what we've been telling you this whole time. If you want to change the other articles, you're going to need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Article titles or start a discussion on WP:VPP to get consensus for such a site-wide change, rather than trying to sledgehammer it through on one article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have great problems with the 1-sided pov in the faq. Should we write a second faq to go below the first, one about sacred history, that says that sacred history doesn't mean that every has to take it as literally true? SAE (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sacred history?" We're not here to debate Creationism in this article, we're only here to show the creation myth outlined in Gen 1 & 2, and hopefully show its impact on society. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ hand, "we're only here to show the creation myth ... [and] its impact on society." -> do you realize the impact this has had on our society? Do you realize that every fabric of the culture that you now live in (if you live in the western world) has been touched by people who believe Genesis 1 & 2 to be sacred history?  More than that, it was founded upon Christian belief.  It is only people ignorant of history who disregard such things.  If what you say is what you want to do, 'figure out its impact on society,' then "sacred history" has a huge, huge, role to play. SAE (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Touched by people who believe" is pretty damn vague, don't you think? Also, western society as a whole was not "founded upon Christian belief," though Christianity has had a major impact. Again, this is about the creation myth in Genesis itself, not Christianty as a whole. I'm talking art, literature, etc. that has been shaped by this creation mythology as part of the article; not a vague "'every fabric' relies on it" claim. Also, please cut the passive-aggressive comments about "ignorance of history." Disagreement is not necessarily based on ignorance. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hand That Feeds — the narrow focus that you propose does not serve this article's needs well. Much more needs to be covered here than just Genesis as a "creation myth." Anything sourced and related to Genesis chapters one and two has a potential place in this article, and that includes its relationship to Creationism. If sourced material can be found showing Genesis' relation to the arts for instance, that would be potentially material for this article. This article isn't just about Genesis as a "creation myth." That type of focus is misplaced. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But we only present what creationists interpret or believe about Genesis. We do not make their terminology Wikipedia's. <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 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a false analogy. The title is not overly limiting- the article is not about "genesis as a creation myth", it's about "the creation myth in genesis". Similarly to how The Beatles (album) is not required to only talk about the liner notes, or a description of the color of the vinyl, this article is free to talk about the impact the subject has had. It doesn't need to be moved to do that. -- King Öomie 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the reason The Beatles (album) is titled as it is, is to distinguish that article from the other article on the music group, titled The Beatles. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also about music, and not religion. It's not a perfect parallel. I'm talking about the subject in relation to the coverage provided. It's less strictly enforced than you might suggest. -- King Öomie  17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, the justification for a misplaced focus will be an absence of enforcement? Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop repeating the same old debunked claim, it's disruptive. A descriptive title is necessary and since the article's topic is the creation myth found in the Book of Genesis the suggestion that the title gives a misplaced focus is disingenuous. Ben (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no misplaced focus. The article deals with the origin of the world through supernatural agents as described (claimed) in the first paragraphs of Genesis. In short, the "Genesis creation myth". This title says exactly what the article is about. This article is not about Genesis in general, but about just one section of 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 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
Is/was the only objection to the old article title ("Creation according to Genesis") that it does not match other articles on similar topics? --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The concern was that it treated this particular creation myth with much more sympathy and sensitivity than any other. -- King Öomie  14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a "yes". --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like an "exactly what I said". Your question did not cover the length and breadth of the issue, and portrayed it as rather pedantic. I expanded the premise and answered affirmatively. To answer it another way- "No, that's not the whole issue. Here's the rest:" -- King Öomie  16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of my concerns was that it was a very awkward title to try and work with. Another was that it was so vastly different to the way other general references referred to the material. In looking to remedy both of these things it was natural to consider how reliable sources refer to this article's topic and how Wikipedia handled other creation myths. Ben (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ben. What do you mean, it was awkward to work with? --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The major concern seemed to be that use of the term creation myth would give readers the impression that the events mentioned in Genesis did not take place. The current title (or some variation of it - two similar suggestions were made at the start) allows us to satisfy two objectives (one objective from each side of the fence so to speak): use terminology that is consistent with reliable sources on the topic (editorially neutral point of view) and to give a short expansion of the term creation myth (see the current introductory sentence) to make it clear that we're not using the term myth to mean false. That is, on top of this being a religious article (context), and a wikilink to creation myth existing, we further tried to appease the concern by indicating what the term creation myth meant from the very beginning of the article. The old title made the introductory sentence too unwieldy if the same set of objectives were attempted. Ben (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to use policy
Trying to be as unbiased and dispassionate as I can, I went through and pulled out all the relevant pieces of WP policy for consideration. Disclaimer: before I did this, I was still of the opinion that "myth" "creation myth" was the correct title, but please take my word that I am not cherry picking policy, and that I am open to alternatives, as long as they fulfill policy.
 * Point 1: The term "myth" "creation myth" in its scholarly context is neutral, and as such should be used in the article. Concerns that readers would be "turned off" by the term are not a valid reason to not use "myth" "creation myth"
 * WP:WTA: "Formal use of the word [mythology] is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception."
 * WP:RNPOV: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words [myth and legend] only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."
 * WP:RNPOV: "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."
 * Point 2: "Myth" "Creation myth" should be used in the article title, because it is the neutral term used to describe the article's content, and similar articles also use "Myth" "Creation myth" in the title.
 * WP:NPOV: "Encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality."
 * WP:WTA: "Referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."
 * Point 3: The remainder of the article remains neutral, because the beliefs of Judeo-Christians are documented without passing judgment on their truth.
 * WP:RNPOV: "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"

We see from the above points that the term "creation myth" is neutral and should be used as the article's title. Mildly MadTC 15:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not discussing about "myth" but about "creation myth", which is a proper term. <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 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been more clear about that. I have updated my post accordingly. Mildly MadTC 16:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted in my Pros section to the current title in the Summary Table, the tie in with other creation myths articles is a point in favor of "Genesis creation myth." Although not the only relevant point, it is a strong one.EGMichaels (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, my other question
I'm sure I've asked this before, but don't seem to have received a reply, other than a helpful clarification on the role of WP:CENT... was the RfC or Requested Page Move notified to relevant WikiProjects, to ensure thorough discussion and reliable consensus? --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors canvassed to get participation of the RFC (see the "underhanded tactics" section of the RFC), I'm not sure exactly where it was reposted though, you might want to ask Afaprof (he submitted the RFC) or dab or one of the other admins that closed / contributed to the RFC. I don't think anyone here on the so called "creation myth" side bothered since there's nothing more on this side that can be said than what has already been brought up time and time and time again. Nefariousski (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where AFA Prof01 advertised it either, though it did appear on the usual RFC lists and if I recall it was advertised on the NPOV noticeboard at some point. Ben (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary Table
Please endorse your own position, and add pros and cons (and other potential titles) as necessary. Please note, the only purpose of this table is to clearly present pros and cons for each possible position. The merits and demerits of various positions are already being debated in the body of the article and archives. My attempt is merely to summarize and clarify what is already being discussed.

Regardless of what consensus finally becomes stable, it's important to at least have a clear and concise presentation of WHAT is being discussed.EGMichaels (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: there seems to be a theme so far against an assumption of either truth or falsehood. At least the first two entries here are attempting a neutral wording.EGMichaels (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary Table Discussion
Well done, and thanks for that. However, the "cons" you have listed for "Genesis creation myth" are pretty clearly false. Using the term "creation myth" in no way implies its falsehood--see my post under Talk:Genesis creation myth; there's not really any other valid argument against it. While you may be correct in that some users want "myth" to be used because it can imply falsehood, making that assertion is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Again, from WP:RNPOV: "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." Mildly MadTC 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mad -- thanks for being here! The red flag for me was when some editors were claiming to use "myth" in a scholarly neutral sense, but refused to even consider synonyms for that supposed meaning.  Well, if they won't consider a synonym, then they don't mean it either.  That got my attention real fast.  They were promoting "myth" with positively religious fervor.EGMichaels (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What if they had already considered the alternatives (like I have)? Just because someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, doesn't make it wrong. Mildly MadTC 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mad, absolutely agreed. I do believe that some editors like yourself have considered the alternatives.  I do not think that the consensus here has settled on those considerations.  I think some folks got a little ahead of themselves and left the consensus wondering what the heck happened.  I suspect that myth may be the single BEST alternative -- but that doesn't mean it's the ONLY one, and it doesn't mean that we have to settle on the BEST choice.  Sometimes collaboration settles on everyone's second choice.


 * In any case, it's well known that "myth" is an appropriate word in scholarly circles. However, it's ALSO well known that other synonyms are equally appropriate.  A number of manuals of style recommend avoiding "myth" for living religions (for obvious reasons).


 * Ben keeps talking about censorship here -- but substituting a synonym for what you SAY you mean is hardly censorship. It's only censorship when you do NOT mean that synonym.  So, I'd argue that I'm not the one showing "myth" isn't neutral; it's Ben.EGMichaels (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that "creation story" is an acceptable alternative. However, why shouldn't we use the best option, just in the interest of not offending people? WP:NPOV is NEUTRAL point of view, not NO point of view.  Mildly MadTC 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm actually interested in the best NPOV option. Mad, communication involves both implication and inference.  Although we aren't responsible for inference, once we are made aware of it we should try to minimize its potential.  That involves a FAQ perhaps, some caveats put into the article, and or a synonym.  My concern is that we may not just be dealing with an inference.  Nef brings up "Jesus horses" as some kind of relevant example -- which would only be relevant if we were dealing with colloquial usage of "myth."  But NOW we have stepped from inference to implication itself.  Look, I don't care how consensus is resolved.  I'm personally fine with either story or myth.  But I'm not fine with belittling examples like Jesus horses, assumptions of bad faith (assuming I'm assuming bad faith), stonewalling for a simple question of what people's SECOND choice might be (to see what compromises arise), or people telling others to drop their pleas for collaboration under the pretense that only one side seems to count.  None of those are Wikipedia best practices.  Now it's not ALL bad.  There ARE some good attempts going on here.  I think you're really trying to bridge the gap and I am too.  Most of the folks who popped onto my talk page wanted to avoid assumptive POV wording on either extreme, and half of them (like myself) really do think the Genesis account is "myth" (even in the colloquial sense).  But we aren't trying to prove or disprove Genesis.  We're just trying to make the best solution that works for THIS article.  There are compelling reasons to consider myth.  There are good reasons not to.  And there is no reason for one side of the discussion to claim consensus when we all have dozens of hours proving that there most clearly is not.  In short, we want the best solution for collaboration to occur -- which may not be everyone's first choice.EGMichaels (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Mildly Mad ""Editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic" -> unfortunately the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on the topic DO see myth in its formal sense as containing falsehood. What sources do you use?  SAE (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * -- King Öomie 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try a dictionary, King.EGMichaels (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So if I open any given dictionary to Creation Myth, it's going say "However, this means 'false'"? -- King Öomie 19:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WTA and WP:RNPOV clearly state that formal usages are perfectly acceptable and the term in question isn't "MYTH" it's CREATION MYTH for the millionth time. Also for the millionth time please see Electoral College isn't an institute of higher learning because it contains college example.  Furthermore see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and the dozen other policies and guidelines that have been shown, reshown and reshown again to be in support of using the precise, formal, widely used, academic term as opposed to the alternatives.  For the "Dictionary" comment please see the FAQ, the cites in the article or you could also google Define "Creation Myth"  and see how none of those definitions discuss any implied falsehood (or truth) and are totally value neutral (which is in line with policy as well).  Bringing up the colloquial definition of myth as your only arguement against is the clearest cut case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT i've yet seen during my time editing WP...  Nefariousski (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, I HEARD you. I just observed that the scholarly neutral CLAIM doesn't match the behavior.EGMichaels (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is invalid. I would like you to either clarify it or stop making it. -- King Öomie  20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * King -- prove me wrong. If you REALLY mean some harmless neutral thing, then please give me your second choice of title (below) that uses a synonym with that meaning.  I'm all ears.EGMichaels (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For 100% of the reasons in the Creation Myth/Pro section of your convenient graph, it would be detrimental for me to do so, and you know it. -- King Öomie  21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That can only be true if you are meaning myth in the colloquial sense. I'm assuming you are not.  Give it a shot.  Look, I have a sneaking suspicion that this may be solvable with some completely different solution than any of us have thought of.  The non myth side brainstormed and that was the best they could come up with.  How about some brain storming from the myth side?EGMichaels (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I get it from Wikipedia guidelines (which are themselves an extension of community consensus). WP:WTA (which is a guideline) states, "Formal use of the word [mythology] is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception." Mildly MadTC 19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the same as the information in the above closed requested move. The only difference is that this times comments are constrained to a table that is designed to equivocate pros and cons instead of using discussion and policy. Again I quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ben (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally every comment on the summary table not backed by relevent policy or guideline is well... how should I put this... Just, like, your opinion, man. Such comments like "Seems like the most NPOV" is so ironic as to be laughable. "I'm going to use my personal point of view to judge NPOV" is no way to go through life son... Nefariousski (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV is developed through a consensus of people with different POVs. Rather than laugh, please constructively give us a SECOND title (below) that unambiguously expresses the neutrality you claim, in a way that us little people can see it.EGMichaels (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is defined in terms of reliable sources, not on what editors think. I've already explained this to you. Why do I get the feeling I should just add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to my sig for a little while? Ben (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can all pull out reliable sources. I could find several standard manuals of style that urge to avoid "myth" in terms of a living religion.  Regardless, I HEARD you.  I just don't SEE you practicing that neutrality.  You're way way way too overcommitted to pass for a neutral party.EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle. Again. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, Hand -- I'm really trying very hard to make this easy for you. "Genesis creation myth" was my original choice and remains my second choice.  But I refuse to cooperate in the alienation of half of the editors in a fake consensus contrary to the intended USE of the term.  I'm not committed to "story" or "myth" but I AM committed to collaboration, and I'd like to see that happening here.  So, you caught me.  I'm way way way committed to collaboration.EGMichaels (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really trying very hard to make this easy for you.
 * You certainly have an odd way of showing it, by refusing to assume good faith of other editors and trying to force us through some arbitrary hoops to "prove" our good intentions for you. You've not shown a commitment to collaboration at all. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't it "assuming bad faith" to "assume someone's assuming bad faith"?EGMichaels (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no assumption when you've consistantly said you don't believe us when we say we're editing neutral; especially when you say we have to go through an arbitrary process to "prove" our good intentions to you. That's the definition of assuming bad faith. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand -- I haven't assumed bad faith. But the AGF guidelines DO say to stop blindly assuming good faith when someone demonstrates otherwise.  I feel that your stonewalling is EITHER bad faith or stark terror that I'm trying to trick you.  I'm TRYING to get some brainstorming from the other half of the editorial brainpower here.  The non myths have taken their shot, and now I need some input from the myth side.  So, I'll extend a good faith assumption on your part and mark your stonewalling to terror.  Take a deep breath, assume good faith, and BRAINSTORM for two seconds.EGMichaels (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In a debate whether to call the article on prehistoric reptiles "Dinosaurs" or "Jesus Horses" there are two sides. The "Dinosaurs" side has policy, reliable sources, etc... the "Jesus Horses" side has appeals to emotion and claims of offensiveness.  What is to be gained by the "Dinosaurs" side to meet in the middle and call it "Jesusaurus" when the opposition has yet to come up with a single valid arguement (keeping in mind perceptions of offensiveness, or lack of sensitivity etc... are NOT valid arguements as shown by policy after policy after policy).  And by the way I'd love to see those guidelines and policies that discourage the formal usage of "Myth" or any single reliable source that talks about the harms of using "Creation Myth".  I have a feeling that if they had existed we would have seen them on this page by now.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef -- huh? It almost looks like you're using "Myth" to compare to some kind of fantasy children's fable.  That's, er... colloquial.EGMichaels (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A 2nd one has been found out: First Cush openly admitted that he sees "myth" as the opposite of "truth."  Now Nefariousski has (unwittingly?) done so.  Thank-you.  Any arguments you now put forth for "myth" are clearly not npov. SAE (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in Feariousski's paragraph does he say that, so please retract your accusation. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did I say that? All I did was challenge you to back up your claim that some policy or guideline existed that discouraged the formal use of the word myth.  Might I add This to the suggested reading list?  Nefariousski (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A) I agree with Nef and Hand, he didn't say that (that is, the term Jesus Horses does not assume the creatures are fake, and neither does Dinosaur), B) STILL DOESN'T MATTER. If an editor, who is a convicted rapist, edits an article on someone, changing the phrasing "terrifying rapist" to "rapist", might he have ulterior motives? Absolutely. Is his edit backed by policy? You bet your ass. -- King Öomie 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * King -- do YOU believe in Jesus horses? I have a bridge up here that's for sale...EGMichaels (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be worth mentioning that according to the Urban Dictionary, the term Jesus horse is not actually used by creationists, but is only used by others to mock them. For people like me who don't normally have contact with this particular fringe theory this is far from clear since calling dinosaurs by that name doesn't appear any more outrageous to us than many real creationist claims such as pre-cambric swimming forests. Perhaps this is relevant for clearing up the misunderstandings above. Hans Adler 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Choices
I've found that people's second choice can sometimes be telling. Truly collaborative editors are able to work with other editors, form consensus, and even compromise.

Those who cannot work with other editors, or are inflexible, can create a logjam and prevent stable editing to occur.

Perhaps the best test of this would be to answer, what's your SECOND choice?

My SECOND choice is what was originally my first choice: Genesus creation myth. The only thing preventing me from going back to that first choice is that other editors here are not following Wikipedia NPOV usage, but are in fact shoehorning this term into some kind of preachy apologetic for anti-theism. Well, we can't do that here, so my original second choice (Genesis creation story) has become my first choice in order to maintain true neutrality.

In any case, again, my current second choice (that is, my second second choice) is "Genesis creation myth."

All reasonable editors here should have a second choice in mind. Please share. And if you do not and cannot have a second choice, then... maybe you should brainstorm a bit. I'd love to find out who is able to compromise and who isn't.EGMichaels (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like your rationale for keeping this debate alive is to assume bad faith on the part of a bunch of editors. Not a good idea. Mildly MadTC 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mad, if I assumed bad faith I wouldn't bother to ask for people's second choice. People of bad faith are unable to come up with a second choice.  So it would be a waste of time.EGMichaels (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've just said, your first, second and third choices are all "Genesis creation myth." In other words, you don't have a second choice. By your own criteria, aren't you wasting time by acting in bad faith? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "other editors here are not following Wikipedia NPOV usage, but are in fact shoehorning this term into some kind of preachy apologetic for anti-theism." That sounds like assuming bad faith to me. If the editors I think you're talking about are the same ones you're debating here, I have never seen any one of them make an "anti-theist" edit to an article. Mildly MadTC 20:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Compromise isn't always the best option when there is a clear cut issue with one side supported by policy and another side not. When Scientists say the earth is billions of years old and YEC folks say it's 6000 years old the scientists aren't being stubborn for not compromising and saying "ok, the earth is only millions of years old".  When one side of this discussion is supported by policy, guidelines, precedent, abundant reliable sources, and so on and the other side of this arguement is supported by feelings, opinions, picking words apart and trying to define them seperately and refusal to get the point there's no reason to seek middle ground for the group with the stronger position. Nefariousski (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the policy only works in favor of those using the term in a scholarly neutral way. Such editors will have a large enough volcabulary to express a synonym in a second choice.  So...EGMichaels (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * C'mon, point is moot. Due diligence has been done to establish formal usage (FAQ, multiple dictionary defs, multiple references, footnote etc...).  Old Arguement is Old.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you're assuming bad faith unless we meet your arbitrary standards. That's not how this works. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand -- this isn't complicated. All good faith editors should be able to come up with a second choice.  Mad's first choice is my second, and my first choice is Mad's second.  It took us about two seconds.  That's what good faith editors do all the time.  They collaborate.EGMichaels (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Due diligence: looked up "myth" on thesaurus.com. The list of words is as follows: allegory, apologue, creation, delusion, fable, fabrication, fairy story, fancy, fantasy, fiction, figment, folk ballad, folk tale, illusion, imagination, invention, legend, lore, mythos, parable, saga, superstition, tale, tall story, tradition.  None of these are as neutral or precise as the academic usage of "myth."  Case closed. Mildly MadTC 20:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)

I use Visual Thesaurus, version 3.0. "Story" is a direct synonym. Bizarre that your resource left that out.EGMichaels (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, that actually wasn't intentional, I thought I saw it in there. In any case, the argument still holds for story (which includes "myth"). Mildly MadTC 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it does. They're synonyms -- which is why you and I are able to interchange them (even though we PREFER one to the other).  In any case, this little section is just to get people to state clearly what they mean.  You and I don't have a problem with it, and I don't think Hand would either if he wasn't assuming some kind of bad faith on my part.EGMichaels (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM, you are not collaborating at all by trying to force us through arbitrary hoops to "prove" our good intentions to you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hand. Well, you're doing a good job not proving it.EGMichaels (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody has to. That's what WP:AGF says. Mildly MadTC 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right -- but sometimes a person can work REAL HARD to remove that assumption. And assuming MY bad intentions isn't AGF either.EGMichaels (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EGM, you seem to have a total misunderstanding of how collaborative editing works, especially on Wikipedia. Every one of your attempts so far have involved trying to pigeonhole individual editors into "pro" and "con" camps, which is highly combative, not conducive to collaboration. If you have problems with specific editors, prove it. Otherwise, please stop and read up on our policies and guidlines a little more. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand -- it's weird for you to call me combative when I stated pros and cons for EVERY option and showed my own personal endorsement for your chosen title as an acceptable alternative to me (as long as it's being used per guidelines).EGMichaels (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been used per guidelines, which is why your continued attempts to drive this issue on is so maddeningly frustrating to everyone here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself - EGM has made some very perceptive points and seems to be trying to mediate by taking both sides into account - rther than create the illusion of there being only one side by saying "everyone agrees with me". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never said "everyone agrees with me," so please strike that. His attempts to mediate are ill-conceived: breaking people into pro/con camps increases animosity and an "us vs them" mindset, which is antithetical to collaborative editing. I'm sure he had good intentions with this, but it's still bad practice. The fact that he keeps doing this is troubling, to say the least. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll humor you with a second opinion, "Genesis creation myths" since there is more than one distinct creation myth per the article's lead. And since Genesis has multiple interpretations across various denominations I would also find this title acceptable. Nefariousski (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Nef. An "s"?  Ok.  I'll admit that the "story" side only came up with about six ideas...EGMichaels (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This needs to stop.
Consensus is to keep the article title as-is. This is supported by WP policy, which represents the consensus of the community as a whole. Readers don't see "creation myth (which actually means it's a fairy tale)," they see "creation myth." Therefore, there's no problem. If someone adds non-NPOV material elsewhere in the article, we can revert and discuss it when it happens. Mildly MadTC 21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Mildly MadTC 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Ben (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, with the caveat that SOME readers DO see that- they're all about to vote Oppose. -- King Öomie  21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as they vote oppose, we ask them for their SECOND choice. If they refuse to give one, they're obviously acting in bad faith and believe in Jesosaurs. Ben (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try to keep it WP:CIVIL here. Emotions are already running high, no need to aggravate them further.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mildly Mad (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support and might I add that if you oppose this motion please have some sort of policy, guideline or anything besides your feelings, opinion or anything on this page to back it up. Nefariousski (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question — Mildly Mad — what sort of "non-NPOV material" might someone add "elsewhere in the article"? Please give us an example of what you have in mind. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the allegations that editors in favor of using "creation myth" are on some anti-theist vendetta to disprove the Genesis story. Right now, the article is neutral, informative, and on topic--notice the only mention of the Creation-Evolution controversy is in the appropriate places.  If it begins to take over the article, then that's an entirely separate issue from the discussion that just consumed 5 hours of my day.   Mildly MadTC 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mildly Mad — Yes, but can you give me an example? What, in your conception, would constitute "non-NPOV material"? You say that, "If it begins to take over the article, then that's an entirely separate issue…" Can you give me an example of how it might possibly "take over the article?" What form might that take? Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Basicially if this article starts to become a proxy for the Creation-Evolution controversy article. This article isn't supposed to become a critique of Genesis, it's just supposed to detail the creation myth and various interpretations contained in the first two chapters of the book.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for thoroughness: what Nef said. Mildly MadTC 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that one possible interpretation is a literal interpretation, and since that's notable we should mention it. However, since it's a fringe interpretation only a short summary (more than a mention but much less than a full critique) with links to the creationism family of articles as necessary should ever exist in this article. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The various literal interpretations should be elaborated on in the Creationism article in depth. BTW there are signiuficant differences between Jewish and Christian interpretations (especially about who the executing agent of creation is). Maybe that should be mentioned there as well as here. <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 · 10:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you're right about the creationism article covering creationism in depth. I was just saying that in this article a short summary of creationism should exist, including links to the creationism article, but nothing more than a short summary. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about any material that is reliably sourced and related to chapters one and two of Genesis. And the topic of discussion here is the title of this article. Reading the above discussion one would get the impression that the article is about the literalist interpretation of the fist two chapters of Genesis versus the non-literalist interpretation of those two chapters. That is merely one dimension of the material that is potentially covered by this article. And a simple glance over at the article shows that almost no material in the article as it presently stands is oriented toward addressing this issue of literal versus nonliteral interpretation. The point to the present disagreement is that the title inexplicably indicates a focus on Genesis as a "creation myth," yet the material found in the article barely makes a glancing reference to this topic. You both quite correctly point out that the place for addressing such matters is in the Creationism article. My question and I think the question of many others is, why then is this article not titled in a less narrowly focussed way, such as it had been titled? Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sourcing is but one dimension to consider when determining the contents of this article, so your first sentence is at best misleading. The next few sentences give me the impression you've completely misunderstood the above comments - we all agree that a literal interpretation is fringe and that this article shouldn't be turned into a critique of such a minor detail, though I think (as I'm sure everyone else does) it should at least be mentioned in this article due to its notability. If you're still conflating creation myth with scientifically inaccurate story then you're ignoring past replies to this and acting disruptively. Your last question has been asked by yourself, and answered many times by myself and others. Repetition of it at this point is similarly disruptive. Ben (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, reliable sourcing is only one factor. I was not implying otherwise. But the potential range of material for inclusion in this article is not limited to considerations of Genesis as a "creation myth." In point of fact "creation myth" is only one characterization of "Genesis chapters one and two." Many of us have been presenting an argument that the title should be more open and inclusive. Can you please explain to me why a title restricting this article to Genesis as only a "creation myth" is called for? There are nonrestrictive article titles that have been suggested. Some of those titles you and others have found offensive because they implied that the tale contained in Genesis was true. Can you tell me what objection, if any, you would have to: Genesis chapters one and two as a title? Please try to address that question. Please try to tell me what objection if any you would have to a title such as "Genesis chapters one and two." Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I already answered that question too (somewhere in the sea of text above). Nevertheless: The experts consider the article's topic a creation myth and they describe it as such, though the permutations of terms in the descriptors vary. Here are some generally accessible (ie. for the non-expert) sources descriptions:
 * 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.
 * It is also possible to list countless scholars and more specific reliable sources using the same descriptors, and I've given sources that explain that this description is mainstream (search on this page and the archives for "borg")
 * Wikipedia's polices explain, nay demand, we be consistent and choose a similar descriptor. To do otherwise would not be editorially neutral, as outlined at WP:NPOV, would reek of an attempt to right some great wrong, and in the case of your suggestion seem wholly less helpfully descriptive as an article title. Ben (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben — we find at Article and section titles that: "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." While I do not see any "viewpoint" conveyed by the title I suggested, "Genesis chapters one and two," there most definitely is a viewpoint conveyed by "Genesis creation myth." I don't think it matters if other articles would lead us to think that "Genesis creation myth" is an acceptable title for this article. We have in the instance of this article an alternative title that cannot possibly ruffle any feathers. I think the question boils down to why any editor would insist on a title that conveys any viewpoint at all. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which viewpoint do you think is being conveyed by the current title? Ben (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben — in which precinct do we find the phrase "creation myth" used? Do we find it used in academia or do we find it used in Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques? Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - those who disagree with the term "creation myth" should attempt to change the standard usage for all such articles at WT:NAME or WP:VPP. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support <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 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose For reasons stated elsewhere. Enormous amounts of energy have been expended justifying "creation myth" as an "umbrella term" to quote the FAQ here. I have no problem with that. There has been hardly any attention given to the specific term used in academic sources for this particular Genesis example, where in fact it is by no means the most common term, well behind "Genesis creation story".  This may be, as Hans Adler suggests here, because of "systemic bias" in the English language, but that is not our problem. The current name breaches WP:COMMON, which takes precedence over the myth guideline.  There has been very strong POV editing from both sides, and an outrageous degree of WP:OWNership shown, but the real issue is very simple.  The first requested move had only one support apart from the nom, and is much to shaky a status quo to revert to in the second, which I accept did not show a very clear consensus, although the numbers were clear.  Deletion review is the best next step. Some figures:

Statistics

 * books 324, scholar 74
 * books 375, scholar 97
 * books 655, scholar 467
 * books 712, scholar 997
 * books 636, scholar 361
 * books 656, scholar 610
 * books 455, scholar 105
 * books 613, scholar 174
 * books 608, scholar 122

The two "story" searches produce 1,464 gscholar hits vs 181 for the two "myth" searches, over 8 times as many. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And did you filter out which of these were used in Christian or even Creationist literature? (unsigned)
 * No - now why would I want to do that? Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only such sources that deal with an issue in an objective manner are reliable. That religiously motivated writers use terminology that makes Genesis appear true is understandable, but not usable for an encyclopedia. I wouldn't use the Vatican's publications on the historicity of Jesus either. I would not expect religious people to write anything that puts their convictions in danger. Would you? <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 · 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV! Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You can't build a neutral article by randomly using biased sources. <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 · 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even a cursory examination of the various hits shows very clearly that "story" "narrative" etc are not being used by scholars who believe the "story" to be true. The only references to creationism in the first two pages of the first scholar search are from sources clearly opposed to it. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I discussed the Google thing above. Ben (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - There is a phenomenal amount of scholarly research on ancient creation myths, and that research demonstrates that they often share common elements, were derived from each other, were frequently politically motivated, etc, etc. Although Genesis may be truth or a "story" to some people, this is an encyclopedia, and the word "myth" is most accurate word to use in this context.  --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What "context" are you referring to? Are you referring to a context found within the body of the article or the context of the title? Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both. This encyclopedia already has an article on the religious book Book of Genesis, but it also needs an article on the myth, as it arose in the mideast thousands of years ago, and was adopted by a variety of cultures.  See Creation Myth, which links to this article.   --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should this article have "creation myth" in the title? Is that all this article is about? Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that's precisely what the article is about. It is an article about the creation myth (and that's a neutral, scholarly term) found in the Book of Genesis, its origins, interpretation, and impact. Mildly MadTC 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mildly Mad — "creation myth" is but one characterization of Genesis chapters one and two. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Title Tag
Since a consensus has not been achieved after much agony, the article should have a POV title tag. WP:TITLE and WP:NPOV require a title to be neutral. Particularly when someone's religious beliefs are involved, a judgement by a group of WK editors is out of line. Myth is not a neutral nor objective term. Grantmidnight (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A consensus has been achieved a long time ago. But certain editors do not accept neither the consensus nor WP policies. The title does not represent ANY particular POV. <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 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * there is no consensus. unless you call the pov vote above one. (I thought consensus wasn't based on votes....) SAE (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why this is not considered a vote. Head-counting will not determine this, only the strength of arguments. Also, please read WP:CONSENSUS, as you again show you do not understand what the word means (hint: it does not mean "unanimous agreement"). &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Argh. Can we please not start this while the discussion is going on? The last thing we need right now is an edit war over a template on the page to inflame this situation. Also, creation myth is a neutral & objective term, so let's not start that argument again. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * :"Genesis creation myth" is a neutral title. Read Talk:Genesis creation myth.  Mildly MadTC 22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "creation myth" is NPOV. it accurately describes the issue of the article, as it does in any other article about the various creation myths. what else do you want? we will not make exceptions for one particular belief. <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 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AND STOP REMOVING YOUR COMMENTS
 * Are you yelling at me? SAE (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok, you can see them both here Nefariousski (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Two RMs, an RFC, users blocked for tenditious editing against consensus, a dozen policies, even more reliable sources all show that consensus exists, no need for the tag. Editors not liking consensus because it is contrary to their personal beliefs doesn't break consensus.  "I don't like it", "It may offend (insert person/group here)", "I disagree with policy" are not valid arguements against consensus.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I had said, the religionists will start thread after thread and they will never accept 1) any wording that carries the slightest possibility that Genesis is not true and 2) any wording that will treat Christianity equal to other beliefs. This will go on for the next 5 years. <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 · 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Name calling is not appreciated here. Do you not think tensions are high enough without doing this? SAE (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not calling names. And there would be no tensions if you would just adhere to the consensus and to WP policies of neutrality. Good night. <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 · 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Religionists, Cush? Look, you're not really helping the "myth" side of this discussion.  Okay -- I have a book to get back to writing, and a 95 year old writing partner who can't afford for me to keep wasting time here.  I'll be offline for a day while I catch up with the real world.  Don't anyone convert to some religion while I'm gone...EGMichaels (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Parsing Meaning
Quoting the words to avoid Words_to_avoid (highlights added in bold):


 * Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.


 * Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, 'avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.''


 * 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. Furthermore, 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.

I think we're all agreed that the same term -- either "belief" or "myth" should be used consistently in any given article. It's not a requirement throughout Wikipedia, for obvious reasons (each article ultimately establishes and defines it's own context of meaning).

In any case, note the statement "All myths are, at some stage, actually believed..." Please note that this is the FORMAL sense. The "less formal" sense is "false belief."

You know what? I've written a few books, have a good library, decent education, and really see no qualitative difference in "Joe, at least at some point, actually believed his son was a good singer" and the statement "Joe thought his son sang well, but he had a tin ear." The "actually believed at some point" is simply implying "it ain't really so" without putting it on the nose because that would be, uh, unnecessary in an educated audience. Why say something directly when you can just imply the heck out of it?

The parsing between the formal and informal senses is just a polite fantasy. That's why the "story" folks won't compromise and the "myth" folks won't compromise. The "formal sense" implies the same thing as the "informal sense". It's just worded to imply instead of directly state. And it doesn't do a very good job of it.

Hand has said that I was too naive when trying to get the two sides to work together. I think he's right. The "myth" side say myth and means myth and won't come up with ANY other term, because there isn't any other term that implies "hogwash" as elegantly as "myth". Oh, we're not SAYING it's false; we're just saying that some folks actually believed it at some distant past.

Reading through the material, "creationists" are repeatedly (even in the past few hours) called "fringe." While I agree that "scientific creationists" are fringe, "people who believe in creation" are not fringe. I think that most folks in the United States (and the planet) believe one of these "creation myths". This isn't "at some time." This is actually "now."

And here's where "myth" gets problematic for a living religion: "myth" in the "formal sense" is limited to something that was believed in the past (i.e. "at some time").

The Genesis creation story is NOT something that was merely believed "at some time." This is something that is believed "right now" by the majority of the English speaking public.

The majority of scientists do not believe in Genesis. The majority of theologians do not believe it literally, but DO believe it metaphorically. In fact, they think it's a bit childish for atheists to assume they believe it in a way they do not. And atheists have as much of a problem parsing metaphor as some fundamentalists do. A metaphor is something that has real and true meaning and is truly believed. I BELIEVE Abraham Lincoln was a giant. I truly believe this. That's a METAPHOR. While the gent was tall, he wasn't LITERALLY a giant. He was METAPHORICALLY a giant. And I REALLY BELIEVE this.

In fact, I think most of the American public believe this too.

Is that a "myth"? No. That's a metaphor.

There are, then, three types of views of Genesis:


 * Atheist: Genesis is hogwash, and a myth in both formal and informal sense (honestly there's no real difference anyway, Wikiprotestations notwithstanging)
 * Most Theists: Genesis isn't a myth, it's a metaphor teaching us how to regard our place in context with God
 * Fundamentalist Theists: Genesis is literally true.

Okay. Cush is a fine honest example of an Atheist. Sometimes I give him a little grief, but only to prod him to chill a bit. If you'll note above, the Atheist and Fundamentalist are not qualitatively different. They are both arguing whether Genesis is LITERALLY true.

The term myth only applies to the argument between Atheists and Fundamentalists, because they are arguing whether Captain Kirk is REALLY OUT THERE flying through space and bedding alien chicks.

The term myth does NOT apply to most theists. We (yes, we) do not at some time believe Genesis. We believe Genesis NOW. We believe it just as we believe that Abraham Lincoln is a giant. We believe it just as we believe George Washington was the "father" of this country. Although there are tons of signs on old buildings that read "George Washington slept here" we do not LITERALLY believe he fathered the country. We METAPHORICALLY believe he fathered the country. And we REALLY REALLY TRULY believe it. We wouldn't have had the country we did had not we started with a first President who did not want to be king. Had we started with John Adams, we'd be crowning monarchs here today.

In conclusion, I don't know where to go here. We certainly have some Fundamentalists here, and they are useful and valid contributors. We certainly have some Atheists here, and they are useful and valid contributors. And, well, we have us theists too, and we've always felt valid amonst ourselves. Hopefully we're not fringe on Wikipedia, because we represent a good majority (not plurality, but majority) of the people on the planet and the editors and readers of Wikipedia.

To call Genesis a "myth" is to miss the point entirely. In the so called formal and informal sense -- the way Atheists are meaning the term, Genesis is a "myth." They say, "it didn't literally happen that way!"

Hat's off to you aheists. I AGREE with you. It didn't literally happen that way. I never said it did. I never implied it did. It didn't literally happen that way -- AND I BELIEVE IT EMPHATICALLY.

I believe in the Genesis creation story AND I believe in billions of years of evolution as explained in most science books. Further, I don't think "intelligent design" has anything to do with that belief. It doesn't enter the picture. I believe in natural evolution AND I believe in God and Genesis.

Fundamentalists can't get that.

Atheists can't get that.

Most of you other folks can.

My feeling is that Hand thinks I was naive because I wanted Fundamentalists and Atheists to agree. Maybe I'm naive, but not quite for that reason. My naivite was in thinking that Wikipedia editors could be honest with themselves long enough to say in English what they really mean.

So, here's what they mean. The myth side means myth in the FORMAL sense because they are saying that people "at some time" in the past believed it (but no one does now). That's the formal sense. Note that in parenthesis is the informal sense. They will argue forcefully against STATING the "informal sense" because they are too polite for that. That's why they won't use a synonym for "myth" because that would be impolite. They would object to "Genesis creation fantasy" because that's not "formal." But they object to "Genesis creation record" because that's (ahem!) well, stupid and untrue.

Folks -- "myth" does not apply in the title because people didn't just believe it "at some time". People believe it right now. I believe it just as fervently and profoundly as the fundamentalists, just as I believe natural evolution just as fervently and profoundly as the atheists.

I'm neither a relic nor fringe. I admit that I AM in the minority because I believe in evolution, but I am NOT in the minority because I believe in Genesis.

And "myth" doesn't apply to this normative group I represent. We are the majority, and not clownish caricatures who believe dinosaurs were riding in a real boat with a chap named Noah who called them "Jesus horses" because he always liked that name.

Myth, really, doesn't apply to the current mainstream view of this book in schools of theology around the world -- where people believe in this book as actually true, but never with the thought of something literally.

And myth, really, can't be used because there are plenty of fundamentalists in the world too. They aren't dead. They weren't alive "at some time" but are alive and believing "right now."

There IS a solution, but you guys may not like it.

The article should be something like "Creation According to Genesis" with three subsections: the literal (fundamentalist) sense, the mythical (atheist) sense, and the metaphorical (mainstream) sense.

Yes, THAT's mainstream -- but you'd never know from THIS discussion!

The Wikipedia policy says to "avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue". Well, Genesis creation IS something that is commonly believed by the vast MAJORITY of Americans. And NO ONE on the "myth" side holds it to be true. Therefore, use of it in this article is not in compliance with policy. This is a current belief, and not a past one. And this is a true belief (for me), though not in the children arguing at the sandbox kind of way.

Okay, back to real life. I have a religious fast I'm enjoying today and a holocaust memoir to work on before building a crib for my new baby who's knocking on the door trying to come out.EGMichaels (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of points. First, in labelling myth as "atheist", you appear to be wilfully misreading its formal use in this article.  This is in spite of your quoting from appropriate policy — policy, I add, which can easily be read as strongly supporting the formal use of myth here.  Second, you're fairly presumptious about what constitutes the "mainstream": I doubt that your reading of Genesis is mainstream at different national or global scales.  Third, were we to accept your particular "mainstream" above, then surely "Genesis creation metaphor" would be favoured?  Getting that passed your fundamentalist division would be fun; by contrast, I doubt many so-called "atheists" would object to it, though (formal) "myth" would still be preferred.  Finally, whether adherents are alive or dead should be irrelevant to how a creation myth is described.  This is not a popularity contest, it's an encyclopaedia — so if a topic of class X is included, it should simply be described as class X.  Not least because describing it as otherwise is biasing its description relative to other class X topics.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  13:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Plum -- AGF please.EGMichaels (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (Slipping in out of time order) I'm afraid that you'll have to explain where I've failed to AGF.  If you're objecting to me saying that you "appear to be wilfully misreading" (italics mine), I am merely pointing out that you are conflating the so-called "atheist" viewpoint with the formal use of myth, and doing so in spite of the fact that they are discernibly separate.  They may certainly overlap, but to suggest that all proponents of "myth" are taking this position because of a particular (and irrelevant) non-religious viewpoint is "wilfully misreading".  As an academic, I wish to use the best terminology for Genesis (which I, obviously, judge as "myth"), rather than terms that either have no support in reliable sources, or which are stridently favoured by groups with particular faith or non-faith positions.  Or are you objecting to something else that I wrote?  As it happens, I thought that your statement was upfront and honest, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the distinctions that you've drawn above.  --P LUMBAGO  14:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree about the "popularity contest". The relevant community for how we write our articles is the international community of experts, not the American public. Otherwise John F. Kennedy would have said "I am a jelly doughnut" (see Ich bin ein Berliner for an explanation why he didn't), waterboarding would not be characterised as torture, and evolution would be potentially "just a theory". Fortunately, opinion polls among non-experts are irrelevant for our articles. This is of course not an accident. It is because our processes have been designed to enable us to write an encyclopedia rather than a travesty like Conservapedia. Hans Adler 13:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are in a minority because you believe in evolution? I think I must remind you that although Wikipedia is based in the US, it is not an American project. It is an international project. Also, Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a catechism. There is no need to dumb things down to the point where we don't offend the most naive and ignorant religious people. This is one of those cases where the fundamentalists are uncontroversially and verifiably wrong, so there is no need to respect their beliefs more than we respect antisemitic beliefs at The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or homeopathic beliefs at Homeopathy, or Satanist beliefs at Satanism: Per WP:UNDUE we don't go out of our way to trash them, and we don't go out of our way to pamper their beliefs.
 * The problem as I see it is that some fundamentalist Christians are displaying an extraordinary amount of sensitivity and are demanding special treatment. It didn't work for the Muslim fundamentalists who are rejecting Muhammad depictions – in fact it backfired seriously for them, as there are now quite a few gratuitous, merely ornamental depictions in Muhammad with no chance to get rid of them – and we cannot allow it to work for the Christian fundamentalists, either. Wikipedia is not the United States. It doesn't have a tradition of overinterpreting religious freedom, and in fact it doesn't even have religious freedom as a separate principle. If you don't understand this, you may come to Wikipedia with a sense of entitlement that is going to get you into trouble. Wikipedia is about facts, and about "verifiable" claims as an approximation to facts. It is no more interested in preserving some people's naive faith by unduly hiding the fact that it involves incorrect assumptions about the real world than it is interested in preserving the effectiveness of the Rorschach test pictures by not presenting a real example in the relevant article. Hans Adler 13:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, the "dumb American" idea is overblown.EGMichaels (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:RNPOV (aka Wikipedia policy): "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... concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." Mildly MadTC 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mad, I wouldn't say readers are confusing things.EGMichaels (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you just did: "The "formal sense" implies the same thing as the "informal sense". It's just worded to imply instead of directly state. And it doesn't do a very good job of it." Mildly MadTC 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well spotted Mildly Mad — I missed that particular point earlier. So, EGMichaels, does your objection to "Genesis creation myth" boil down to your belief that the formal sense of myth is (more-or-less) the same as the informal sense?  That's what this statement would appear to suggest.  --P LUMBAGO  15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole section is kind of silly. You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer  -- King Öomie  15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean exactly what I said. The "formal" is just being polite.  But ultimately they are both used for things that are not literally true.  We would not have a Wikipedia article that says "the evolution myth" because Wikipedia considers evolution to be literally true.  But we DO have "creation myth" articles because... (fill in the blank).EGMichaels (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. So you're assuming that we're all just being polite here rather than following guidance and policy?  That's worth knowing.  We have "creation myth" articles because this is a reliably sourced term used in formal, academic circles for a class of thousands of "narratives" about ultimate origins for which there is little or no objective evidence.  If there were direct evidence (and parts of religious texts often do have an objective basis), they would be viewed as historical and then subject to study by scientists, historians, etc. (you know, like evolution, archaeology and the big bang).  The absence of Evolution myth is emphatically not because WP "considers evolution to be literally true".  --P LUMBAGO  16:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said, you are NOT following guidance and policy (though you are trying). The use of tenses in the guidance and policy indicates that the formal use of "myth" pertains to beliefs that people held "at some time".  As I've also noted, the guidance uses past tense for these beliefs -- not present tense.  The "myth" editors, then, are merely using the "formal" as if it is a polite substitute for the informal meaning, as repeatedly demonstrated by the refusal to use any kind of synonym for "myth."  The reliably sourced academic articles are not universal in the use of "myth" and in fact manuals of style and usage indicate that this word should not be used for contemporary beliefs -- lest we stumble into the informal use.  The absense of "evolution myth" is certainly because it isn't considered a myth, fable, fairy tale, fantasy, etc.  Look, we've been exploring plenty of terms to use.  "Story" is completely neutral, but rejected because... well, it's not specific enough.  After all, a "story" COULD be true, and we wouldn't want anyone to think that, now would we?EGMichaels (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I consider story to be something false. Is that usage not normal? Ben (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's why story is neutral. It could go either way.EGMichaels (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying from above ... "All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth" — this can be now. Note: are, not were.  Which is as it should be since it's not necessarily obvious when there are no living adherents to a particular myth (maybe someone living out there really does buy into Thor).  We are still very much at the "stage" when people (some people) actually believe that this particular creation myth is literally true.  I certainly don't read the past tense into the definition of myth at all.  In passing, I interpret "story" to mean fiction, so "creation story" doesn't work for me.  If you'd like to keep throwing out synonyms (or are they really antonyms?), go ahead.  But they need to be derived from reliable sources.  That's why I favour "creation myth" since it's common currency in the appropriate academic literature.  --P LUMBAGO  16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you'll note, that sentence mixes the tenses. It should be "are...use" or "were...used" and not "are...used".  Although "are used" is correct grammatically, the separating words limit "used" to the past tense, disagreeing with "are."  In any case, while I do believe that the Genesis creation story is not literally true, it's presumptive and bad English style to use the term "myth" for a living religion.EGMichaels (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. I think a good case could be made for it to be clearer (i.e. that the creation myths of extant and extinct religions qualify).  But I don't see that it's either presumptive or bad English to use the term "myth" in its formal sense for a living religion.  It may be seen as inflammatory or impolite by those who do hold a literal belief (and who are interpreting "myth" informally), but that is not a factor that should concern us here.  Not least because subscribers to a particular creation myth are liable themselves to judge other creation myths (of which there are no shortage to choose from) by the informal standard.  --P LUMBAGO  17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't have the title "evolution myth" for several good reasons that all point in the same direction:
 * The term "evolution myth" is not widely used, and it is used only in fringe publications.
 * Evolution is not a typical example of a myth in the technical sense.
 * While evolution arguably has a mythical facet in the most general technical sense, this facet is not the most notable one.
 * Evolution is just about as much established fact as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth" would also be misleading.
 * On the other hand, here is the situation for the Genesis creation story:
 * The term "creation myth" is widely applied to Genesis, and the complete term "Genesis creation myth" is used in some mainstream publications.
 * The first two chapters of Genesis form a typical (and notable as such) example of a creation myth.
 * The best way to define what this story is, is to say that it is the creation myth that appears in the Bible. Appearing in the Bible and being a creation myth are its two most significant properties.
 * Belief in a literal reading of this story is just about as absurd as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth", while not intended, is actually appropriate. Hans Adler 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans: "Evolution is just about as much established fact as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth" would also be misleading." Bingo! You're getting it. And "Belief in a literal reading of this story is just about as absurd as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth", while not intended, is actually appropriate." Exactly what I'm saying. The question is not whether the creation account is literally true (neither of us think it is) -- but the REAL question at hand, and the reason for this thread is this: a myth is not usually used for something that is literally true. It CAN be, but only in a very limited literary sense, pertaining to something (even a true event) that had such psychic effect on the observers to have mythic force. President Obama generated mythic hopes (and fears) from his supporters and detractors... which makes him just like all the other Presidents. The office itself is so caught up in the American psyche that most presidents become "myth" even in neutral reporting. But that Campbellian sense of the term isn't in the Wiki guidelines, so we can ignore it.EGMichaels (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. Numerous people (including myself) have pointed out to you, several times, using WP policy, why this is an invalid argument, but you're just not getting it. Mildly MadTC 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is ridiculous -- since I've been showing that you aren't following the policy, and you're just not...EGMichaels (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And we're right back to "La, la, la, I can't hear youuuuuu!" &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand, give it a rest. Both sides here want to follow proper usage.  We both appeal to policy, and I've gone to great lengths to demonstrate that here.  You can la la la all you like -- but there are rational editors on both sides who want to apply Wikipedia policy correctly.EGMichaels (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy you cited clearly states that using "creation myth" in this context is perfectly acceptable; herry-picking the letter of the policy in order to violate the spirit of the policy is Wikilawyering. Even so, the majority of editors here are not using "myth" to imply that Genesis is wrong, they are using it because it is the correct scholarly term to use.  An example: If I want to call Hitler a Nazi simply because I don't like him, that's still not a reason to not put it in the article, even if "Nazi" in its colloquial use is a derogatory term.  It remains a fact, regardless of any editor's motivation.  Mildly MadTC 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be such a latecomer to the discussion but just to state that time and time again WP:WTA has been decided to be in favor of using Myth in it's formal sense as long as due diligence is made to show that it is being used in its formal sense. You can't cherry pick parts of the WTA article that suit your needs.  It clearly states that the formal usage of myth is commonplace in scholarly, academic, encyclopedic articles and that wikipedia should be no different.  it also clearly says that under no circumstances should one belief be referred to as a "myth" while others are called "stories" or "accounts" etc...  Uniformity is important.  Since the precedent for "Creation Myth" has been set and the vast majority of "Creation Myth" articles for different faiths use the term creation myth in their article and name this article's usage meets the uniformity clause of WTA as well as the "formal use is encouraged" clause.  Everything stated above is in reference to informal usage which, yet again (see FAQ, Cites, Definitions, footnotes, wikilinks, and so on) this article does not do and in fact takes great strides to avoid.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Maybe you ARE intending some kind of formal meaning that does not connote falsehood. To help me get your point, please give me another example of how you would use the word "myth" for a factual account.EGMichaels (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use "myth" for a factual account nor would I use it for a false account. Policy dictates that we do not use it in an informal way that provides any value judgement one way or the other.  Used in its formal sense "myth" and more importantly "creation myth" provide no value judgement one way or the other.  Please realize that this has nothing to do with my feelings or opinions, I'm more or less quoting WP:WTA and WP:RNPOV in the above statement.  I tend to follow a policy maker paradigm here on Wikipedia, meaning that I contribute, edit, revert, XfD etc... in line with policy.  I can give you half a dozen examples off the top of my head where my stance on something was shown to be contrary to policy and I did an immediate 180 (most of which are in the XfD realm).  If I find a policy to be completely off base and have good reason to challenge it I do so at the policy level, not on articles to which the policy is applied.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does "policy" say that we use "myth" unnecessarily in a title at all? Titles are to identify the subject of an article. "Policy" would never dictate that a particular view be presented on any subject. In fact policy says: "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:TITLE states that titles must be:
 * "Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." The word "myth," in the appropriate definition, is the best and most precise single word to describe the subject.
 * "Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." Articles dealing with the same subject for different religions, extinct or not, use the term "myth" in their title.
 * Also, note that WP:WTA explicitly states that using "myth" is allowed when used in its formal sense. As stated in WP:RNPOV, the mere possibility that something (like using "myth") could be taken the wrong way is not enough to justify its removal. Mildly MadTC 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mildly Mad — we are talking about titles. At issue is not the use of "myth" within the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is it stated that there's a completely separate set of policies for titles? I see no reason that titles should be excluded from policies about articles. In fact, WP:TITLE says it  "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." Mildly MadTC 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mildly Mad — we are finding specifically at Article and section titles that: ''"Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint."' Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The formal usage of "myth" does not make a determination whether something is true or false. Also, WP:NPOV is neutral point of view, not no point of view. Mildly MadTC 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's the problem. The understanding of policy that you are promoting is that we can use it about a living belief without a value judgment.  So I need ANOTHER example of something that unambiguously cannot be viewed as "false" that included the use you are claiming to use.  If you claim to use a word in a certain valueless way here, you can certainly use the same word in a valueless way in another context.EGMichaels (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that you cannot imagine people using "creation myth" in a totally neutral way, unless we jump through your arbitrary hoops to prove it to you. I already warned you once about not assuming good faith. Please drop this. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of warning me, how about give ANY example on ANY subject in which you can use "myth" in a value neutral way. The subject needs to be unambiguously true.  I've given a number of examples below.  You can copy and paste if you like.  But stop warning and start collaborating.EGMichaels (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your demand is unreasonable. It is inherent in the technical meaning of "myth", and even more so of "creation myth", that it needs to be old and somewhat complex, and have a strong component of human interest. Also there aren't all that many myths per culture, and each of us is at most familiar with a handful of cultures. Under these circumstances it is of course extremely hard to come up with what you are asking for, for reasons that have nothing to do with the "false" connotation. Incidentally, this connotation probably comes precisely from the fact that all myths we are familiar with are false on the literal level. Hans Adler 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, your refusal is unreasonable. I've given a number of examples below, and I'll give another.  It is an unambiguous fact that there are seven days per week in this culture.  Genesis says that "God rested" on the seventh day.  Now, a "myth" doesn't mean something is false, but that something is symbolic.  It does no good at all to use "myth" to say something is factually incorrect, because in the informal meaning "myth" is basically useless.  It's like saying something is a "symbol."  Well, "symbol" of WHAT?  "Myth" of WHAT?  Although Peter Watson's "A History of Ideas" is not as mythocentric as Joseph Campbells four volume "The Masks of God", it does give some interesting parallels between Babylonian and Hebrew culture, offering some ideas that may have been incorporated during the Babylonian exile -- even including a seven day week and a sabbath.  Now for the seven days: (I have the book beside my computer but it's too early in the morning to give the exact page number) -- some primitive cultures have had a five day week and some seven.  There are five planets observable to the naked eye, and the sun and moon make seven observable "wandering stars" in the sky.  Everything else was fixed -- except for these seven.  So, you have a year based on the sun, a month based on the moon, and a week based on all seven observable moving objects in the sky.  So, "God rested" from all his creation can thus be seen as a true symbol of the naturally observed limits to the entire created universe.  After seven restless objects in the sky, everything else is at rest.  Santa Claus is a modern myth.  There really is a Santa Claus -- it's called parents.  Santa is a true symbol for parents.  Now, I've just given you two things that are unambiguously true, but symbolically (i.e. mythically) expressed.  This wasn't hard to do.  The fact that you continually object to so simple a request demonstrates that you are not trying to express the word "myth" in its formal sense even in an example here -- much less in the article.


 * Genesis has fabulous potential for this subject, and it is addressed even in conservative theological works. The "myths" or "symbols" are symbolic representations of real things that the Hebrews were trying to communicate, just as these letters on your screen are symbolic representations of what I would like for you to understand.  We use phonetic substitutes for ideas, grammatical substitutes, and literary and artistic substitutes.  Each of these are incrementally larger units of communication, with "myth" the largest example.  And each of these is trying to communicate some kind of truth.  Simply saying "but it's just a myth" is like saying this posting of mine "is just a bunch of letters."  You seem to have an equally low appreciation for both.EGMichaels (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting incredibly silly now. If something is only symbolically true, then of course it's not unambiguously true. (Almost?) every statement can be read on numerous levels; that's one of the reasons why language is generally ambiguous. If one of the meanings (a literal one) is not true, then the statement is not unambiguously true. Why do you insist on this discussion? It seems to achieve nothing but filling up this talk page even further. Hans Adler 11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans -- so all this is just a bunch of squiggly lines on the screen to you. You've both failed to use ANY example on ANY subject in which you use "myth" in the formal sense.  And then you say it's silly when I do so.  Yes, it does sound silly when the paper says, "Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" if you "know better."  But if you "really" know better, then you know it isn't.  There are three levels here:


 * Believing a myth is literally true (superstition)
 * Believing a myth is literally false (informal use of "myth")
 * Exploring what a myth is symbolically expressing (formal use of "myth")


 * You're still stuck in the second level -- as the article is -- and refuse to get to the meat of the third.EGMichaels (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels, the one thing you apparently can't understand is the metaphysical (ir)relevance of your very own meta-ontological argument, or lack thereof, as you please. By taking this discussion to an unprecedented level of obscurantism, you are creating the illusion of reasoned debate where there is only miscommunication. Consider the following example sentence:
 * A myth is a myth is a myth, even if it isn't; or actually no, it isn't.
 * You may ask yourself, what does this have to do with our topic, and the answer is: Exactly, that's precisely the point. And an excellent example of the first and fourth levels – simultaneously. As a vegetarian I insist on skipping the third. Hans Adler 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionists Only, Please
I keep seeing statements that this concern with myth has to do with some kind of creationist agenda. That may be so, and I may just be alone here.

So, out of curiosity, am I really alone on this? Is EVERYONE with a concern with "myth" a fundamentalist creation science person who wants to push a POV?

If there are any evolutionists here who just have NPOV and stylistic concerns (like me), please pop me a note here and let me know I'm not living in some kind of happy Wiki fantasy land...EGMichaels (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is good writing consistent with the humanities — neither religion nor science — that motivates most of us to want a value neutral title of appropriate scope. My motivation is just maximizing elegance of language. I don't know if I do that, but that is my aim. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe in evolution. SAE (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've once used the word "creationist" (or anything of the sort) in my arguments... I'm with you; this is fully a NPOV and style issue, and I'm 100% of the opinion that "creation myth" is far and away the best term to use. Mildly MadTC 15:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually NPOV does not even arise. NPOV arises where there already is a point of view. But no point of view is conveyed by a title such as Genesis chapters one and two. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent about whether evolution is "right" or not. I don't know enough about it, and frankly don't really care much. However the world came to exist, it exists, and that'll do for me. What I do care about is POV - Wikipedia needs to distance itself from the whiff of POV and this article name frankly stinks of it. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't just point and say "POV!" What POV do you think this article should distance itself from? Ben (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben — this article should distance itself from any point of view. Again, let me remind you — we are talking about the title, not the body of the article. And I think one would have to have a tin ear not to hear the point of view conveyed by "creation myth" in the title. This problem is only compounded by how avoidable it is. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Take another look at WP:NPOV, especially WP:YESPOV. NPOV stands for neutral point of view, not no point of view. Mildly MadTC 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mildly Mad -- as a matter of fact WP:YESPOV makes no mention of article titles at all. Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I call WP:WL. While that appears to be accurate, it doesn't specifically exclude them either, and I would hope that the term "article" would extend to its title as well, especially since WP:NPOV is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.  Remember, the spirit of the rule takes precedence over the letter of the rule. Mildly MadTC 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mildly Mad — I'm a staunch defender of WP:NPOV but there is nothing in the old title of this article to "neutralize." There was no "viewpoint" expressed in the old title. Can you please explain to me how "creation myth" restores "neutrality" to what was the previous article title? The previous article title was Creation according to Genesis. Do you contend that a "point of view" was expressed in "Creation according to Genesis?" Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That title is perfectly neutral (for the record, I never said it wasn't, and I hadn't entered the discussion until after the change), but it violated WP:TITLE: "The ideal title is... Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." Mildly MadTC 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Other articles may or may not be in error in this regard. But no reason can be established for hanging the term "creation myth" onto the far simpler and adequate titles that already were in place or have since been suggested for this article. "Creation myth" is a gratuitous "spin" put on this article's title. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, and I am assailed for using "Religionist". Evolutionist is a creationist term, and in reaction to that I use "Religionist". It seems we have come to the core of the issue. This whole debate over the title is solely driven by the religious urge of a handful of editor to make Genesis appear real without presenting evidence for its veracity. However, this is no creationist platform and we present what rational research into the matter has provided us with. Genesis is a creation myth as any other. There is no way that Wikipedia can present it in a different manner than those others. We can present the religious interpretation but we do not make that interpretation a position that Wikipedia holds. "Creation myth" is the NPOV term for what Genesis contains. Deal with 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 · 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * *sigh* SAE (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Cush, you're always charming. You and I both believe in evolution (by whatever term you wish).  I do use ist and ism for beliefs and idealogies, but that's normal.  In any case, we believe in evolution, but differ about what title is NPOV.  You believe that myth is NPOV because it's a fact that it's false.  Well, I think you're alone in that.  Most folks here, on both sides, are trying to acheive a different sort of NPOV, in line with common usage, sourcing, consistency with other articles, etc.  While we do have a real discussion going on, we're trying to avoid gotchas.  I know I've been accused of trying the gotcha myself -- but that was a little overblown.  I'm just trying to get people to be up front.  And you know what?  You are refreshingly up front and I do appreciate it.EGMichaels (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Evolution is not a matter of belief. Evolution is not a religion. And you know why? <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 · 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll bite -- Cush does NOT believe in evolution. Sorry for thinking you did.EGMichaels (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels, could you please consider avoiding the uncritical use of silly, inflammatory terms such as "evolutionist", "round earther" or "heliocentricist"? It is customary in the English language to refer only to the followers of fringe beliefs with such terms. Since evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for life, and very satisfactory as such, "believing" in evolution is the normal and unmarked case. (Almost everywhere in the world it is also the most common case, but I guess pointing this out makes me anti-American.) Thank you. I also wish Cush would stop using the term "religionist", but at least he doesn't use it in section labels and ask others to self-identify with the term.

Apart from that, nobody seems to have noticed, but I am not actually supporting the present title. I am defending it against inappropriate attacks, which is a different matter. I have issues with the present title that have not really come up yet, and which I am not going to bring up if it puts me in the society of creationists. After all, my issues with the present title are very minor, especially when seen in the light of earlier creationist attempts to purge the term "creation myth" from the lead. Hans Adler 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, would you have a problem with "scientist"? In any case, apologies if I described myself accidentally in some kind of silly manner.  Since I believe in evolution, I never thought of evolutionist as an insult.  But I've always tried to think kindly of myself...  I'd love to hear your concerns, and promise not to lump you as some kind of ist (or even a capitalist ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "I also wish Cush would stop using the term "religionist", but at least he doesn't use it in section labels and ask others to self-identify with the term." -> maybe not, but he is labelling people falsely. You too seem to group people into categories they do not belong, simply for the fact that they disagree with you (what is your reasoning?  you believe in evolution, therefore "whoever opposes my thought must therefore be a creationist-pusher?").  SAE (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...or they must be an american? (by the way, I am not American.) SAE (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right -- hence my sanity check here. The best way to debunk a label is to ask the labelled to say if it's accurate.EGMichaels (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * SAE, I didn't address you specifically as a creationist or an American, so you are attacking a straw man. EGMichaels argued specifically with the weight that creationism has in public debate in the US, and I addressed that. If you say you are not a creationist, I must believe you. However, in some of your comments above you have used a typical creationist argument uncritically: That a prima facie implausible explanation is equivalent to the best scientific explanation, merely because it cannot be completely disproved. The absurdity of this argument has been shown with the invention of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which, somewhat predictably, is slowly becoming an ordinary religion with real believers. Hans Adler 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I doubt that argument. Nobody, and I mean nobody, seriously believes God is a flying spaghetti monster. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And? The belief in any other god is based on the same amount of evidence and reason. <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 · 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And? We're finding sources to write articles, not debating the existence of God here. The sooner you realize that, the better.  So can you find any reliable source that even one person alive has ever seriously believed God is a flying spaghetti monster?  If not, then what we have here just could be yet another red herring fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a time when I would have said the same about Young Earth creationism, but Wikipedia has taught me otherwise. On this basis I see absolutely no reason not to believe those who tell me that through religious observances which started as parody they gradually evolved from atheists into real FSM believers. Do you disagree? Hans Adler 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at what point do you call someone a Christian/FSM believer/whatever? Surely the bar isn't so high as the literal interpretation of some text? Ben (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A Christian is someone who governs his life and belief structure on the patterns laid out by Jesus and his followers. This includes someone who believes in a literal physical resurrection (a fundamentalist) or someone who believes it is metaphorically powerful (a lot of mainstream protestants and catholics).  People don't usually say, "I believe this myth" but they may say "I follow this metaphor" and more often say, "I believe in the resurrection" (BOTH fundamentalists and mainstream, one meaning literal and one meaning metaphor, by the term belief).  "Myth" is just not normally used internally for self description the way metaphor is.  In any case, there may be no room for the mainstream use of metaphor.  We've been hijacked by fundamentalist atheists who are stuck on a literal meaning that most of us don't even believe in the first place.  "Myth" is being used to describe what Genesis ISN'T (literal fact) and not what it IS (foundationally meaningful).  Oh well.  One day we'll get out of the sandbox and stop arguing if something is literally true.  The whole point of THIS thread was to show that "story" promoters aren't the fundamentalists.  And what I discovered is that the atheists were.  God help us from fundamentalists! ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So now you're categorizing and battling against the "atheist fundamentalists" simply on the basis of that characterization, much in the same way that they previously labeled you as a "religionist?" Excellent! Mildly MadTC 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thought you would like that, since I was amused at the irony as well. A fundamentalist argument on this would be on the subject of creation literally happening.  The IRONY is that it's only the anti-theists who are arguing whether or not it literally happened.  Most folks on both sides don't care.EGMichaels (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again: nobody in this article is currently arguing whether Genesis actually happened, and, according to WP policy, the term "creation myth" does not make that determination either. Also, you're getting really WP:POINTy with your arguments. Mildly MadTC 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep reading. Hans is being helpful.EGMichaels (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the point FSM tries to make is that the existence of "God" is just as likely as the existence of an all powerful flying spaghetti monster, or invisible pink unicorn or any other parody. If the FSM folks teach their children that the gospel of FSM is true and that he exists it's not beyond the pale that an actual religion will emerge, look at the goofy things that scientologists believe in, it only took a generation for that to bloom into a full fledged religion.  But I digress from the topic, I personally take issue with editors on both sides who are acting like Dicks and turning this into some sort of emotional arguement.  "Religionist" and "Creationist" as words are not inflammatory per se but any title in the wrong context (e.g. lumping everyone together and assuming they all follow the worst case scenario of belief on their side) is poor form at best.


 * As for my take, if an alternative is proposed that can be shown to be supported by encyclopedic sources, academia, etc... and there is some sort of significant policy / guideline support for using said alternative then I'm open to discussing its use. Arguements based on logical fallacies or simple opinion carry zero weight in my eyes and if all the so called "pro myth" side used to support their case were those arguements I'd be just as critical.  Danger lies in assuming motive or agenda on either side (unless said motive is made plain and clear).  I'm not trying to crusade against some sort of agenda, i'm just trying to contribute to an article in a way that is as compliant with policy, academic / scholarly standards and encyclopedic sources as possible.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I fully agree with this statement. Mildly MadTC 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. But we've been here before (many, many times).  --P LUMBAGO  17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't start this thread to create something irrelevant and incendiary, but to STOP the irrelevant and incendiary accusations that the "story" side is primarly motivated by some desire to convert people to fundamentalist beliefs. At least a fair percentage of the "story" side shares the same view of human origins as the "myth" side. The accusations against the "story" side were therefore irrelevant and incendiary, as demonstrated by the answers here.EGMichaels (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Any accusations against any side are irrelevant and incendiary and discussing such accusations as opposed to ignoring them the same way you ignore a petulant child who is throwing a tantrum is just as stupid. Hence why this box should be collapsed and furthermore we should kill this persecution fork and just move on.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore it. It's a terrible argument, and doesn't prove anything. Every editor here could be Mormon, or Shia, and I wouldn't really care. If you're tired of arguments saying "you want X believe X", the solution is NOT to ask "So what does everyone believe?". It doesn't matter when someone uses it as a weapon, and it doesn't matter when used as a shield. -- King Öomie  18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EGM, I wish you would go back and critically look at your own posts. Then, you may realize how your own approach has been entirely based on dividing people up into groups and creating the perfect environment for "irrelevant and incendiary accusations" to grow. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand, trying to INCLUDE both groups (one of which was being driven off) isn't divisive -- it's an attempt to solve the divisiveness. You can run off and ignore people who disagree with you until they leave, and then claim consensus, but that's just not the way to go about things here.EGMichaels (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Or we could just revisit this same tired thread again and again and again? Policy seems completely clear to me on this point (though your remarks above re: "are" vs. "were" potentially indicate one place where it could be tightened).  And given that we'll struggle to find a reliably sourced alternative to "myth", and that even if we do we'll have to edit/rename every article on mythology (as it will then-formerly be known), I can't see this as a plausible avenue.  --P LUMBAGO  19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EGM, your intention is surely to be inclusive, but your actions have been horribly divisive. Until you actually stop and acknowledge this, I'm going to keep pointing it out to you. You keep trying to fit a square peg through a round hole. It might be time to step back and put the square peg down, until you figure out how to use a round one here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand -- although running off all opposition may feel unifying, it's not the way true consensus is built. Yes, I invited back everyone who was being run off, creating a second side where only one triumphal side would have been.  But I didn't CREATE the second group.  I merely invited them back with the promise that I would try to be fair between the two.  I asked them to brainstorm and I asked you to brainstorm.  They did and you didn't.  I've even tried to find some way of retaining "myth" in the title that wouldn't exclude those who are troubled with the current title.  If there is a square peg round hole problem, it is in repeatedly asking you to build real consensus.  I'll keep asking on any article I'm on, because that's how Wikipedia is supposed to function -- and how it's not functioning here.EGMichaels (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mythical interpretations of Genesis
Deadtotruth just pulled some information from another article Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and I see also there is Framework interpretation (Genesis) and Genesis (Hebrew Bible).

There does not seem to be a Literal interpretation of Genesis article but there does seem to be a Creationism article.

The strongest point in favor of "myth" is the link to the Creation myth article.

There MAY be a way to keep the word "myth" in there that follows the pattern of the allegorical and framework articles -- and ALSO satisfies the "story" side of this discussion.

How about: "Mythical interpretations of Genesis" as the title. It interconnects with the allegorical interpretations article, the framework interpretations article, and the creation myth article.EGMichaels (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title "Mythical interpretations of Genesis". That is a rather odd phrase. Most scholars agree that the myth preceded its incorporation into the Jewish Bible.  This proposed title reverses that order: as if the Book of Genesis were written first, then people started interpreting it as a myth.   "Creation Myth" is a commonly used term.  Also, there is another poll underway above.  It may be wisest to wait for that to settle down. --Noleander (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How did the myth preceed its incorporation into the Jewish Bible? This myth is a wild assembly of numerous Mesopotamian, um, myths and its writing is dated to the time after the "Babylonian Captivity". You may want to read some in the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL) <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 · 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's just a made up phrase, no doubt found sometimes - I see 2 web ghits, & I gbook hit, but we should be sticking rigidly to WP:COMMONNAME - most of the problem here comes from ignoring it. It also implies you have to "interpret" Genesis to find the myth/story, which isn't the case. Also the phrase is creation myth; myth is different. This is a dead end, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed title would necessitate expanding the article to interpretations of the rest of Genesis (Abraham, Jacob, etc) as well. It is best to limit the scope of the article to the creation myth only, which necessitates something about that in the title. Mildly MadTC 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There may be a way to get it all in, though. I think there's some room for a few minutes of brainstorming... Genesis Creation Narrative as Myth, for instance. The "as Myth" shows that THIS article is exploring the mythical aspect of the creation narrative without saying that it is the ONLY such way to take it (obviously so, since there are other articles with other takes).EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose That usage requires the Informal usage of "Myth" (google "Define Mythical") and would require damn near an entire re-write of the article as such. Nefariousski (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most scholars use the term "Genesis Creation Account." The term myth is normally reserved for extinct religions. Many Christians and Jews would consider the use of the term "myth" uncivil for what they consider to be true. The term as used on this page doesn't fit the wikipedia guidelines for civil language. Deadtotruth (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * please point out the section(s) in WP:CIVIL that discuss why we shouldn't use "Creation myth" or even the formal usage of "myth". There are multiple sources / policies in support of its use, and I'd love to see where you're getting your information from.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact - see the statistics above "Genesis Creation account" comes a clear second in scholarly usage to "Genesis Creation story", though certainly it is massively more common than "Genesis creation myth". Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * John -- the sources they are using seem to be largely British. British idioms are a bit different from American ones.  J.R.R.Tolkien, for instance, spent hours convincing his friend C.S. Lewis that the gospels were "myth."  In the British idiom (which I prefer myself), a "myth" is a story with transformative metaphoric power.  Once convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was "myth", C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity.  That wouldn't have happened if they had been American professors.  While I'm willing to grant that it's possible to use "myth" in this British sense, all of my requests to express it have been declined.EGMichaels (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is something close to this in Webster's Dictionary under "mythos" 2: a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture. In this sense -- close to the British idiom and Joseph Campbell's preferred use -- viral symbols become myths.  When Andrew Jackson was called Andrew Jackass by his political opponents, he liked the attempted insult so much that the Donkey became the symbol of the Democratic party.  Don't know where the heck the Elephant came from... but the Donkey came to symbolize the rugged fighter for the common man that became paradigmatic for the Democratic party.  Regardless of your politics, then, the Donkey and Elephant have gathered such mythical force that they can be substituted for the parties themselves.  As I said before, Abraham Lincoln was a giant.  George Washington was the father of his country.  These are myths in the British sense -- basically metaphors with a life of their own.  When the metaphor becomes more familiar than the thing itself, it is a myth.  Now, the current arguments on this talk page often break down into something like, "but Democrats aren't REALLY animals..." or "Lincold wasn't THAT tall..." or "Washington didn't sleep in THAT many places..."  And unfortunately the article itself takes great pains to show that Genesis isn't LITERALLY true and has been debunked by science...  The entire article, while claiming some kind of neutral use for "myth" isn't written in a way that shows it.  All of the arguments in the article that the book of Genesis isn't LITERALLY true in its creation account are thus "informal use of myth."  Oh well.  I'm still inviting neutral examples of myth (such as the ones I've provided), but it's like pulling teeth.EGMichaels (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this at all - most seem American to me. Nor do I actually think there is a "British sense" as you describe; Lewis's personal thought patterns were rather individual, though I'm sure some American professors were perfectly capable of sharing them - he is rather more popular as a thinker in the US than the UK. However if there were a significantly different British sense, that would be yet another reason for avoiding "myth" under WP:ENGVAR.  I doubt you will find any dictionaries to support your belief. But we care talking about creation myth here anyway. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where in the article does it try to disprove Genesis, or use myth as a colloquial term? If you can find them, you should edit them out for WP:NPOV. Mildly MadTC 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Third paragraph: "Although traditionally accepted as historically accurate, by the 19th century scientific discoveries and biblical scholarship had led most people to abandon a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.[3]" This is completely appropriate if the article were not titled myth.  But the title prohibits any informal use of the word myth, and trying to prove that informal meaning is inappropriate.  My proposed alternate title, or something like it, could retain the word "myth" in such a way that the third paragraph and others like it would be fine.EGMichaels (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why you think the third paragraph is inappropriate given the current article title? Gabbe (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the title includes the word "myth" then the entire article must be avoid the informal meaning of "myth" -- which involves something commonly believed but untrue. ANY reference in an article entitled "myth" to the subject of that myth being untrue therefore, creates the informal usage for the entire article.


 * Please allow me to paraphrase the third paragraph (correct me if you disagree with my interp) "Before a large amount of scientific discoveries apparently came into conflict with genesis being actual history, most people believed it to be actual history. After, a large number of people adopted a less literal interpretation." being that this is a cited statement and its accuracy as a statement isn't really in question here how is the third paragraph as it is currently written not acceptable?  Almost identical statements are made on the creationism article (under the heading prevalence) and there doesn't appear to be much consternation.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually would very much like to see an article exploring the mythical understandings of genesis, but we cannot do so with the current title. "Genesis creation interpreted as myth" is ONE example that would avoid that problem, because the article would be about various understandings of the creation account as myth.  The article basically supports that.  But "Genesis creation myth" takes an assumptive stance that the article is proving Genesis to be myth, rather than exploring notable and reliable sources that view it as myth.  This is a fixable problem, but there has to be some brainstorming to get there -- and all the brain power is being used trying to avoid it.EGMichaels (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What does "most people" refer to? On a global scale the followers of the abrahamic religions have not always made the majority of the world popluation. The Chinese and (H)Indians never believed in the Bible, and for the larger part of civilization history these made the bulk of all "people". So how can someone claim that "most people" believed in this? <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 · 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you found that confusing or didn't understand the intent. would you like me to ammend that paraphrasing to specify "most adherents of jewish or christian beliefs" I assumed since genesis is the topic of discussion that would be a given and everyone would have understood intent but I'm guessing I assumed too much? Nefariousski (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, in an international encyclopedia with a global audience terms like "most people" refer to fractions of the world population. You cannot just implicitly restrict such statements to the adherents of the ideology in question. Although the topic of this article is related to the abrahamic religions, you cannot claim adherence to their ideas for the rest of world as well, can you? Everyone reads Wikipedia, not just Jews and Christians. <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 · 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to look like grasping at straws. Firstly a valid arguement needs to be made that the current usage is bad (and no, offensive to my beliefs, I don't like it, etc... aren't valid arguements), policy and or guidelines need to be in support of said arguement and there should be some sort of reliable source that backs up said arguement. Once that is established then you have your foot in the door for proposing an alternative which has to be shown to be preferable to status quo (once again, sources, policy, guidelines etc...). That is how the framework for any upcoming suggestions should work if they are to be taken into serious consideration. Nefariousski (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI posted
My apologies for not notifying all of the legion of individual participating editors on this page regarding the ANI (per standard protocol). Let this serve as notification that I've submitted to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Constant_tendentious_editing_at_Genesis_creation_myth_despite_RFC.2C_2_RMs_all_supporting_current_consensus. WP:ANI].

Please keep in mind that the ANI posting is not there to serve as a proxy for this page's ongoing debates. I did post this with a bit of a heavy heart because I do believe (very much so) in the ability of community to resolve their own problems but considering that if we continue at this rate we'll all be on disability with carpel tunnel by the end of March and more gentle means (discussion, RFC, NPOV notice board, the second RM etc...) seem to have been fruitless I felt there wasn't much other option. Nefariousski (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef -- thanks for all the hard work. It looks like this is being bounced back as a content dispute.  Please let me know if this is open or closed, because I'm not that well versed in Wikilawyering.  I just like to work things out by reason.


 * In any case, please see my last post to Hans under "Parsing Meaning" where I give him two examples of unambiguously true things expressed as "myth" in the formal sense. Maybe that can help you understand that I'm not your opponent here.  I'm trying to improve the article just as you are, but "going forward" in the wrong direction is the same thing as "going backward."  There are people on both sides who see mythological aspects to the Genesis creation account.  The question is how to express this both formally and with a neutral point of view.  I have a stack of books on my table right now, including the Oxford Annotated Bible, works of Joseph Campbell and Peter Watson, and even the Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis that can add details toward this article.  I'd like to collaborate, and would appreciate it if you would too.EGMichaels (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So long as you insist on proving that you can't even get the plain and obvious meaning of WP:MYTH, I am not looking forward to the wisdom of these books as filtered through your interpretation. We are having some serious communication issues, and I am pretty sure they are not primarily on my side. Hans Adler 14:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth? What was wrong with the long established consensus name, "Creation According to Genesis"
What did a flashmob just arrive, talk amongst themselves for two days and slap this remarkably unencyclopedic title on it? The "new and improved" title looks more like tagging than any attempt at scholarship. What gives?99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the clarification of "Myth" to Qur'an and miracles in keeping with evolving Wikipedia conventions. Obviously though it should clearly be titled with the neutral Myth of Qur'an and miracles. There is a single manual of style for the project, yes? _99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's what the article is about. We've already had someone here demanding we add 'myth' to the title of every single religious article, or none at  all. And I don't mean just creation myth articles.  -- King Öomie  20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that would be the fairest thing to do. <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 · 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any motion to move articles like Krishna to Krishna myth. -- King Öomie  20:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But Bastet (mythology) is ok?? <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 · 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a redirect, actually, so no. -- King Öomie  21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think myth should just be added to some religions and not others.99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia does not prefer 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 · 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see why the impeccably neutral title, "Creation According to Genesis" needed to be disturbed after years of quiet acceptance. Long term consensus was quite obviously disturbed unnecessarily here. How was the encyclopedia in any way improved with this bold action?99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Creation According to Genesis" is not neutral. It implies truth. <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 · 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you all dense? Quit feeding the trolls. Ben (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Cush, it doesn't. It implies that it's about the Genesis account of creation.  Which is an account of Creation, even if it doesn't happen to be one you consider to be true.  So why not say "Genesis account of creation" or "Genesis creation account"?  We know why you've been pushing for "myth", but in the context of this subject and the debate that exists, "myth" is NPOV.  "Account" is not. - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@Ben Tillman: then remove the thread already. <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 · 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I read it as it was written, "according to Genesis". Genesis is a book. I'm quite interested in how "truth" is implied, and I'm not vested in religion at all - quite the contrary, my interest is in neutral, and academic articles. So, how then do you see "truth" implied in the long standing title?99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This was not, as one editor states, "trolling". Indeed an argument could be made that the article name change itself - and the defense of the word "myth" based upon narrow denotation in a mass market media nearly entirely reliant upon connotation is itself a form of sophisticated "trolling".99.141.252.167 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not trolling. If you read the entire talk page (purely hypothetical of course, given its current state) you would see that bringing this article's title in line with the titles of other creation myths was the natural reaction to creationist attempts to censor the term "creation myth" altogether, or at least remove it from the lead. The same dynamics has also led to the situation that Muhammad doesn't just have a few Islamic depictions of Muhammad which prove the fact that such depictions were once considered acceptable: no, as a result of Islamic outrage on the talk page we now have almost as many merely ornamental pictures of Muhammad in his article as there are ornamental pictures of Jesus in Jesus. For further examples of reactance (psychology) at work see the pictures at Goatse.cx and autofellatio, where Wikipedia is being defended against perceived attempts to make it a "clean" site by keeping photos that most of our readers consider shocking in the most prominent position. Hans Adler 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information?
In wikipedia, there is a creationism article, an allegorical interpretation article, a tree of life article, a genesis article, etc.. If we are trying to provide a useful reference then our current article should be consistent with the other articles in Wikipedia. Someone keeps placing material on this page that not only contradicts the other articles but is factually inaccurate. Perhaps the word myth is appropiate since some of the reference material on this page is myth. It is one thing to insist on a particular title, but it is something else to place factually incorrect information in the body of the article. The incorrect information is POV driven and the wording in the title from an American idiomatic perspective shares that same POV. My conclusion is that since the body of information contains a singular POV inconsistent with the other wikipedia articles on this subject that the title is also being generated from that same POV. Wikipedia is dedicated to bringing knowledge to everyone - wouldn't it be nice if the information in this article at least attempted to do that?Deadtotruth (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that very passive-aggressive question you end with, you're going to need to be more specific about the "incorrect" information you're saying is in the article. Otherwise, this is vague hand-waving. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like he's trying to fix them.EGMichaels (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deadtotruth, I reverted all of your recent edits, but don't necessarily disagree with them all. But this article is a battleground, and it would be best to go slowly (one smallish edit at a time) if you want to see your work accepted. PiCo (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So you reverted edits that you don't disagree with. It is impossible for any edits to be accepted if you are reverting items that you agree with. That makes absolutely no sense. I have restored my edits. I will be happy to revert them myself if you have something better or if there is something factually inaccurate in my edits. My edits eliminated several factual errors on the page - some were minor but others were glaring mistakes. Even more importantly my edits served to bridge this topic to several other existing articles in Wikipedia. I noticed that you even deleted links to other wikipedia articles concerning this topic. Deadtotruth (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@PiCo: Please lets not get into the business of reverting good faith edits on this (or any article) especially considering that there is an active ANI open now. @Deadtotruth: PiCo does have a good point regarding this article. There is an active ANI, user RFCs and one hell of a lot of attention on this article. I applaud and appriciate your fine example of WP:BEBOLD but given the current quagmire and high emotions here it's probably best to discuss changes on the talk page before making them. I've been reviewing your changes and while I may not wholly agree with everything I find them to be easily in the realm of good faith edits and do see that you've fixed some outstanding issues. I'm by no means trying to stifle good faith editing of this or any article, just suggesting that your editing will probably be much more productive (e.g. less reverts, changes, potential for edit war etc...) if you are willing to tolerate at least a brief disussion regarding your proposed changes / sources first. Nefariousski (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nefaiousski, IMO your edits in the past throughout Wikipedia are excellent. As you yourself have indicated by creating your ANI page we have descended into chaos when individuals such as PICO admit to reverting edits that they don't disagree with. I would be happy to discuss any changes that I have made and as I offered earlier I will revert them myself if someone has something better to offer or finds a factual error. So far my edits which have removed two factual errors on this page have been reverted at least four times. I haven't seen anyone including yourself speaking up for eliminating factual errors on this page. This is atypical behavior for you since most of your edits deal with correcting factual errors, typos, and vandalism. Your personal page indicates that you are an atheist. My assumption is that your beliefs are based on your sense of truth. Hopefully you have enough integrity to stand up for the truth. Myths occur for several reasons 1) The writer thought that they were writing facts and were wrong 2)The writer chose to incorporate symbols representing the truth in a semi-historical framework to evoke greater thought than mere facts would elicit i.e. spenser's fairy queen, gullivers travels, orwell's animal farm 3)readers are convinced the work contains complete fiction based on a contemporary understanding that is flawed i.e. the iliad (while the iliad is a fictionalized account of troy nonetheless schliemann (sp?) was able to reproduce the geographic details and prove that the city of troy did exist in antiquity despite the consensus of scholars who believed that everything including troy was a metaphor and therefore fiction. The problem with the current article is that it is written from the POV of 1) and ignores 2) which is supported by a host of scholars both modern and ancient including Schaff, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, etc. Robert Gray's mythology provides a thorough analysis of the subject with many examples of perspective 2) which are often difficult for the layman to discern. Most of the refs on this article are written by people who are scholars concerning one subject and are layman in others. This article fails to address in any meaningful way perspective 2) which was prevalent in both Judaism and Christianity until the 3rd century and has adherents in modern times. Deadtotruth (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "The Genesis creation myth is the Jewish and Christian faiths' sacred history" is inherently illogical since it can be reduced to "myth is history" which is contradictory. Nowhere do the Jewish and Christian faiths state that "The Genesis creation myth is sacred history". Someone should reword this. I'm open to suggestions. I've made a stab at the reword. I would also note that Genesis is not limited to the Jewish and Christian faiths but that several other faiths and offshoots adhere to the account in Genesis - Mandeans, Manicheans, Moslems (partial), Ebionites, Samaritans, gnostics, etc.

This ref is antedated. It was written in 1899 and we now know that neither the babylonians nor the sumerians nor the akkadians used a seven day sabbath. See wiki article sabbath. Can someone either replace this ref or get a better one?Hogarth, David G and Samuel R Driver. Authority and Archaeology, Sacred Texts and Profane: Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical and Classical Literature. New York: Charles Scribner's & Sons. 1899 (p.18: "It is difficult not to agree with Schrader, Sayce, and other Assyriologists in regarding the week of seven days, ended by a sabbath, as an institution of Babylonian origin. The sabbath, it is true, assumed a new character among the Hebrews; it was divested of its heathen associations, and made subservient to ethical and religious ends: but it originated in Babylonia. If, however, this explanation of its origin be correct, then it is plain that in the Book of Genesis its sanctity is explained unhistorically, and ante-dated.") Deadtotruth (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Content does not match an ambiguous title
The content of the article does not match an ambiguous title such as "Genesis creation story". The original article that survived an AfD was ultimately destroyed and no longer exists. THIS article is limited to mythic interpretations of Genesis.

There are good scholarly sources to explore the symbolic coding in the Book of Genesis. It's not just the creation account, but there are mathmatical correlations between the ages of the patriarchs and the ages of the Sumerian dynasties.

I have two concerns.

First, although it is legitimate to explore the creation account from a mythic perspective, it is not legitimate to use a title that says this is the only possible perspective. Wikipedia does not create truth, but rather expresses notable and reliable references to different subjects and cross references to related views. So the following are ILLEGITIMATE titles for articles:


 * Genesis creation facts
 * Genesis creation framework
 * Genesis creation history
 * Genesis creation allegory
 * Genesis creation myth
 * Genesis creation literature

In each case, the title would be saying that there are no other notable or reliable views. The following examples would be LEGITIMATE titles for articles


 * Genesis creation interpreted as fact (creationism)
 * Genesis creation framework interpretation
 * Genesis creation interpreted as history
 * Genesis creation allegorical interpretation
 * Genesis creation interpreted as myth
 * Genesis creation literary analysis

Now, these are not the only possible legitimate titles, but they are merely an example of titles that do not deny the existence of other articles and other perspectives.

In any case, "Genesis creation account" while a possible umbrella article to link to other articles, is NOT THIS article. For the same reason "Genesis chapters 1 and 2" would be a DIFFERENT article from THIS ONE.

Sorry folks -- but what could not be accomplished by the AfD in 2007 was accomplished by other means. The old article wasn't DELETED, it was just REPLACED.

NONE of the proposed titles, therefore, works. We need to brainstorm, and we need to brainstorm TOGETHER. It's that little Wikiword called collaboration.EGMichaels (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: EGMichaels — why would Genesis chapters one and two be a "different article"? I don't understand that. As I see it, "Genesis chapters one and two" would be a perfectly suitable title for this article. It is a bit unwieldy. But I can think of no other drawback. I see it as very much sticking to the subject. It merely specifies what the article is about. It does not hang any additional meanings or implications onto itself. Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At my count this is the seventh thread you've created in less than four days. Ben (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right -- I'm still trying to find one that you'll collaborate in.EGMichaels (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean, you still try to get everyone to change to what you want. <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 · 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels, since you do not appear to accept WP policy or guidance on mythological subjects, we are at an impasse here. You simply do not like the word "myth" because of its informal meaning.  Nonetheless, the formal meaning is clearly preferred by a number of policies, and derives from reliable sources such as academic literature.  Our acceptance of this is why we cannot "collaborate" with you.  Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick?  It seems unlikely that repetitively adding further threads here will persuade us otherwise unless you bring something new that is supported by reliable sources and in line with policy.  Your (continued) indignation about a particular word is not enough.


 * And fragmenting the article along the lines you describe above is unlikely to help. Not least because, in suggesting "Genesis creation interpreted as myth" you are wilfully (I'll use that bad word again) misreading what is meant formally by myth.  A myth, understood in this sense, can be literal, poetic, metaphorical, allegorical, a ripping good yarn, two separate stories jammed together, etc.  These are not precluded by it, although if one interprets myth informally, well ...  --P LUMBAGO  13:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Ben (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too many threads are being created, & frankly find your contributions very diffuse & wandering, though clearly well-meaning. The bulk of the article consists of a straight description of the Genesis myth/story/account text which fortunately no one seems to have much of a problem with. There are a number of compact paragraphs describing various perspectives on it - these seem fine to me (I don't follow all the changes), and they go perfectly well in the same article. It is not true that "THIS article is limited to mythic interpretations of Genesis." - it has a short para on Creationism, as it should - all there really is to say is that creationists believe it to be true, with links.  I am perfectly happy myself with the use of the "unbrella term" creation myth myself, and the para on that last time I saw it, but clearly others are still not.  All this is a wholly different matter from the article title, which was slipped in with virtually no discussion of it as an article title, and clearly fails WP:COMMONNAME badly, as well as being to my mind clearly intended and insisted on as a WP:POINT provocation to literalists.  Absolutely no convincing evidence has been offered to justify "Genesis creation myth" as the standard or most common name used for the specific subject of this article, which is bercause it clearly isn't - see the stats at "this must stop now".  It's a simple point. The last RM close specifically looked forward to another proposal in the future, and we will have one.  Supporters of the current title need to focus their arguments for its retention as a title, for which arguments as to its use as a general term are not relevant.  I hope all goes well with the birth - congratulations! Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has certainly become a battleground, but I don't see any need for conflict. This is a big encyclopedia, with lots of room for various viewpoints to be represented. Certainly there should be articles that focus on the religious/theological aspect of Genesis, but there also needs to be an article on the view of it as a creation myth, just one of dozens of creation myths from around the world. Having two such articles is not a POV fork, it is just a reasonable division of content. I suggest that the Book of Genesis article be the primary article for content involving faith and creationism, and that this article focus on the literary/historical/sociological aspect of Genesis as just another creation myth. Don't forget that this encyclopedia needs to represent a world-wide view, and just because many editors may come from Judeo-Christian societies, they represent only a fraction of the world's population so there is no reason for a Judeo-Christian slant to dominate the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander — this discussion concerns the title. There is little disagreement over material found in the body of the article. That is where the Wikipedia policy of NPOV comes into play. But that has not even become a major issue. The issue is what title best serves the entirety of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander — no one is objecting to the characterization of it as a creation myth — in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the arguments being made for the title are the exact same arguements that were made when there was the discussion about using "Creation Myth" at all, and then repeated in further discussion about using "Creation myth" in the lede. The only thing that changes is that now we can cite WP:UCN as another policy that supports the usage of the term.    Nefariousski (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — Are you saying that Genesis is not the "…most common English-language name of the subject of the article"? I find here (WP:UCN) that, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." Please explain to me why Genesis would not qualify as "the most common English-language name of the subject." Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, what I'm saying is that you are repeating the exact same thing over and over and over and over (deep breath) and over and over. Once consensus on using "Creation myth" in the artucle was clear then the exact same discussion with the exact same points was repeated for using it in the lede.  Then when consensus was reached on that point.  The exact same discussion with the exact same points was repeated for using it in the title.  Then when consensus was reached on that point and the title was changed we repeated again, then when that RM was shot down in favor of consensus we started ALL over again.  Your refusal to get the point doesn't make your repetitive arguement any more valid.  We use "Genesis" in the article and there is already another article named "Genesis" if you want to bring up a new suggestion how about you request that the two articles be merged?  I'm pretty sure it will be shot down on grounds of article length alone but at least it would be something new.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ... the hell? I don't even know what you're arguing now, Bus Stop. This article isn't "Genesis" alone, that has its own article. Seriously, you need to figure out what your objection is and state it plainly. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand That Feeds — sorry if somehow I was not clear. I did not suggest a title of Genesis. What I was trying to suggest for a title was: Genesis chapters one and two. Please tell me what objections if any you might have for "Genesis chapters one and two" as the title of this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Genesis chapters one and two" holds no information what the article is about. The article is about what Genesis chapters one and two contain. They contain the literary version of the Jewish creation myth. And because that myth is shared by Christianity we don't call it Jewish creation myth, but Genesis creation myth. The content nevertheless is a creation myth. Maybe we should call the article "Judeochristian creation myth", because it essentially doesn't matter how and where that myth is written down. It's its content that's the issue of the article. <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 · 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — there has been much disagreement about what additional material the title can contain. We all agree that this article is about "Genesis chapters one and two." I do not hear you disagreeing about whether that information, as far as it goes, is correct. Disagreements concern what additional information should be contained. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — my contention is that we shouldn't be characterizing it in any way. "Your side" arguably has objected to more "characterizations" than "my" side has objected to. You have objected to "story," and "account," and "according to." Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is because "my side" sees no reason to treat abrahamic religions differently and not apply the same terminology to their ideas how the world came into being through supernatural activity.
 * Why are you ok with having "Greek creation myth", "Ancient Egyptian creation myth", "Hindu creation myth", etc. but not "Christian and Jewish creation myth"? The only reason is your personal position. <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 · 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * x3 (FFS people, slow down!)
 * My first objection is that it's a rather vague and unwieldy title, not to mention unlikely someone will be searching by that name. Second is that the placement of the story (chapters 1 & 2) isn't the actual subject; the creation myth itself is. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — this article is what we should be focussing on. This article is not being treated "differently." Each article is its own article. Each religion is its own religion. We don't start with the container and say, "What's in it?" We should be starting with the contents. The contents need not be characterized in identical fashion as other similar articles characterize their contents. The articles you mention certainly could use overhauls of their titles. A more open and inclusive approach to naming this article has advantages, and those advantages might be applicable to some of the other articles you are making reference to. There is no need to pigeonhole a human cultural entity. Religions and other manifestations of cultural output are multifaceted. These multiple facets are covered well in the body of an article. They are handled less well in the limited space of a title. NPOV can be fully deployed in the expanse of the body of an article to create a full and a well-balanced article. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:WTA disagrees with you. All of those related creation myth articles should be using the exact same conventions to avoid violating WP:RNPOV.  Read the TLDR version on ANI to see a short list of other creation myth articles that supports the point.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — I'm not sure what you are reading, but WP:RNPOV says nothing about titles. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But it does clearly state "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.
 * as well as "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"


 * In short it's perfectly acceptable and in fact encouraged WP:WTA to use the term "Creation Myth" since it is clearly a formal term with no informal secondary definition. Concerns that readers may confuse formal and informal meanings are not valid arguments and as such should be left out of the discussion.  Objections to use of the phrase in the article (including the title) on the grounds of having sympathy for one POV or claims of offensiveness are moot as well.  A section can be written in the article to document that some people of faith take offense to the term "Creation Myth" if you can find reliable sourcing but that does not extend to not using the term in the article.  Feel free to read the WP:UCN and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV sections of the ANI I posted last night if you want the cliffs notes version of those policies as well.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet again you rush to confuse use of the term in the article and in the article title. The title should be chosen on normal WP:COMMONNAME principles, which the current one badly fails, but I'm sure Sumerian creation myth passes.  Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Myth" is not a pejorative word (unlike "fantasy" or "lie" or "invention"), it is a word that mainstream theologians are often happy to use in relation to the Bible as they often see the metaphorical meaning as being of more significance than any literal meaning. The Christian apologist C.S.Lewis often referred to the Bible as "true myth" and the theologian Karl Barth refers to it in similar terms. For more info read The Word as Truth Myth: Interpreting Modern Theology by Gary Dorrien (Westminster John Knox prress 1997). --Tediouspedant (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Copy pasted from ANI post regarding 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 we should value accuracy above hit counts when colloquial and non-arcane formal terms are in consideration for a article name. Nefariousski (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally per WP:COMMONNAME we should "observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." all of which almost universally use creation myth. (unsigned by Nefariousski)
 * And likewise: ... despite constant assertions to the contrary from Nefariousski and others, the current title performs extremely poorly in usage among academic RS, and does not come close to passing WP:COMMONNAME. Enormous amounts of effort have been expended demonstrating that creation myth is a general term often used in scholarship of many types to describe the Genesis account, but until Dbachmann came along, almost none to establish what are actually the most common specific terms for the Genesis account.  These turn out to be permutations of "story", "account" or "narrative" rather than "myth":
 * books 324, scholar 74
 * books 375, scholar 97
 * books 655, scholar 467
 * books 712, scholar 997
 * books 636, scholar 361
 * books 656, scholar 610
 * books 455, scholar 105
 * books 613, scholar 174
 * books 608, scholar 122

The two "story" searches produce 1,464 gscholar hits vs 181 for the two "myth" searches, over 8 times as many. The rfc concerned use of the term "creation myth" (nb, as opposed to myth) in the article text to describe the Genesis account; I & other editors have no objection to that at all - it should be there. The very different issue of what the title of the article should be was hardly touched on. The first requested move debate, which the second no consensus close defaulted to, had only the nom + one "support" in bold, and closed after only 4 days. A ridiculous amount of WP:OWNership has been shown by the "myth" party, who have plastered the top of the talk page with highly tendentious "FAQ" & other notices, attempting to suppress discussion. At some point a further move request to a title that can be justified under COMMONNAME - probably Genesis creation story - will be proposed, and should succeed. The last close by Vegas saw the need for further discussion before such a proposal, and that is what is happening.

Now that Nefariousski is finally engaging with the stats, he will have to do a lot better than that. The fact that the Genesis account certainly can be described as a "creation myth" does not mean that any other term is necessarily less accurate or inaccurate; that is simply baby logic. The claim that "...major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." ... almost universally use creation myth" is simply not true, as any look at the various searches above will clearly show. Or try the New York Times, London Times, BBC or any "major English-language media outlets".  But I'll save those figures for later.  I'm glad you recognise the priority of the Commonname test anyway.  Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you think is "Genesis creation myth" included in the article Creation myth? Because it is a creation myth. And as you can see in the Creation myth article tzhat there are numerous other. So why should Judaism and Christianity be an exception? <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 · 20:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — There isn't an equivalency between Genesis and creation myth. Creation myth is a characterization of Genesis. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like "car" is a characterization of "Mercedes Benz" ? <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 · 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no good thread to put this in, but this is the least bad thread to use. I've proposed a minor clarification in the guidelines of Words_to_avoid. I've added "symbolic literary structure" to the formal meaning of the term. This agrees with Frazer (of The Golden Bough), Graves (of Greek Myths), and Campbell (virtually his entire body of writing). As Graves argued, myths were encoded symbols to communicate some kind of truth. Although not literally true, they were designed to be symbolically true. Even words like "Ambrosia" could encode a recipe of mixtures designed to create a (real) semihypnotic drink, for instance. In any case, the informal meaning to avoid is "something commonly believed but untrue." As I've argued elsewhere, there are only two ways to avoid "commonly believed but untrue":


 * 1) Not commonly believed
 * 2) Not necessarily untrue

A dead religion falls under the first category. One could contrast "mythologies and religions" in a formal sense as "dead and living religions."

"Symbolic" however, can be used for both dead and living religions. Although portions may be taken literally, not all of it necessarily is. If symbolism is embedded in any part of the structure, the term "myth" can be used in a formal way.

I've welcomed Ben and King to discuss or revert/discuss (anyone else is welcome). But I'm hoping this isn't necessary. There is ample reason to clarify the formal use so that we do not continually argue here or elsewhere about myth in the informal sense.

The proper sanity check for the use of "myth" in a sentence or source, then, should be:


 * If the word "symbol" or "symbolic" could be substituted, it is being used formally.
 * If the word "false" or "falsehood" could be substituted, it is being used informally.

In a few cases this may be unclear, and more precise wording may be needed even if the term were intended in the formal sense.EGMichaels (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also -- please note that in a refusal to discuss the SUBJECT, Ben has decided to discuss MYSELF. The ANI is at Administrators%27_noticeboard/EGMichaels. Hopefully we can focus the conversation on topic at some point in time. Perhaps this ANI may help us to do so.EGMichaels (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that the current article is expanding beyond a mere study of the relationship of Genesis to ancient Near Eastern myths. We may need to explore the scope of the current article, and what needs to spill into another article on Literary Analysis and or an umbrella article linking all of the existing Genesis creation articles (there are now at least 4).  I think that we should keep adding material and sources, but eventually discuss scope and what should be left here and what should be exported to other articles.  Most of the material is excellent, and I don't want to see it disappear -- but we'll eventually have to organize it.EGMichaels (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" section
With some regret, as I agree with what it's trying to say, I've deleted this section headed Myth:

In academics, the Genesis creation narrative is often described as a "creation myth" or cosmogonic myth''. From its Greek origin, myth is simply defined as a story or legend that has cultural significance in explaining the how's and why's of human existence, using metaphorical language to express ideas beyond the realm of our five senses. It refers to a culture's theory of its origins─a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe, as viewed by that culture or religious group. It does not imply made up works of the imagination.(Wright, N.T. Meaning and Myth. The BioLogos Foundation » Science & the Sacred. Web: 1 Mar 2020. Meaning and Myth.)

''In its popular definition "myth" has become synonymous with "not true". Theologian N.T. Wright, while defending the technical designation of the Genesis creation accounts as mythical, explains that the characterization of Genesis 1-3 as a “mythic” text is offensive to many Christians and Jews who consider their Bible to contain "sacred text." But to suggest that Genesis is both a mythic text as well as the "inerrant Word of God" may require a leap of faith for some, he says. The popular "not true" conceptualization of myth, even if disclaimed by an author, is seen as negatively affecting the reputation of the validity of scripture, historically considered by both Jews and Christians to be the revelation of God.

''Biblical scholars exegete incidents in Genesis and other Hebrew Bible passages as containing prefigurations (prototypes) of cardinal New Testament concepts, including the Passion of Christ and the Eucharist. Any implication that Genesis is mythical in the sense of being fictional would mean that the prefigurations seen in Genesis are similarly fabled, thus invalidating the doctrine that God uses a human or events from the Old Testament to reveal his will in the New Testament.

''A non-literal and non-historical reading of Genesis has negative implications for an evangelical understanding of the New Testament. This is largely because the New Testament, for example in, also refers to Adam and Eve as literal historical characters. A primary reason for fundamentalist opposition to the whole idea of evolution is a literalist reading of scripture—especially the text detailing the creation of the earth and its inhabitants in.

''The issue for Christians is a dual hermeneutical issue: how do we understand Genesis in a way that is in honest conversation with what we know today scientifically and in terms of ancient Near Eastern religious texts that parallel Genesis? Then, how do we handle Paul's understanding of Genesis when he was not aware of the very factors that force our own reconsideration of Genesis. Evangelicalism is not well equipped to address this issue because of its polemical history, some of which N.T. Wright alludes to. To both Jews and Christians, the creation account provides an introduction to the Sinai covenant─information that makes the author's view of the Sinai covenant understandable.

''Wright suggests that the mythological part has been misunderstood and discarded by many evangelicals in favor of a reading based entirely on questions of historicity. Wright suggests that questions concerning the historicity of Genesis and the historicity of Adam and Eve get caught up in contemporary cultural issues and miss the larger story. He argues that...

''"...to flatten that [the text of Genesis] out is to almost perversely avoid the real thrust of the narrative … we have to read Genesis for all it's worth and to say either history or myth is a way of saying 'I’m not going to read this text for all its worth, I am just going to flatten it out so that it conforms to the cultural questions that my culture today is telling me to ask'."

It was implanted in the Exegesis section, but it doesn't belong there - that section is for textual criticism, the explanation of the meanings of possibly difficult or obscure Hebrew, and draws on Genesis commentaries by major biblical scholars. This, of course, is theology. It's also very narrow theology - totally Christian, and from a particular Christian view point at that. Nor are the references at all impressive - the BioLogos Foundation, for example, seems to be someone's personal website, and certainly isn't a scholarly source. Bishop Wright is, of course, a trained theologian, but again he isn't a biblical scholar (the two are not the same). And in any case, Wright's viewpoint is just one such - there are others, and there's no reason why he should be privileged. I suggest that the editor of this piece reduce it to a single sentence and put it in a more appropriate section. PiCo (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Exegesis section should indicate if any points are specifically Christian or Jewish and which are more general points common to both. I assume there is technically no Islamic exegesis because although they share the story they don't have this text. I'm unclear what the difference is between the Exegesis section and the Theology and interpretation section. They seem to overlap. --Tediouspedant (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An entry which has to indicate whether it's Christian or Jewish isn't exegesis, it's interpretation. Exegesis is what you find in the footnotes to commentaries, such as those of Gunkel (a very famous one), Alt, Noth, Friedman, Propper etc. In these footnotes the authors are explaining why they've chosen one interpretation over another. These scholars are specifically trying not to give theology or interpretation. And no, there's no Islamic exegisi of Genesis, as Genesis isn't studied by Muslim scholars. PiCo (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification, PiCo. So should theological views about Creation ex nihilo (and alternative interpretations), including the Jewish/Platonic views of Philo, go in the Theology and interpretation section rather than the Exegesis section? Logically I think sections 3 & 4 should be swapped around - Ancient Near East context should be followed by Structure and composition (as these two concern the origin and development of the text) then Exegetical points should be followed by Theology and interpretation as these two concern the meaning of the text). We also need a section for commentaries, criticism, and views of other faiths or none on the text and its Judaeo-Christian interpretation - including (briefly) any discussion of the scientific or literal truth of the text (Creationism / Creation ex nihilo in physics etc). This should go after the Theology and interpretation section. Do you agree? --Tediouspedant (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)  UPDATE: I've now swapped sections 3 & 4 and added a framework for section 6 on Commentaries, Criticism, Controversies and non Judaeo-Christian views for the reasons given above. If Deadtotruth wants to cover the question of whether Creation ex nihilo accords with modern science then I invite him to add it here and not in the introduction or theological & exegesis sections. --Tediouspedant (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The words "using metaphorical language to express ideas beyond the realm of our five senses" were extremely well written. Part of the problem here has been an agenda to use the term "myth" as something inherently untrue, while abusing editors who complain of not understanding some poorly written formal meaning.  This particular line quoted above is a good example of a formal use of the term -- which unfortunately has not been promoted.  It should be retained in the article.  As for exegesis, ALL exegesis is interpretation -- but it is a method of interpretation that seeks to work from the natural meanings of the passage in its native context.  An exegete would investigate the grammar of Genesis 1:2 in terms of similar grammatical constructions in the book of Genesis, and also investigate this verse in the context of its immediate verses.  An exegete works from the inside out -- hence the "ex" in exegete taken from Greek meaning "from" or "out of".  An eisegete will take his own culture and writings and put them into the text.  In Greek eis means "into".  A Christian or a Jewish exegete will use similar methods, but they will expand their search into different contexts (such as midrash or the New Testament).  Although these different contexts are eisegetic starting points, when used as secondary contexts they can be used to double check the applicability of the primary exegetic analysis.  I would disagree with Pico's assertion, however, that an exegete is not being an interpreter.  He most certainly is!  But the exegete will attempt to follow an inside out grammatical, liniguistic, historical, and contextual primacy that moves from the immediate words and context to broader circles.  While more disciplined than eisegesis, it is nevetheless only a method of interpretation.  Further, while Jews and Christians will have some similarity in an exegetical analysis, they will disagree about certain scholastic assumptions regarding history, linguistics, and setting.EGMichaels (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels, as I said above, I quite like the thought being expressed here, but I don't like the huge amount of space devoted to it - after all, we devote far less to Creationism, or to Jewish interpretations, or the the theology of the original authors. Nevertheless, it's also true that we NEED to cover mainstream Christian interpretation of Genesis 1-2, which is what this is doing. So I'll try to work it into the "Theology of Genesis 1-2" section. Look for it there, but in a shortened form. PiCo (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC) A LITTLE LATER: Sorry, it can't be done. The problem is that Wright - your almost sole reference - is engaged in a polemic against literalists, which prevents him from explaining in any detail his own point of view. We don't need to attack literalism, and in fact we shouldn't - all points of view have to be described, in a non-partisan way. Can you find some other contemporary sources for mainstream Christian approaches to Genesis 1-2? (My own interests tend towards biblical scholarship rather than theology and I have no idea where to go on this - but I do recall the late Pope John-Paul II writing something exactly on this topic).PiCo (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Exegetical points: Myth
Why is this matter being raised again? I though it had been agreed that whilst he term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity. See page 1 of Mircea Eliade's. Myth and Reality. [Trans. Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper & Row, 1963] and page 1 of the intro of Alan Dundes, Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. [Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 1-3]. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a non-judgmental definition: "MYTH: a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural." The term MYTH is consistently used throughout Wikipedia to refer to traditional stories of this kind. This article is included in the categories on Abrahamic mythology, Christian mythology, Comparative mythology, Creation myths and Jewish mythology - and there are equivalent categories for Hindu Mythology, Buddhist Mythology etc. The same discussion has occurred in relation to articles under all these categories and use of this terminology has been agreed as general policy. --Tediouspedant (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:RNPOV allows for and even encourages reliably sourcd content that discusses objections to "critical historical treatment" which the the section attempts to do by showing that there is some scholarly dissent to the usage of "myth". I think the section could be improved as to not sound like WP:OR and its length is a little bit WP:UNDUE for one single source.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Nef. The style could be tightened and some more sources should be used to balance it out.  Tedious, as I've demonstrated through a number of attempts, I asked several of the other active editors to give me a synonym for myth that matches the claimed formal meaning, and I also asked for an example of the word used in a context in which "false" was clearly not implied.  Not one editor -- not a single editor -- could give me the simple synonymous meaning of "symbolic" that I finally provided myself; and a number of editors, including Ben in his ANI, claimed it was unreasonable!  I think that if it is "unreasonable" for our own editors to conceive of a meaning for myth that doesn't connote "false", then it is only fair to cut a typical reader some slack and allow him some clarification and balance.  While the section should be tightened and rounded out with another source or two, it's certainly fair to keep it.EGMichaels (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My point in referring to the use of the term "mythology" throughout a hierarchy of categories of articles relating to world religions and traditions was that it makes no sense for isolated piecemeal decisions to be made in relation to this and other individual articles or for comments to be individually drafted for inclusion in each article where this matter arises. There should be, and I strongly suspect there is, a standard agreed policy and terminology for use in such articles. If there is not then we should arrange for it to be discussed through a relevant project or on the talk page of one of the higher level categories - possibly --Tediouspedant (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:WTA and WP:RNPOV both explain proper usage of Myth / Mythology and as policy they have been quoted OVER AND OVER in this discussion. Please note that just because something is policy doesn't mean that everyone magically stops debate.  I wish it were so easy.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There may not be. Sometimes it takes a discussion of mutually committed perspectives to identify and solve a problem like this.  I've offered a solution in the first note of this present article, which I'm also suggesting on the "words to avoid" giudeline.  "Symbolic" indicates a formal meaning that is both "not literally true" but not necessarily "false."  And that's fair for mythologies.  Although most or all mythologies do have literal believers, the originators of the symbolism knew that they were writing in a symbolic way.  It may be (as I've seen speculated in academic literature) that the concept of a "literal meaning" may be a new innovation, and true believer fundamentalists may be a more modern phenomenon as human culture developed more scientific (and therefore literal) perspectives.  Before then, human culture was probably more right brained in their approach and a literal reading never really came up.EGMichaels (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, sometimes the existence of debate indicates that there is an inherent assumption in the wording of the guideline that isn't common to all editors. The "other side" (i.e. perspective) isn't the enemy of the guideline, but a useful aid in reaching a more universal wording -- as I'm proposing with the addition of three words in the guide.EGMichaels (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As WP:RNPOV states "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." As long as due diligence is done to establish formal meaning any further concern regarding intent or possible informal meaning is moot.  Fear that someone might "take it the wrong way" is not a valid stance.  You might want to try and get this policy changed too if you prefer the decision by committee approach regarding POV / NPOV.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it is a valid stance. However, as we've seen in the Parsing Meaning thread, I was accused of being unreasonable to request an example on any subject in which "myth" was used for something that was not "false".  This isn't because I was being coy or that the other editors in the discussion were being stupid.  We were all intelligent people honestly trying to communicate with each other.  So, the problem wasn't with us but with the clarity of the guide itself.  In a formal academic sense, myths refer to symbolic literary structures, and even today writers strive to "create myth" in their narratives.  The Godfather, for instance, reaches mythic impact on its audience because of its tightly woven artistry.  The specific symbols encoded in the book and screenplay have an archetypal impact on all audiences of all kinds of backgrounds.  Robert Graves goes into great detail about this understanding of Myth, and Joseph Campbell wrote a lifetime of books on how myths are constructed from the way all humans are hardwired.  His "Hero with a thousand faces" is a classic that has inspired two full generations of writers -- and even George Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy.  In any case, if it was unreasonable of me to ask for an example of the word being used in a formal way that excluded the informal meaning, then it is reasonable to take a look at tweaking the wording in the guide.  I've recently made the change, and you're welcome to review it.  If you need specific references for this minor clarification, I could give you a fair dozen, and would be happy to do so if it would help forestall this problem in the future in this and other articles.EGMichaels (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the reason you didn't get many bites on your request for examples was because most of us aren't in the business of negative proofs. I think a good case for creation myth can be made, I have yet to find a definition that implies falsehood.  Whether it is actually "false" (e.g. informally myth) is completely beyond the scope of the actual term itself and relies strictly upon the interpretation of the individual.  Big chunks of Greek Mythology turned out to be very much true / historical (Troy being a great example of a place that was mythical/legendary as well as factually true).   Not to mention that if you remove timelines from the discussion most myths were at one point in time unquestionably true and factual.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a negative proof to simply give an example of what you claim to mean. Some editors were arguing that an informal meaning was being used, while the other editors were arguing that a formal meaning was being used.  The problem wasn't the intelligence or good will on either side, but in the guide itself, because the wording of the formal meaning did not exclude the informal.  I pointed this out by asking for an example of the word being used, in ANY context, in which the formal meaning was clearly being used and the informal meaning clearly not being used.  The editors could not provide this because of a problem with the specificity of wording in the guideline itself.  In other words, both sides were right.EGMichaels (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

An additional scholarly thought about the use of the word "myth": Also, a thought about genre: Ἀλήθεια 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moreover, in light of contemporary attitudes that link myth with fairy tales and the imaginary, we should demur on labeling Genesis 1-2 myth." (John S. Feinberg, in ''No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God", p. 575)
 * Steven Boyd created a logistic regression model to calculate the probability that a particular Hebrew text is a narrative. He concluded that "For Genesis 1:1–2:3, this probability is between 0.999942 and 0.999987 at a 99.5% confidence level." And that "It is therefore statistically indefensible to argue that this text is poetry." (in "Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3")
 * Recognizing that this discussion has probably been rehashed over and over, I'm going to throw in my two cents here (for what it's worth). I have to concur with those who say there is an element of falsity around the word "myth".  Looking to the closest reliable source I have at hand, we see that "myth" can refer both to a story which is not necessarily true or false, and it can refer to "invented stories".  From my reading the word "myth" primarily means  maybe true and secondarily (though not insignificantly) not true .  Average those possible definitions together and you have a word that means "leaning false".
 * With that said, I think Genesis creation myth suggests falsity. At the same time Creation according to Gensis does seem to suggest an element of truth.  Perhaps Creation in the Book of Genesis?
 * Anyways, as I've said, I'm sure this is rehash. I do feel however that "myth" is uncomfortably close to POV pushing.  I think we could do something more NPOV.  Would someone be so kind as to point me in the direction of the survey showing a majority of editors were for this wording?
 * P.S. Apologies Nefar, but I hounding you ;-) NickCT (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The important thing to realize is "creation myth" is not what the article is about. The article is about two chapters of Genesis. It is about the first two chapters of Genesis. "Creation myth" is just a characterization of these chapters of Genesis. Apparently it is sourced. Therefore it belongs in the article. But the article isn't solely about Genesis as a creation myth. Even if that were the case, which it is not, a better and clearer and more explanatory name for such an article would be "Genesis as a creation myth." But there is far too little material relating to the characterization of Genesis as a "creation myth" in the article in its present state for the present title to adorn it. It is way out of place. Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the consensus between the so-called formal and informal is "not literally true." While that doesn't necessarily mean false, I'd say that those promoting myth in the title do not believe in the text even symbolically, while those promoting another term are split either way.EGMichaels (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels — but there is no one promoting such as title as "Genesis, the word of God." Furthermore I don't know what you mean by "do not believe in the text even symbolically." It does not require "belief" to interpret something. Symbolic understanding is commonly practiced by the most secular of people. Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you just linked to a diff of one of the previous times you made the exact same "Creation myth is just a characterization" statement it'd save a lot of wear and tear on your keyboard and probably save a good bit of space on the servers over at WP HQ. Or you could just let it go and move on maybe?   Nefariousski (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — It is just a contrived title. If the material is sourced it certainly should be in the article. I have no objection to the characterization. But why would it be asserted in the title? Bus stop (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But it is a title that is accurate and specific and provides information regarding the subject at hand, is in line with policy and sources. For the entire explanation you can look here  Nefariousski (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't provide information; it provides interpretation. That is exactly what is not called for. The purpose of a title is not to predigest material for a reader. The reader is supposed to be left to their own resources, reaching the conclusions that they reach, based on the material they encounter in the article. A reader should not be told what to think by a title, nor should even a suggestion as to what to think be planted in a title. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So tell me if you disagree with the following statement. "Genesis 1-2 is a religious account of how the earth, life, people, etc... were created"   Nefariousski (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds fine with me. Is that a sentence you are proposing for inclusion in the article? Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That sentance is already included in the article and the talk page. It's the definition of "Creation myth" with the words "Genesis 1-2 is a" added to the front.  The content of Genesis 1-2 meets the exact same definition as the term "Creation myth".  This is why we use it.  It provides accuracy and meaning.  Reading the title tells us that "This article is about a religious account of cosmogenesis that is written in Genesis".  The WP:UCN section in the link above explains the value of accuracy and precision in naming and why it's preferable to use academic terms as long as they aren't arcane or obscure and frequently appear in sources on the subject.  Nefariousski (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, I think the difference between you and Bus Stop is on what you think the article is. I think the present article is about Genesis creation as myth.  My problem with "Genesis creation myth" is that it is worded in such a way that it implies there are no other relevant articles on this text.  "Genesis creation facts" or "Genesis creation history" or "Genesis creation allegory" are titles that say "this is what the passage IS."  It's presumptive.  An allegorist would answer, "But it's just a factual title.  Of course it's allegory.  A creationist would do the same.  And the allegorist would point to other allegories and say that "allegory is appropriate in a title about an allegory, which this is."  Ultimately your argument becomes cicular, and pointing to other articles that are similarly titled leaves anyone outside of your paradigm nonplussed.


 * That said, however, THIS ARTICLE is indeed about Genesis creation as myth. While "Genesis creation myth" is not a good title, regardless of other titles on Wikipedia, the term "myth" must be included in the title of the article as it now is.  There should be a minor tweak.  AND -- the Wikilink to "Creation according to Genesis" absolutely should not go to this particular article, because this article is too specifically about one aspect of the study of the Genesis text.  Bus is right that it is a characterization.  And even a true characterization is still a characterization.  It's like "Einstein Genuis."  Well, wasn't he?  Sure.  But it's a bad title that LIMITS Einstein to that one (even true) characterization.EGMichaels (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're saying it's possible to make a case that Genesis 1-2 is not a "Creation myth"? It's possible to make a case against allegory or fact or history because they all require different interpretations and value judgements.  Saying Genesis 1-2 is "Creation myth" is like saying my BMW 650 is a german car.  I'm not saying it's the fastest german car, I'm not saying it's the best german car I'm just calling it a german car.  Conversely there is no case that can be made that it isn't a German car.  It is a factually true statement not a value laden one.  We need to get over this "myth" as a standalone word.  "Creation myth" does not equal "Creation" + "myth".  To say that this title is a categorization is to say that "Genesis 1-2 is a religious cosmogenical account" is a categorization which it clearly isn't.  I don't understand why this needs to be explained any further.  All aspects of study of the Genesis text fit under the current title because it doesn't rule out allegory, historicity, creationist views etc... It's just the short form of saying "The religious cosmogenical account in Genesis 1-2" which can be interpreted any number of ways.  Nefariousski (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariousski — it is unnecessary. Its fault lies in its superfluousness. It is a contrivance to append a term that is unnecessary. It is an error to tell the reader what to think. Article titles have a requirement to stop short of making assertions beyond the identifying of the subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, it doesn't "need to be explained" because the problem isn't that I haven't heard you. I believe Genesis is a creation myth.  It's not that I object to the title on grounds of veracity.  I believe Einstein is a genius.  It's simply a true statement.  But that's just one angle to explore.  "Genesis as creation myth" could be fine.  It's like "Allegorical interpretations of Genesis."  As TITLES they express the ARTICLE, not the book of Genesis itself.  "Babylonian creation myth" might be fine since there aren't a bunch of other articles about it.  It's the only angle of relevance to readers.  But creation myth is certainly NOT the only angle or relevance to Wikipedia readers.EGMichaels (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * EGM, I agree with your assertion that "creation" is "just one angle to explore" in Genesis, but given that there is already a Book of Genesis article, I'm not sure what the point is. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is just that this is being treated as the default link for Creation according to Genesis. If you click it, it comes to this article.  That's a huge no no for a pov limited article like this one.  There are a ton of angles to the Genesis creation account: literary, allegorical, mythical, historical, form critical, scientific.  Creation according to Genssis should go to an umbrella article summarizing all of those and pointing to any of those aspects that already have an article.  Nef et at are treating Genesis creation myth as the umbrella, and giving it a title that presupposes that no other angles of interest exist.EGMichaels (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So basicly EGM, you want a disambiguous Creation according to Genesis page, that then points to "Literary Creation According to Genesis", "Allegorical Creation According to Genesis" etc etc? NickCT (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So then make a proposal that Creation according to Genesis redirect it to the creationism page or write a new section in this article and redirect the link to that section. Pretty easy fix.  Nefariousski (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although a disambiguation page would help, that wasn't what I had in mind. I was thinking of a summary article in which we could add a literary analysis section (there is currently no such article).  Basically a set of edited ledes pointing to the different articles, and adding a literary section.  Nef, I certainly wouldn't want creationism to be the default page either.EGMichaels (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The easiest "fix" is to name this article "Genesis chapters one and two". The simple problem with that suggestion (my suggestion) is that leaves out "creation" as a search term. Essentially the previous title ("Creation according to Genesis") was the best one. But for those who want to be dogmatic about removing all potentially "religious" associations I think the best solution is to name this article "Genesis chapters one and two." Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus, my problem with an ambiguous title is that the article itself is painted into a POV corner. We need a DIFFERENT article that points to each of the different legitimate and notable views that exist on this passage (in which such a title would apply).  Your title is fine -- it just no longer matches this article.  The old article survived an AfD, and then was murdered by other means.EGMichaels (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article in its present form relates to Genesis as a "creation myth" — not to any great extent. Furthermore I have my doubts that there is even enough cogent material to fill out more than one article on the first two chapters of Genesis at this moment in the writing of this article. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll admit there is the danger to additional POV forking in my umbrella idea. But there ARE mutiple articles now.  It would be a mess to pull them all into a single article.EGMichaels (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The largest component of this article is a retelling of the story contained in the two chapters. I fail to see how such an article warrants a title with the uncalled for commentary that pigeonholes that story as a "creation myth." Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FFS, will you drop this lame-duck argument? Calling the story in Genesis a creation myth is no more pigeonholing than calling Tyrannosaurus Rex a dinosaur. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand, the problem isn't that it's a "creation myth." I ALSO believe it is a "creation myth".  The problem is that it is not ONLY a "creation myth."  There are plenty of aspects to this account that are covered in multiple articles.  I would equally oppose such titles as "Genesis creation record" or "Genesis creation allegory" or "Genesis creation history", etc.  Such title presuppose that no other articles for this text exist on Wikipedia, which is clearly not true.EGMichaels (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think you've got it backwards. The existence of other articles doesn't affect this article's title. A "See also" section is adequate for pointing editors to other articles on the topic. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Other myths in Genesis
For what it's worth, there's ANOTHER problem with the term "myth." There are a lot of creation myths that are based on Genesis. Lilith is an example. I have multiple volumes on Jewish and Christian myths, which even Christians and Jews will say are myths. Ginsberg's "Legends of the Jews" is a good example. "Genesis creation myth" doesn't even address these creation myths about Genesis, although the title clearly implies that it should. The first reaction I had when I saw this article was to look for Aggadic material, and I was concerned by the fact that it was talking about Genesis, and not myths based on it. I've let that slide for a while since that isn't what anyone has been arguing about, but it is a way the title is misleading. We need to be clear that it is Genesis ITSELF that is regarded as a creation myth. "Genesis as creation myth" would do just that. It's clear, it's accurate, it's about the article, it follows all of existing guidelines, it allows for the existence of other articles on Genesis (which there clearly are), and it is clearly NOT about myths BASED ON Genesis.EGMichaels (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, Lilith isn't mentioned anywhere in Genesis. She's apocryphal for that, and first mentioned in Isaiah. Which you'd know if you'd actually read her article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Deluge myth is in Genesis, but doesn't fit nor have anything in common with the creation myth (hence why they are two seperate articles). If you find another story in Genesis that fits the definition of Creation myth then by all means please feel free to add it to this article.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand, you're obviously unfamiliar with Lilith. Lilith is a genesis creation myth that says the woman in Genesis 1 is not the same woman as the one in Genesis 2.  The first wife, Lilith, was an equal for Adam.  Once she was rejected then God put Adam in a deep sleep and formed Eve.  Ginsberg lists other Genesis creation myths in his Legends of the Jews.  Lilith is just the most famous.EGMichaels (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not included in Genesis, hence is not part of the Genesis creation myth. This article is not titled "Jewish creation myths" or "Judaism-related creation 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 · 14:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, the article isn't titled "Genesis as creation myth" (indicating Genesis itself characterized as a creation myth). It is "Genesis Creation Myth" (which could include any myth about or derived from the Genesis creation narrative).EGMichaels (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * is probably the nearest you'll get to another Creation myth within the Old Testament. references the Babylonian creation myth.  probably seeks to reconcile  with Neoplatonism. --Tediouspedant (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * for the millionth time a Creation myth isn't defined as a "Myth" about "Creation" (e.g. a fairy tale about building a birdhouse is not a Creation myth). Creation myth has a specific definition and if your story doesn't meet the definition then it's not applicable to this article.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Nef, I didn't pick the bad title. It's ambiguous and can include Genesis AS "creation myth" or a "creation myth" ABOUT Genesis.  Don't complain to me.  I didn't invent the title.  But if you are stuck with it, then let's make this an enclyclopedic article that matches the ambiguous title.EGMichaels (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, Nef, aren't you tired of having such a bad title that you have to explain it over, and over, and over, and over...? If you have to keep explaining it, there's something wrong with the title.  "Genesis as creation myth" is very clear that you are characterizing the Genesis creation narrative as a creation myth, and you can keep the article completely focused on just the myths that are parallel and possibly foundational to this narrative.  Philo wouldn't fit in here any more, perhaps...EGMichaels (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then 90% of the article should be discarded, because that's how much of the article in its present state is not about Genesis as a "creation myth." Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not discarded, Bus -- just moved to a NPOV article.EGMichaels (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * True. Not discarded. But all the material presently in this article arguably belongs in this article. The only problem is the improbable title. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to make your sacred texts "special" or "stand out" amongst others' sacred texts (it would not be unreasonable to presume that is the reason you're on this talk page instead of the countless other pages belonging to the same class). This article is not special - as I just said it is one of many from a large class. So long as other reference works refer to this article's topic as a creation myth (I've personally cited a large group of Oxford's reference works and Encyclopedia Britannica) and Wikipedia uses the term (creation) myth consistently, I think you'll find this article title is not only probable, but sanctioned by WP:NPOV's guide to editorially neutral writing. Ben (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Vaulting a term gratuitously into a title is a contrivance. I have no vested interest in any "sacred text." I respect the integrity of widely used cultural artifacts. I oppose pigeonholing material in ways in accordance with the personal sentiments of editors. Genesis is a multifaceted cultural entity and all of those facets should be explored within the body of the article, with NPOV as a guiding principle. "Creation myth" is one characterization of this complex, widely used artifact of human thought. All a title need do is identify the subject. The previous title did that adequately. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop using the same argumentation over and over again. And really, Genesis is NOT a complex, widely used artifact of human thought. Even compared to contemporary sources Genesis is simple and inelegant language. And the title does identify the subject. <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 · 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — what argumentation do you feel I've repeated? Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "Creation myth is a characterization", off the top of my head, that one is still flying around -- King Öomie  20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * King, I suppose "Genesis creation record" wouldn't be a characterization either, would it?EGMichaels (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Creation myth' is a classification, not a characterization. It has nothing to do with how someone feels about it. And that would based on which definition of 'record' you use. If you mean "Objectively true and accurately reported", I would call title factually inaccurate.  -- King Öomie  21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure you would, as well as half of the people who object to the title "Genesis creation myth." I would object to both "Genesis creation myth" and "Genesis creation record."  Both are presumptive, and unencyclopedic as long as another article on this topic exists.EGMichaels (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody who reads and understands the definition of "Creation Myth" can reasonably make a case that Genesis 1-2 doesn't fit. On the other hand if a person were to read and understand the definition of "record" a case could be made that Genesis 1-2 doesn't fit.  That's the difference between a category and a characteristic I think King is trying to explain.  Furthermore, I'm not tired of explaining it over and over, I'm tired of explaining it to the exact same people over and over.  Although I do have to admit the constant repetition has given me a new appriciation for what my daughter's kindergarten teacher goes through every day.  Nefariousski (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, again, the problem isn't one of comprehension. If it were, your "explanations" would make some headway.  The problem is that people both UNDERSTAND you and still DISAGREE with you.  The kindergarten teacher understands that -- but her students don't.EGMichaels (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do these objectors know what 'creation myth' means? Or do they not believe us when we say we're not calling it a fairy tale? -- King Öomie  21:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is "presumptive" about saying Geneis 1-2 is a religious cosmogenical account, described as a deliberate act by a deity (e.g. the definition of creation myth). How is using a formal / academic term unencyclopedic?  Anything new that doesn't assume a false definition of "creation myth" as "a myth about creation" or generally harp on some other informal interpretation of myth while ignoring that it is never used informally or alone in the entire article?  Nefariousski (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * King, if you didn't think it was false, you wouldn't call it a myth. Can you name ANYTHING "factually correct" that you would call a myth?  I can, but I use "myth" differently than you do.EGMichaels (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is calling Genesis a "MYTH". Furthermore informal usage of "myth" isn't the issue here.  True or False isn't the issue here.  Creation Myth doesn't imply either and unless you split the formal term apart or go off on "Myth" all alone again you have ZERO case to show anything POV, unencyclopedic or otherwise frowned upon regarding the term.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, I'll ask you the same thing I asked King -- can you name ANYTHING "factually correct" that you would call a myth? And don't hide behind the silliness that "creation myth" doesn't have anything to do with "myth."EGMichaels (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM - Just to give two examples, both C.S.Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien repeatedly referred to Christianity as "True Myth" and they both believed that it was factually correct. For more examples check out this book The Word As True Myth: Interpreting Modern Theology or J.R.R. Tolkien: Truth and Myth or Christianity as True Myth or The ‘Postmodern’ Barth? The Word of God As True Myth. --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bingo, Tedious :-). Tolkien actually convinced Lewis to convert to Christianity because it was myth.EGMichaels (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a crappy title, but "Genesis 1 and 2" is even worse, because it would sucker a reader into thinking that this was a balanced reference to all the notable characterizations of Genesis. THAT hypothetical article no longer exists.  While "Creation according to Genesis" survived an AfD, it was murdered by other means.  A very concerted effort has been made to make this article about Genesis as creation myth.  I think that is a notable and encyclopedic characterization to make about Genesis.  There is plenty of material to put into it.  There SHOULD be an article on that subject, so why not this one?  My beefs with the title are twofold: 1) it presumes the POV in such a manner that no other articles could logically exist, and 2) it is ambiguous -- neither disallowing Genesis itself AS a creation myth or other creation myths ABOUT Genesis.  "Genesis AS creation myth" covers both of those problems.  We can focus on Mesopotamian parallels, neolithic matriarchal issues (no one has bothered to notice that the primal waters are a matriarchal symbol... the universe is being BORN like a baby -- yes, that's covered by Campbell and others as residual matriarchal mythic symbolism), depth psychology, and possibly mention other myths spawned off of this narrative.  We could do so, because we'd have a well focused characterization spelled out in the title.  Another article could cover links and summaries to this and other characterizations of the Genesis creation narrative.EGMichaels (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As a thought, wouldn't Genesis (creation myth) serve disambiguation without implying truth or falsehood, much like Genesis (band) does the same without making touching on how much they do or do not rock? Aindriahhn (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Genesis itself isn't a creation myth, Genesis contains a creation myth (specifically the first two chapters). Noah's Ark, the fall of man etc... are contained within Genesis yet not part of the creation myth.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nef. IMO, "Creation according to Genesis" is still the only title among the proposed alternatives that meets the most significant objections. "Genesis creation myth" or any variation on that theme ambiguously reflects on the whole Book of Genesis, of which the creation story/account/narrative is spatially a very small percentage of the whole. Unlike most or perhaps all other creation myths, the Book of Genesis is a chronicle of and basis for the foundations of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. "Creation according to Genesis" would be a parallel construct to "Deluge according to Genesis" or "Abraham according to Genesis." Can that same comparison truly be drawn about any other major creation myth?
 * With that prior article title, early in the lead the creation myth connection can be made.
 * Earlier objections to "according to" don't hold water. How often do we read or hear from major media, "According to..." and that sometimes even includes "a source who chooses to remain anonymous." "According to..." does not imply truth or falsity any more than the formal definition of creation myth. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New articles to help simplify and clarify
I created two new articles: Interpretations of Genesis and Religious interpretations of Genesis. The goal is to bring clarity to the set of articles about Genesis. The organization can be thought of as:


 * Book of Genesis - NOT interpretation, but simply documenting it as a book of the Bible.
 * Interpretations of Genesis -  a WP:Summary Style article, just for navigation
 * Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - allegory
 * Genesis creation myth - limited to creation mythology, as described in Creation myth
 * Religious interpretations of Genesis - religion, faith, literal interpretations
 * Framework interpretation (Genesis) - symbology and metaphor
 * Creationism

This set of articles should allow all notable content to be included in the encyclopedia, in a way that won't confuse the readers of this encyclopedia. Naturally, the articles will have some shared content, but "see also" links should be used liberally to avoid unnecessary duplication. The article Religious interpretations of Genesis is a stub article, now, and editors are encouraged to add content to it. --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While I like the idea of organizing so that all different interps have a place here on Wiki I'm not sure "Genesis creation myth" would fall under the category of an "Interpretation". Everybody agrees that Genesis 1-2 is a religious cosmogenical account that was a deliberate act by a diety.  Unless I'm missing something in my research nobody contests it as such or interprets it differently.  There may be some consternation regarding the formal term that is used to describe a Religious cosmogenical acccount ...  (e.g. Creation Myth) but that still doesn't land it in the realm of just one interpretation out of many.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For example, if we were somehow to show Genesis 1-2 to be undeniably factually true it would still meet the definition of a creation myth whilst validating the Religious interpretations of Genesis article, if it were proven to be undeniably allegorical it would also still meet the definition of a creation myth etc... No matter what slant one takes in their readings of Genesis 1-2 it doesn't change the fact that it represents a creation myth. Nefariousski (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point. But we do need some word to use in the top-level navigation article to describe the various ways to look at Genesis.  How about Approaches to Genesis or Understandings of Genesis?  The key thing is helping readers navigate with clarity.  What word would you suggest? --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your approach, I just think that it would be more along the lines of:
 * Book of Genesis - NOT interpretation, but simply documenting it as a book of the Bible.
 * Genesis creation myth - limited to creation mythology (in its most formal sense), as described in Creation myth
 * All other articles that detail what is written in Genesis but don't aim to interpret said stories one way or another and scholarly / analytical articles regarding biblical writing.
 * Interpretations of Genesis -  a WP:Summary Style article, just for navigation
 * Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - allegory
 * Specific articles that discuss
 * Religious interpretations of Genesis - religion, faith, literal interpretations
 * Creationism
 * Flood Geology (and all other articles related to literal interpretation)
 * Framework interpretation (Genesis) - symbology and metaphor
 * etc...


 * I know I expanded the scope beyond specifically looking at Genesis 1-2 but I wanted to give you my thoughts on where I think this should fall in the larger picture. Nefariousski (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, that looks good. I think the important point is:  faith-related content has a few other articles that it can go into (namely,  Religious interpretations of Genesis, Framework interpretation (Genesis) and Book of Genesis, so this article can get focused more on the creation myth aspect.  --Noleander (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, If we try to include all different interpretations, viewpoints etc... in this article we're going to have a serious issue with WP:SIZE eventually not to mention making the article difficult to read through. Nefariousski (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Noleander -- very impressive! Thanks! Nef, I appreciate your work too, but I'm leaning toward Noleander. I think this would be a much better article if it were focused on mythological foundations and parallels to the Genesis creation account. When people see "Genesis creation myth" they are interested in finding out about Mesopotamian parallels more than anything else. We should give them that in a tightly focused article and move allegorical, historical, etc. interpretations from here into the articles they more closely belong to. Pico should like that too :-).EGMichaels (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My take would be something like...


 * Book of Genesis - current artricle.
 * Interpretations of Genesis -  a WP:Summary Style article, just for navigation
 * Genesis creation myth - limited to mythological foundations and parallels (might consider title such as "Mythological foundations of Genesis")
 * Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - should be fused with Framework interpretation (Genesis)
 * Creationism
 * Young earth creationism
 * Flood Geology (and all other articles related to literal interpretation)
 * Theistic evolution

EGMichaels (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This outline could result in very confusing edits, and confusion for readers. It does not contain an article for content regarding faith-based analysis/interpretation of Genesis.  Creationism is too narrow for that purpose.  Were you intending that religious content regarding Genesis go into Book of Genesis?  Do you have an objection to the new article Religious interpretations of Genesis?  --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally Genesis creation myth shouldn't be focused on any interpretation, it should just discuss the actual creation myth. A second article titled Mythological foundations of Genesis would in no way be redundant or conflict with Genesis creation myth feel free to add that to the hierarchy as one of the interpretations.  But I would highly recommend we take a formal stance that we are not discussing "Myth" in the informal sense and that creation myth doesn't fall into the "just one interpretation" section of the hierarchy.  Nefariousski (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Too late. The title "Genesis creation myth" presupposes that this is a myth.  While I agree with the interpretation, it IS an interpretation.  This article should be entitled Mythological foundations of Genesis and focus on that aspect of the text.  Honestly, Nef, with a straight face, do you seriously believe people will read this article if they don't have an interest in the Mythological foundations of Genesis?  Successfully retaining a title that doesn't match the umbrella goals you have for this article would be an empty victory.  You'll have exactly what you want, and no one will care.  People really ARE interested in the mythological aspects of Genesis.  I know I am.  People clicking on that title will stop reading the article if it's some kind of unfocused umbrella, and people looking for an umbrella will never click here.  Make the cover match the contents, or the contents the cover.  Pick one and go with it.EGMichaels (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how "myth" is presupposed without splitting "creation myth" into "creation" and "myth" and in the context of the definition of "creation myth"? Additionally can you explain how anyone can argue that genesis 1-2 is not a "creation myth" as the term is defined?  Nefariousski (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ancient mythologies were religions. And a lot of religious people (including, if I'm not mistaken, some allegorists and/or framework) accept mythological foundations to this account.  A number of refs in here come from the Word Biblical Commentary -- a conservative Christian commentary series, that definitely sees parallels with ancient myth.  I'm not sure we can sequester Genesis creation myth as a non-religious interpretation, since it is shared by many conservative religious scholars and even appears in Christian study Bibles like the Oxford Annotated Bible.EGMichaels (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the faith of the sources ... I'm talking about the content of the article: to re-phrase the question:  you dont think that there should be an article dedicated to Judeo-Christian faith-based analysis/interpretation of Genesis?  And you think that that faith-based analysis should be lumped into the same article that discusses Genesis from a historical/literary creation myth context?  And you think that such a shared article would be best for the readers of this encyclopedia?   --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need to create new articles yet - not unless this article expands too much. I think we've just about managed to cover every perspective in a logical order. We start just describing the text itself - it's structure and content (without any analysis or interpretation). Then we discuss its precursors and possible origins. Then we look at how it has been interpreted by literal and non-literal believers in it - exegesis, theology and theological differences and disputes. Then (I propose) we include commentary and criticism of the text and it's traditional interpretation by anyone outside the tradition or skeptical of the tradition. That covers most of the proposed topics. If you wish to divide the theological interpretation section into several sections - such as literal (eg Creationist) and allegorical interpretation or Jewish and Christian interpretation I have no objections. But these sections should just cover views of people and schools that accept (in some form) the truth or meaningfulness of the texts. --Tediouspedant (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have to disagree. This article cannot contain content that is specific to Christianity, or apologetic regarding Christianity.  The _sources_ can be Christian scholars, of course, but the content needs to focus on the creation myth context. Don't forget that the Genesis creation myth pre-dates Christianity.  There is a vast amount of material (not yet in this article) that discusses Genesis in a Christian-focused manner (in defense of Christitanity), and that content deserves its own article.  Furthermore, due to the large number of _existing_ articles related to Genesis, a WP:summary style article is useful.    --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Genesis Creation Myth obviously predates ALL commentary on it. I assume you're not proposing that this page just contains the original text (in Hebrew) with no commentary or interpretation. If it does contain commentary then we need to divide up that commentary into categories. The current categories are good. At least half the article - Exegetical points and Theology and Judaeo-Christian interpretation already contains Christian perspectives. If and when this page gets too long (not yet, but it will) I suggest that sections 1,2 & 3 of this article (The narratives + Ancient Near East context + Structure and composition) remain the lead article on Genesis Creation Myth and that we divide up the analysis into two or three subsidiary articles:
 * 1. Exegetical points + Theology and Judaeo-Christian interpretation [with a new title: Religious interpretations of Genesis Creation Myth -  or have two separate articles on Literal Interpretation and Allegorical Interpretation]
 * 2. Commentaries, Criticism, Controversies and non Judaeo-Christian views [with a new title: Secular responses to Genesis Creation Myth] --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope Proposal (not a name proposal)
In light of what I just wrote to Hand, I propose that we try to agree on the scope of the article. Given the present title "Genesis creation myth," I think that anything not directly pertinent to Mesopotamian mythological parallels Genesis as a creation myth should be exported to other articles. Discussion?EGMichaels (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is again wandering into defining this article as just "one of many" interpretations of Genesis or "Genesis as myth" which again goes against the meaning / definition of creation myth. The scope of this article should be to describe the creation myth in genesis just like all of the other "XXXXXX creation myth" articles do. If additional sections are added that discuss various interpretations that's fine but those are just interpretations of the creation myth. In short, "Genesis creation myth" does not equal "Mythological parallels/interpretations in/of Genesis" thus the scope should be pretty clear. Nefariousski (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefariouski -- I'm just trying to keep this article focused to SOMETHING. Right now you're making "genesis creation myth" to supposedly equal "genesis creation narrative." Let's keep this focused on mythology and leave the rest for other (already existing) articles. None of the other "XXXXXX creation myth" articles have all this out of scope crap piled in.EGMichaels (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the umpteenth time that someone has suggested that the phrasing of titles of other articles is relevant to this article. The relevant rule is Use Common Names. When people talk about creation stories, they talk about creation stories. The use of "myth" as a technical term which doesn't carry judgement with it is an academic usage which fails the UCN rule.


 * The section on UCN gives examples such as using Venus de Milo instead of Aphrodite of Melos. Even though scholarly articles will more often use the latter term. Or using Nazi Party instead of the full blown German name, or even National Socialist Workers Party. The same thing should apply here. The use of "story" already runs the risk of implying that the account is fiction, but by far the most common way the account is referred to is as the Genesis creation story.


 * Furthermore, the run-of-the-mill user of Wikipedia looking up the Genesis creation account is going to be looking primarily for what's in that account. And only secondarily what various schools of thought have to say about that account. One of these is the idea that the Genesis account cribs from Mesopotamian myths. So that deserves a section. But it hardly deserves to be the entire article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa, once the content fits the title, I don't think there will be a real problem. The only people who would read it would be looking for mesopotamian parallels and contrasts. Well, there are parallels and contrasts. Why not have an article on it? But the rest of the stuff needs to move to more... common... titles.EGMichaels (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice thought, but I think people will call POV Fork on that. Not that there isn't sometimes a reason for a POV fork, but I don't think your proposal is going to go anywhere. I think it's probably time for mediation. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa, this may survive the POV Fork call just from the fact that the other articles already exist.EGMichaels (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Support scope change - The scope of this article must be "Genesis as a creation myth" as defined in the article Creation myth. Period. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander -- uh, is that a typo? You just said you opposed my proposal and then argued in favor of it. I'm trying to get the article to do EXACTLY what you just said. Everything NOT about Genesis as a creation myth should be moved to other already existing articles.EGMichaels (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I was concerned about your limiting words "Mesopotamian mythological parallels" ... those strike me as unnecessary. --Noleander (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- my bad on that. Good catch :-)EGMichaels (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the only reason why "Genesis as a creation myth" is proposed is to open the door to have other articles that present Genesis as something else, e.g. "as the real story of the world's origin". But there is no need to have various articles that only offer different (and often fringe) interpretations of the beginning of Genesis when this can be presented in a single coherent article. These constant discussions to avoid calling Genesis a creation myth make me sick. Since we call a cigar a cigar, why not call a creation myth a creation myth? There is no need to always bow to the biblical literalists. <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 07:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, you are opposing the existence of other articles that already exist, such as Allegorical interpretations of Genesis.EGMichaels (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And? Allegory is something else anyways. And even interpretations that take Genesis as symbolic still are contained within the scope of the article. "Creation myth" == "origin of the world through supernatural means". I don't see how "Genesis as a creation myth" makes any sense. <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 12:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, why have allegory in the scope of an article about myth? Why have all the other crap? Genesis creation is a creation myth, no? Then get the non-myth stuff out of here. It's almost like you don't want to be happy unless you're unhappy about something. Why demand the inclusion of details that you so obviously dislike? There are OTHER articles already in existence to contain those details.EGMichaels (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop annyoing everybody with suggestions of name changes just because you don't like the word "myth". Myth is a neutral determination, and there is no reason to not have interpretations of the judeochristian creation myth in the article which deals with the creation myth. "creation myth" itself is not an interpretation of Genesis, but a description. So the as is not justified. <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 12:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? This proposal isn't to change the NAME (though I think the name is a problem), but rather to delete everything in this article that wouldn't be in it if it were something like "Norse creation myth" or "Greek creation myth." Keep the myth stuff and export the non-myth stuff. This article is an unfocused disaster and needs to get rid of all the crap that doesn't belong in a "creation myth" article. Why do you insist on treating the Genesis myth differently from the Greek myths? Those other articles don't have all the non-myth crap. Why insist on keeping it here?EGMichaels (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with including interpretations and impact of creation myths in the respective articles. I would prefer that to artificially splitting up articles to satisfy particular POVs. <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you don't see a problem with it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is built by collaboration.EGMichaels (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles on books and movies often have sections dealing with interpretations and cultural impact, why should that be different for two rather short paragraphs of the bible? Because you say so and want a separate article where you can present Genesis as something else? <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, as I said -- those other articles already exist. Piling non-myth stuff in this article is just redundant. In any case, what I was trying to say is that what you think and what I think are important parts of collaboration, but not the only parts. There are all kinds of editors here with information from reliable sources. That information needs to be located in places that readers will be able to find them. One wouldn't look for allegory under this title, or myth under the allegory title. We editors need to be aware of how searches will be done (hence Lisa's comment about common names). "Creation myth" certainly is a common title among creation myths, but relatively uncommon for most, er, commoners.EGMichaels (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Cush is right - this is merely another attempt to placate Biblical literalists. As has been pointed out time and time again, Genesis is a creation myth, at least as that term is understood in reliable sources. To imply otherwise, as this latest in a long line of proposed moves does, puts Genesis on a different, and unfair, footing to comparable creation myths from other religions. Oh, and it completely ignores the gargantuan quantity of evidence that falsifies the literal interpretation of Genesis. --P LUMBAGO 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Plum, as far as I can tell, neither Noleander nor I are biblical literalists. Please stop making these bizarre accusations. My problem with this article is that it is DIFFERENT from other creation myth articles, not that it is the same. This article has a whole bunch of residual crap in it from the original article that was hijacked. Well, that crap needs to go to the other articles that exist, and this article needs to focus on the mythic aspects of the creation story. Rather than making it harder for you to get the point across (which you have such evangelistic zeal for), a focus on myth should make it easier for you. Again, my proposal is to treat this article THE SAME as the other "creation myth" articles. You are the one trying to treat it different.EGMichaels (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Cush is right, Plumbago is right. The first two chapters of Genesis are a creation myth, no more and no less. Everything in them has to be treated.PiCo (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pico, uh, Noleander and I BOTH seem to agree with you here. The first two chapters of Genesis are a creation myth. That's why the other crap needs to go into the other articles out there.EGMichaels (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So help me understand. What is the "other crap" that you are proposing go elsewhere? Nefariousski (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically anything that wouldn't be in a "Norse creation myth" or "Greek creation myth" article -- especially things that already have articles, like allegory or creationism.EGMichaels (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be a good idea for you to create the version you think would be best in your userspace for others to check out? Nefariousski (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. I'll try to put something along the lines of the other existing articles. Might take a few days. Everything's chaos over here with the new baby.EGMichaels (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "The first two chapters of Genesis are a creation myth, no more and no less."
 * — Cush, Plumbago and PiCo, appendix to "Genesis creation myth", Wikipedia, 2010.
 * Hmmm, while I think I get your point PiCo, I'm not really sure you believe what you're saying.
 * I think you're impressively sensitive to the best scholarship (of all colours) when you see YHWH himself as key to this text.
 * The evangelical Christian community in Sydney that I come from (in keeping with a very widely held scholastic Christian tradition) views all of Genesis 1-11 as broadly a "theologically motivated polemical mythology": the theology is viewed as foundational to later biblical material, the polemic is against the polytheistic (biblically "idolatrous") cosmology of the surrounding ancient Near East.
 * "The first two chapters of Genesis" do not stand alone. Chapter 1 culminates in a Sabbath. Chapter 2 culminates in Marriage. Chapter 2 also sets the groundwork for a mythologically expressed explanation for the origin of sin, in turn explaining the empirically demonstrable problem of evil, worked out in detail in chapters 3 (original sin) and 4 (ongoing sin--fratricide, polygamy and violence).
 * Now, while I'd dearly love for the scope of the article to be as wide as possible, so we could "preach the gospel" from the many reliable sources that do precisely that from Genesis 1-3, I'm not really sure that is what the oppose votes above have in mind.
 * Also, given your own preference for a post-exilic date for the final composition of Genesis, PiCo, surely you'd agree Genesis 1-2 have a very specific theological agenda. Given that very notable scholastic view, it's odd you should say these chapters are myth, no more and no less. On that view, debunking the myth involves considerably more evidence and rationale than recognition of a mythological literary genre.
 * Ultimately, I'm not big on restricting the scope of work at Wiki, so I'm kind of with the oppose votes here. However, since motivated and educated people are gathered here right now, it might be wise for at least just us to focus our attention on things most directly bearing on the namespace topic: the mythological features of Genesis 1-2, which is a literary question, not a theological one.
 * Whatever people decide, clearly title and scope go together. At the moment we have a very narrow title: the literary character of Genesis 1-2. I think that's the ideal place to start, personally. It largely excludes the theological and sociological questions which are huge. But, yes, that means sorting through those other vast topics is simply being deferred to another article, or more likely many articles. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm waiting for EGM to describe just what it is he thinks should not be treated in this article - he wasn't very explicit in his lead post, and from what he's said later about excluding sections on Creationism I might be able to agree with him. As for what In personally mean when I say that Gen.1-2 is a creation myth, I mean that these two chapters are an integrated whole that can't be torn apart - nor can you add Gen.3-11 to them, even though they all form part of the Primeval History, because those following chapters aren't about Creation. Anyway, let's wait for EGM. (Incidentally, I'm not trying to "debunk" Genesis 1-2 - I don't even like using the term "myth" to describe it). PiCo (talk)

Support I have to agree, this article seems to put a lot more into disproving this creation myth than any other myth, so either we should make the scope similiar or but all the geology all the scientific stuff else where. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What? This article is not supposed to deal with geology or anything that would put the creation myth into a competition with actual science. Can you point out where this article introduces "scientific stuff" anywhere? The only place where such material could possibly be referenced is a section where it deals with the far out claims made by creationists and their use of pseudoscience. <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 09:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This makes no sense at all. There is something that has music by Henry Purcell and words by John Dryden. Sometimes performers just talk like in a theatre piece, sometimes they sing as in an opera. This work is generally called King Arthur, but that title is already taken by King Arthur. So it needs to be disambiguated, and the disambiguator that was chosen is "(opera)": King Arthur (opera).

The present proposal is as if I went to that article, complaining that King Arthur isn't actually an opera at all. That it is generally called a semi-opera, but that that is an inherently POV term because it stresses the music aspect and doesn't make it sufficiently obvious how important the dialogues are. Then, after my attempt to have it renamed to King Arthur (theatre piece with music) has failed and people got so angry at my POV pushing that they even rejected the compromise proposal King Arthur (Dryden/Purcell), I would propose:


 * "I propose that we try to agree on the scope of the article. Given the present title King Arthur (opera), I think that anything not directly pertinent to King Arthur as an opera should be exported to other articles."

Obviously it would be even more wacky if I did something similar to push some strange idea that this semi-opera is actually a true historical account of the exploits of a historical King Arthur and his pal Merlin. I will spare you the details of that version. Hans Adler 11:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm...Adler has my curiosity up. Are we going to ever learn the details of that version??? And the King Arthur example is elegant. I still believe that the hold up with GCM is still the title. As has been pointed out, Genesis creation myth (GCM) implies that all of Genesis is a creation myth. There appears to be general agreement that is incorrect. Next, it narrows down to Gen. 1-11 being creation myth. Again, incorrect. The minimum subset, then, is Gen. 1-2, which seems widely agreed upon in the literature. As Alastair Haines points out along with his other inimitably sage editorials, the literary character of Genesis 1-2 is the ideal place to start.


 * I submit that the present title has been our focus of thought and discussion for so long that it's nigh on to impossible to block it from our minds to properly consider scope. Further, the text normally is driven by the title, as Adler has articulated.  Creation according to Genesis  still is the best title because it lacks unnecessary specificity such as "myth," "account," "narrative," "1-2," "1-11," etc. etc. "According to" is no problem because there is much precedence for use of that phrase with no truth-or-consequences valency implied or intended. The World According to Humphrey (a classroom rodent); The World According to Twitter; The World According to Mr. Rogers (children's TV program host); The Gospel According to Peanuts; The Gospel According to The Simpsons; The NBA According to the Sports Guy. None of these is taken to imply truth, except possibly for devotees of the Sports Guy. The point: "according to" is truth neutral. The Gospel According to John means different things to the average Christian in the pew than it means to a scholar who doesn't believe John wrote it.


 * Final observation:  Creation according to Genesis  was the title of the Wiki article until late 2009. It was when creation myth became an even more virulent Talk page issue that a very few editors decided not only to prevent any quashing of the phrase in the opening paragraph, but to put it into flashing neon lights in the title so that anyone offended by the term in conjunction with Genesis would be thoroughly outraged. I can think of no more NPOV title than  Creation according to Genesis . Because we sometimes label certain literature as "myth" because we do not believe that the world works that way, the label becomes as way of holding it at arm's length so as to clarify that we do not share that belief (Walton, John H. "The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate." IVP Academic, 2009. ISBN-13: 978-083083704 Web: )
 * Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are evidently going in circles. Your claim that "Genesis creation myth (GCM) implies that all of Genesis is a creation myth" doesn't make more sense than the claim that "Cambridge University implies that all of Cambridge is a university", and it doesn't seem necessary to take this seriously.
 * Your second paragraph recklessly ignores that many of the titles you cite are parodies of titles which are intended to imply truth.
 * I agree with most of your final paragraph, except the claim that "Creation according to Genesis" is NPOV. It is not: The article is about a creation myth which can be found in Genesis, so "Genesis creation myth" is an obvious title. "Creation according to Genesis" is not an obvious title at all, unless you know that some people believe it actually happened that way. That's not something we should convey in the title, because it's frankly too absurd. I don't want to dig in the archives now, but I guess the attempts to purge the term "creation myth" from the article have made someone to propose the current title, perhaps as a kind of revenge, and then editors noticed the POV problem with the previous title. So far as I am concerned the article could be called "Genesis creation story". Hans Adler 01:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, if I have the right accent and come across with a modicum of dignity and appropriate decorum, etc., "I am a professor at Cambridge" would never generate a challenge question like "Cambridge what???" "Cambridge" becomes shorthand in academic circles for the Cambridge University. Even "I'm a graduate of Cambridge," absent a reason to question the obvious implication, would not make one wonder if it was a trade school in the city.


 * What do parodies have to do with the "according to" argument? Let's focus just on "Gospel according to John." It doesn't sound like a parody; it is a phrase still being printed in most New Testaments; I've never heard from a pulpit a disclaimer like "The New Testament reading this morning is from the Gospel according to John—uh, I mean what everyone thought was written by the Apostle John until the Age of Enlightenment." Or, "The Old Testament reading today is from the Creation account according to Genesis 2—er, I mean the Creation myth in Genesis 2." I acknowledge that some of the parodies are a bit absurd, but then there are those who have been saying Genesis 1 and 2 are quite absurd.


 * I cannot find even a single suggestion that "according to" implies either truth or untruth. It's simply a statement of source. How often do we use the phrase "according to" in writing a Wiki article? Over and over again. If we are NPOV, we report the facts, what WP:RS say about the topic. We say where we find the claim, where we find counterclaims, etc.


 * With respect to creation literalists, I'd be very surprised if that comes as a surprise to you. Just look at any list of the various types of creationists. Creationism correctly says "Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis creation myth, within the approximate time frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology)." While that is neither my view nor yours, it is the view that is sacred to a large proportion of Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians that apparently would be a huge surprise to you. "Creation according to Genesis", IMHO, "fits" everyone. There is no question that Genesis contains two (some say one) creation stories or narratives or accounts or whatever; the questions begin when we go from reporting to interpreting. No one questions that it is there. There is no serious question about its antiquity or entitlement to canonicity. There is huge disparity among interpretations.


 * Again, I urge a return to "Creation according to Genesis" since it was the best received (least challenged) and longest-running title, and is the most neutral I can even imagine. Let's leave it to the reader's opinion about Genesis, particularly creation narratives, about the Old Testament in general. If you review the archives of the change to the present title, I believe you will agree that there was not some clear consensus, and that it was ultimately improperly performed by a Sysop in an untimely manner. That's another story, but one that should be considered when deliberating whether the mythic title even has the right to be there today.


 * Now, back to King Arthur. Would it be POV to write, "''According to Tennyson, Arthur and Lancelot were.... However, according to Adler, there is no evidence of such a claim which he describes as "preposterous." He says more attention should be given to Merlin's role in...." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Friends, I'm a naive optimist perhaps, but I trust working together here is far from as difficult as it currently seems.
 * As I read comments above, Genesis literalists are not currently represented among those of us who are presently commenting. At the risk of offending brothers and sisters I respectfully disagree with, I am willing to declare my true colours in that I do not personally subscribe to their reading of the text which is the subject of this article.
 * Let me add, of all matters Christians may choose to be dogmatic about, it is my experience that insisting on a literal reading of Genesis is the most counterproductive to recommending Christianity to a general audience. Were I a passionate anti-Christian, I would love the arguments in defence of reading Genesis literally to be advanced at Wiki, because I'd be confident it would give readers the same mirth it would give me. However, as a Christian who would dearly love others to "repent and believe the good news", I could surrender both humility and academic integrity and seek to silence their point of view.
 * But let me leave off the hypotheticals, we have work to do. As bitter a pill as it is for me to swallow, and critics of Christianity will probably not understand how very bitter it is for me to say this: Wiki policy is absolutely clear that all substantial points of view must be presented without fear or favour. We are not about truth de re (that is, the facts of the matter) but truth de dicto (the facts of what has been said about the matters we encyclopediarize).
 * This article is not an article about whether a God or many gods exist, or whether one God who might exist, has spoken in human history in the Hebrew Bible, specifically Genesis. There are other articles for that (though I've not investigated their quality). So there is a scope restriction already.
 * The question is whether we limit the current article to summarising (in a long piece of organised sustained prose) literary analysis of Genesis (as EGM proposes), or whether we also admit the question of what kinds of truth-functional propositional content there may be in the literary text we're documenting. If we also admit the latter, and indeed there is a case for that, we must document the considered opinion of the literal Genesis movement.
 * This is what I find strange. People who oppose the scope restriction are essentially providing a mandate for documenting the case for a literal reading of Genesis at this article. Yet some of those people have articulated they don't want that view anywhere at Wikipedia. Just as strange is the insistance on title, which also leans towards requiring some treatment of "myth" v. "reality". The new title screams for that question to be addressed and all notable PsOV to be documented. It puts the Genesis literalist PoV square on the centre of the table.
 * Frankly, I think Creation according to Genesis is the topic we all want addressed. It actually permits scope to document the abundant scholastic treatment of evidence that whatever truth Genesis may contain, it does not extend to a host of physcial, geological, biological or chronological details. But that also entails the presentation of the contrary POV.
 * What I'd most dearly love to document is the scholarship on the theological implications of Genesis. That's where I personally resonate with a vast constellation of reliable sources (however wrong they may all be). But I'm not going to push that agenda, nor fight for a title that admits it. It is such a huge topic, it can have its own article some time.
 * What do readers want, or what can we give them to put decision making in their hands? I return to my earlier point. The current title lends itself to the first question we should be asking about the text anyway: what is its literary character? There is more than enough material in hundreds of thousands of sources on that topic alone. Let's become experts on it, all of us. We could do some Jigsaw reading and push this project forwards. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alastair, am I sensing ambiguity in your final 3 paragraphs above? I'm having trouble reconciling "Frankly, I think Creation according to Genesis is the topic we all want addressed" with "The current title lends itself to the first question we should be asking about the text anyway: what is its literary character?" How does Genesis creation myth provide a better venue for exploration of literary character than Creation according to Genesis? How can our defining the literary character of Genesis be of practical assistance to anyone with a genuine interest in the subject? That Genesis is an ancient text/story/narrative is nothing revolutionary by way of genre. The word "myth" predisposes many readers of Judeao-Christian persuasion to be on the defensive before they read on. We cannot become expert when there is such diversity of expert opinion. Wouldn't it be a sufficient contribution to somehow catalog in the article the main tributaries of how it is variously viewed. The range is so great: from a false belief or a fictitious story all the way to word-for-word literal from the mouth of God─and numerous intermediate positions between the two extremes.


 * I also will appreciate your opinion on the issue of theological basis for Jews, Christians, and to some extent, Muslims. If Genesis were only about creation, it would be a somewhat different (at least less serious) issue. But the fact is that even Jesus himself quoted from the creation passages as a source for a theological point he was making (e.g., marriage). Paul did the same thing. Then there are those who see later parts of Genesis as containing prefigurations of the salvific nature of Jesus' mission and role as "savior" and "messiah." There are myriads of folks who depend on the validity (definitions vary) of Genesis to authenticate their faith in the NT, and ultimately in Christianity. For more than 1800 years, the Christian church has upheld the sanctity and validity of the creation narrative (now plural), the sacrificial system introduced in Genesis which became NT atonement of one sort or another, Abraham, Moses, the Exile, and so on.


 * Clearly there are deep theological implications─perhaps literary character/genre─in how Genesis is understood. That's not our calling, however. But the strong linkage─between virtually all of Genesis and the theology of redemption in both Orthodox Judaism and New Testament Christianity─makes the Hebrew creation accounts very unique among the so-called creation myths of the world). Some say cosmogony is preferable to myth because it disambiguates the huge ambiguity in the common understanding of "myth." At a minimum, we do tremendous disservice to many in three major world religions to overemphasize the creation myth designation in the very title. Further elaboration of what myth means or doesn't mean is much like the judge instructing the jury to disregard what they just heard from a witness.


 * Being an academician, I acknowledge that we academics sometimes contribute more to the problem than to the solution with our esoterics. The very fact that this particular article may be approaching a new Wiki record for dissent and major unrest and accusatories certainly is telling us something. But are any of us hearing it? ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa! Sure, I'm ambiguous in that I think all of us posting here are interested in more than just a question of literary classification: several people have expressed a concern regarding the truth value of Genesis as a chronology, others of us have pointed out the importance of the theology of Genesis. So I find it odd that we've titled the article in such a way that a discussion of literary genre is really the only on topic discussion under it as heading. Those of us who would like to document the debate in reliable sources regarding the many theological aspects of Genesis must do so at other articles. Those of us who would like to document the debate in reliable sources regarding the truth value of the chronology must also do that at other articles. It looks to me like there's a consensus that the literary genre of Genesis is one of the least of our concerns, yet we're supposed to have formed consensus that this is the topic we shall document here: the creation narrative in Genesis ... as mythological genre.
 * The key to my ambiguity is that, on the one hand I'm asserting the above, while at the same time I'm asserting that documenting the debate in reliable sources regarding the literary classification of Genesis 1-2 is actually an extremely valuable exercise, one so valuable, in fact, that in my own personal opinion, it is precisely the work that logically preceeds the very extensive work needed on the bigger questions we're all interested in.
 * So, I guess I'm not rigid about this scope question, I'm just keen that we grab the serendipity or providence of this focus on comparing and contrasting Genesis to the surrounding creation myths. Genesis is arguably the first great piece of myth-busting literature, or so several hundred or more reliable sources are going to teach us.
 * "The adherents of these [ancient near eastern] myths believed that by myth (word) and by ritual (act) they could reenact these myths in order to sustain the creation."
 * "[Genesis] serves as a polemic against the myths of Israel's neighbours".
 * — Bruce K. Waltke, "The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part IV: The Theology of Genesis 1", Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (1975): 327–342.
 * Genesis is absolutely all about myths, and how very wrong and dangerous they are. Genesis agrees with all of us more than we recognize we agree with one another. But I should leave it to sources and the keen minds of others here to flesh that out.
 * Have I clarified some, good Sir? Alastair Haines (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alastair, thanks so much for your points here. You've definitely hit the nail on the head, even in the ambiguity: we could make the article match the title, or make the title match the article. Like you, I really don't care either way. There is real value in having an article on Genesis creation in the literary genre of myth. It speaks to both sides of the issue: Genesis as myth, or Genesis as polemic against myth. I apologize for not being around much. I've been horrifically sick most of the week and have been sleeping through the days. But I did want to say I appreciate your input here and plan to take it up with you as soon as I can. I am not ignoring you here.EGMichaels (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Scholastic views of Genesis as demythologizing polemic (and theological prologue)
To my knowledge, scholars (Jewish, Christian and atheist) other than the Genesis literalist movement, tend towards viewing Genesis as a very carefully constructed literary work, aimed at presenting Yahweh worship as superior to the polytheistic mythologies of the surrounding cultures. The details and dating of that vary quite widely. If there's anything like scholastic consensus on anything to do with Genesis, it is this "myth-busting" one-upmanship. The technical term most often used is polemic. I'll try to provide a bit of an annotated bibliography here. I'll simply add to it from time to time without signing. I'd appreciate others contributing. Let's see how we go. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The view that Genesis 1 is "amythological" (rather than the later view that it is deliberately demythologizing) is famously attributed to Julius Wellhausen, who contrasts the mythology of Genesis 2 and 3 with the "sober reflection about nature" of Genesis 1.
 * "In the first account we stand before the first beginnings of sober reflection about nature, in the second we are on the ground of marvel and myth. But the materials for myth could not be derived from contemplation, at least so far as regards the view of nature which is chiefly before us here; they came from the many-coloured traditions of the old world of Western Asia. Here we are in the enchanted garden of the ideas of genuine antiquity; the fresh early smell of earth meets us on the breeze. The Hebrews breathed the air which surrounded them; the stories they told on the Jordan, of the land of Eden and the fall, were told the same way on the Euphrates and the Tigris, on the Oxus and Arius."
 * —Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena, (BiblioBazaar, 2007), p. 379.
 * First published as Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, (Berlin, 1882).


 * Alexander Heidel (1954), The Babylonian Genesis, Chicago University Press. [viewed as original presentation of Genesis as polemic]
 * Gerhard F. Hasel (1972), "The significance of the cosmology in Genesis I in relation to Ancient Near Eastern parallels", Andrews University Seminary Studies 10: 1-20.
 * Gerhard F. Hasel (1974), "The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology", Evangelical Quarterly 46: 81–102. [supports Heidel]


 * "The author's purpose in giving a six-day structure to his creation narrative (a structure unknown in any other ancient creation narrative) was to set forth a pattern, for man to follow, of working for six days. It should be noted that it is not only the literary structure (i.e., the six-day arrangement of the material) that relates to the theme of man's work. The content of 1:1-25 [does also.]"
 * —Ian Hart (1995), "Genesis 1:1–2:3 as a prologue to the Book of Genesis", Tyndale Bulletin 46/2: 315–336.


 * "The image [of God] is to be understood not so much ontologically as existentially: it comes to expression not in the nature of man so much as in his activity and function."
 * —DJA Clines (1968), "The Image of God in Man", Tyndale Bulletin 19: 101.


 * "There is neither a divine earth, nor divine beasts, nor divine constellations, nor any other divine spheres basically inaccessible to man. The whole demythologised world can become man's environment, his space for living, something which he can mould."
 * —Hans Walter Wolff (1974), Anthropology of the Old Testament, (SCM), p. 162. Translated from the original German published 1973. Review in JSOT 5 (1978).


 * Alastair, I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I agree with your overview of the field, but I think you're getting off the topic of the article. Despite the title, it's not meant to suggest that all of the Book of Genesis is myth; it's meant to be about the creation myth in Genesis 1-2, no more. Perhaps a small amendment to the title is called for to make this clear. (Ok, just saw the next thread - things move fast around here.)PiCo (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alastair -- thanks for your overview. Since the current title contains the characterization of "myth" we need to include other elements that are not currently in place, such as common and unique aspects in relation to other mythological cosmogonies. Berkhof, for instance, sees the unity of humanity to be a unique aspect of this narrative. The unity of deity, and creation ex nihilo (already touched upon) should also be organized in a section for "comparison with other cosmogonies." Even if the title of the article is returned to something less polemic, the polemic aspects of Genesis should probably be retained.EGMichaels (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Restart-article naming dispute

 * I propose we squash on sight two categories of argument:
 * The dictionary/intelligencia/man-on-the-street says "myth" means such-and-such; and
 * The "we're special" crowd who're asking for preferential treatment need to be brought up short because "fair is fair".
 * This dispute is over the article's name, which by WP guidelines is to be the most commonly used name. Can we please focus on that? None of us here were given the responsibility or power of coming up with the name In Real Life. So our opinions of what the name in real life should be Do Not Matter . Are WP editors "pushing" a given terminology beyond what can be supported as common usage? That should be the focus. As well as paying heed to what phrases readers will attempt in their lookups. I'm weary watching this same dispute flare again and again, while most of the arguments are completely beside the point. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In real life, the first two chapters of the book of Genesis are a creation myth. That is why this article is called just that. "Genesis creation myth" describes accurately and comprehensively the subject matter here : what 1. Genesis contains and 2. what the focus of this article is. The title is in accordance with numerous WP guidelines, as discussed at length many many times around here. The approach of the many Christian and Jewish editors who only say "I don't like that" and "my relifigion is true and special" is not encyclopedic. <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 07:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's something about what Prof. Marginalia says that seems to get to the heart of what matters for a good clear discussion.
 * But all that's missing in the discussion above, imo, is quotes from reliable sources on the subject.
 * May I ask what you think the topic or subject of this article is? It might not have a common name.
 * As far as I can tell, this article is supposed to document scholastic analysis of "what Genesis says about Creation".
 * "In Genesis, creation ..."
 * I would have thought there'd be endless permutations of good titles, the problem would be picking one, not sticking with one.
 * As long as it has the common names "Genesis" and "creation" people will find it won't they?
 * Perhaps I don't understand what the article is supposed to be about. What do you think is the topic here? Alastair Haines (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At Cush, it would help if you could cite reliable sources for your opinion that "Genesis 1-2" is a creation myth.
 * Most sources I know, of all colours, see Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 as distinct units. Just which scholars are you reading?
 * "Myth" is a comprehensive description of just what? The Sabbath? Marriage? You don't even get talking snakes until chapter 3.
 * While you may have a point that unwritten policy says Wikipedia is supposed to be written from the atheist, rather than agnostic point of view, even atheist scholars see that Genesis 3 is part of the Genesis myth of human origins.
 * Your case needs reliable sources, not editorial assertion. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec):::Reframe your argument so that it doesn't rely on Fallacy #2 and focus on the chestbeating "we called it that because that's what it's called" stuff. As I said, the "fair is fair" fallacy is irrelevant. The other issue raised is the key: and every time I've researched this claim, the "we called it that because that's what it's called" stuff, it doesn't completely hold up. There's more than one agenda behind the POV-pushing on this here at wp. So what have you got to to show this is what it's typically called? Please...lay it out here. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Alastair Haines-I've noted above what I've found to be the most commonly used phraseology. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes! I'd read it already, but now I have you associated with your thoughts (proceeding as they do from some real checking in sources). I still prefer Creation in Genesis, which is a topic title, not a phrase or name, and does not imply any propositions. I don't think Creation according to Genesis formally implies that the Genesis account is true, but I can see why some people are sensitive to the plausible possibility of that proposition being formed by some readers encountering that title. Genesis creation story, does imply a proposition, but I would think a demonstrably true and unambiguous, non-technical one.
 * But finally, I don't think this current debate can be settled by phrase searches in sources, because I doubt there's a consensus in scholastic terminology or common usage. I don't think it will be settled by all editors who care coming to agreement, either. I think it will need to be settled by supplying a rationale based on reliable sources and policy, that will stand up because its sources and reasoning withstand scrutiny.
 * I am extremely interested to see how the proposal is closed, because there's enough in the discussion to do it already, yet a lot of temptation to close it irrationally. It's a good test of the capacity of those who staff the system to actually uphold it without fear or favour.
 * We will see what we will see, but I certainly value the thoughts you've posted Prof. M. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

More myth concerns
''Here are some comments I wrote 27 Mar 2010 at Talk:Creation myth. I want to include them here:'' ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the common, ordinary use of the word "myth" is so dominant in societal thinking, all the way back to the days of our bedtime stories, that it's only reasonable for the reader to assume that he/she certainly already knows what that simple four-letter word means. Therefore, how reasonable is it even to suspect that any reader might reason that they don't know what "myth" means, with or without the "creation" prefix? Is this line of reasoning by Wiki's fictitious "ordinary reader" logical for any of us to even imagine:


 * IS THE FOLLOWING A LIKELY SCENARIO??
 * "Hm, 'myth'. That's something that is imaginary or not true. It's fictional like the Santa Claus myth or 'Peter and the Wolf' and the Loch Ness monster and urban legends. But just in case 'they' are thinking of some other kind of myth (though I don't think there IS any other kind), maybe I'd better look it up by clicking on the light-blue Wikilink." Hogwash!

From umpteen years teaching in university classrooms, and almost as many years as a student, I know that people are loathe to look something up if they think it's somehow beneath their dignity on the basis that "I already know that. When we read the word "myth," unless we are among "the few and the proud" who are specifically schooled in a technical/academic/literary genre, highly atypical usage of the word, our kneejerk response is to run with the MOST familiar definition we've had of that word throughout our lifetime. And that's going to be an untruth that has been whitewashed as truth.

May I illustrate from the Wall Street Journal's use of the word myth, and the connotation they clearly expect from readers:


 * Jun 20, 2009 . "A Doctor's View of Obama's Healthcare Plans: The Myth of Prevention."


 * Feb 20, 2010. "The Myth of the Techno-Utopia." The complete sentence: "It's fashionable to hold up the Internet as the road to democracy and liberty in countries like Iran, but it can also be a very effective tool for quashing freedom. Evgeny Morozov on the myth of the techno-utopia."


 * Apr 24, 2009: "...the Treasury for getting only 66 cents in value for every TARP dollar spent. This accusation would be troubling if true, but the 66 cent claim is a myth. The 66 cent conclusion is no more sound than a subprime mortgage."


 * November 20, 2009: Lies, Myths, and Yellow Journalism. "Because this editorial is based on deception (or, more charitably, bad journalism), it's not surprising that harmful myths about education reform are also woven in. The myth that spending more money on poor and minority kids is a waste ("some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most money on students"), the myth that vouchers help kids from low-income communities (they haven't worked, which is why they're off the table), the myth that strict accountability will close the achievement gap (it won't, although accountability with clear standards, and with more capacity to meet those standards will), and the myth that teachers' unions are the enemy (they have problems, but reformers need to work with, not against them).

An ordinary Google search of Wall St. Journal + "myth" turned up these and many more. Please try the search for yourself on any of your favorite printed sources that contain OpEd's. We can continue to play ostrich and bury our heads in the sand, or we can stop trying to force "myth" with all its shades of gray down people's throats.

None of us were around when the term "creation myth" was spawned by a group of the intelligencia who probably had at least a couple of years of Greek, so the choice of words isn't our fault. But we do have other terms that are not ambiguous, even terms that no less prestigious an agency than NASA has chosen, such as cosmogony. True, it's not well known, but since it isn't, that's the type of word that most of us WILL click on if it's blue. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir,
 * I, for one, can appreciate what seems like common sense, pleasantly expressed, well-reasoned and supported by a diversity of recent publications addressed to a general, intelligent and educated audience in your post above.
 * I'd like to grab the opportunity, not simply to second your opinion, however. I'd like to push you to engage more with the concerns of readers and editors who may think Genesis has some kind of historical cultural value, but is rather clearly not the sort of explanation of the origin of the world and humanity that is now pretty much accepted among educated people around the globe.
 * Out of politeness, a lot of people may be willing to agree to drop "myth" from the title of this article. Others, I suspect, will be willing to drop "myth" from the tile because it's hardly the ordinary scholastic way of referring to the Genesis anyway.
 * But, I'd like to hear your thoughts regarding the claim I made above, that Genesis is actually a secondary source. That is, it was hardly the first piece of ancient literature to address the "origin question." Do you think that is a fair statement? Was other literature, that might fairly be described as "myth" already known to the writer, writers or editor, editors of Genesis? At least by the time of it reaching the form in which it has been transmitted to us? Are you aware of any scholars who think that Genesis engages with this already "published" pre-existing mythology?
 * Now, here's the rub, does Genesis, as secondary source, endorse, quote and assume the veracity of the prior material? Does it critique it? Or is it some combination of assuming or accomodating parts of prior works, while critically presenting a new point of viw? What do the Genesis scholars you've read say? Are they all in agreement? Do they divide on "party lines"?
 * If, for example, Genesis thought populating the "heavens and the Earth" with a plethora of supernatural agents was a load of mythological bunkum, what might it say instead? What could it say to communicate that idea to people in the habit of thinking otherwise?
 * Aren't there ancient sources that describe monotheists as atheists? Isn't it possible modern atheists have more in common with ancient monotheists than they realise? A modern atheist views even monotheism as mythological God of the gaps nonsense, however ancient monotheists had very much the same view of the even more ancient polytheists and animists.
 * It's awfully frustrating watching people talking at cross-purposes when their reasoning is so very similar, just they are so dreadfully dogmatic about vocabulary.
 * To say Genesis 1 is technically myth is to say: 1. that it must be taken literally and 2. that there can be no God. I would not have thought either of those statements to be matters of self-evident truth without any dissenting points of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [to Alastair Haines] My esteemed colleague, thank you for your gracious compliments, though far too generous. I am far less than your peer when it comes to the sophistry you express here. Please know that I am a theorist only in my chosen field of science, and express myself mostly in a practical meat-and-potatoes way. Therefore, I am both unworthy and unqualified to respond to your sage inquiry with any modicum of expertise or wisdom.


 * With that sincere disclaimer, I proceed: I completely agree that Genesis has historical/cultural value, and I personally do not hold to the literalist explanation you depict. However, I don't consider that the issue here. For the sake of discussion, let's assume there is a large group of intelligent, educated, respected people who believe the message of Genesis creation to be that "Almighty God" created the universe and all that is in it. They subscribe to divine inspiration but not to divine dictation. They are willing to consider the possibility that the intent of the biblical writings was not to provide some sort  of scientific and historical schema of creation. Perhaps, they say, the  meaning of creation for the writers of Genesis was something other than  the present understanding of literal-historical. Let's further assume that they have a "high view" of Scripture that is reasonable and moderate (by some definition. Therefore, they aren't literalists; they just believe God created the heavens and the earth, that it's very incompletely understood just how he did it, though we are in process, albeit imperfectly, of learning the "how's" through science; that the J and P sources believed God is Creator and did their best to write a historical narrative through the prism of their inspired world view. The sources wrote no political or cultic treatise and mentioned no rituals—unlike the cosmologies of some of their predecessors and neighbors.


 * Today, some consider the Genesis accounts to be a demythologized myth (technical use of term), but that doesn't mean we must ignore the influences upon their narratives brought to bear on the writers by their cultural milieu and other creation stories. The writers were not monastics.


 * Let's even assume that more than a few of these hypothetical 21st century moderates do believe that the Creator set it all in motion, is still very much involved in the universe he created, and that ongoing natural and supernatural processes (not to exclude evolution) are indications of this. To these folks, as well as to the 3rd graders whose upbringing has led them to these same conclusions at a much less mature level, we throw the "myth" curve ball. Darwin write that the OT is a "manifestly false history of the earth." Rather than focus on the possibility that Genesis creation narratives were never intended to be historic account, religious objections to Darwin's assessment have focused on the word false, and many evolutionists have agreed with the Darwinian "false history" claim. This is why I personally believe the word "myth", even with a thousand notes to say it doesn't mean untrue, is manifestly offensive to such a huge number of readers and editors.


 * Thanks again for your supportive comments and your provocative (but at times over my head) thoughts. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From my research, historically there was no controversy. Apparently, both the patristic and medieval church interpreted the Genesis accounts allegorically or figuratively. I read that the Protestant reformers rejected the allegorical method in favor of a more literal-historical method of interpretation. Even then, an exegetical emphasis on what appeared to be the plain meaning of the text did not place the Bible in serious conflict with the new science of the day, in that there was some latitude in the application of a literal approach.


 * Good science professor, sir,
 * what great good humour, patience and humility there is in your clear and nicely written reply!
 * I particularly appreciate the picture you build up of the educated, intelligent moderate.
 * There are many who know a fair bit about science, and a fair bit about theism, and find little conflict between what they know of each.
 * When we turn to the early chapters of Genesis, the information we lack is not conclusive proof of God's existence, nor conclusive proof from a fossil record, what the average moderate lacks is knowledge of historical literature.
 * Our average moderate is not familiar with Hebrew, nor with Akkadian or Sumerian. We are dependent on people we'd normally pass by in the street—professors of ancient languages and literature—who for once, we can see do serve us and our civilization in matters of interest and importance for all.
 * I wonder if we can all quieten down a bit, so their voice can be heard, and their sense bring us together to con-sens-us.
 * I'm hushing, let's see what old voices might be given the floor to engage us.
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking past the obvious
I've read a lot of the discussions on this talk page regarding the article's title and I'm fascinated by how many points of view are represented in this discussion. However, I'm also wondering if you all aren't looking past what seem to be some rather obvious conventions on Wikipedia (conventions that actually also generally mirror scholarly usage as far as I understand it). Other articles about specific creation myths, or groups of such myths, on Wikipedia *almost* exclusively follow one of two patterns in regard to their titles:

1) Simply using the common name of the narrative that comprises or contains the creation myth in question (without the word myth, or "creation myth" in the title). See - Enûma Eliš, Völuspá, Rangi and Papa, etc.

2) Referring to the creation myth(s) of a specific civilization (or group of related civilizations) by pairing the name of the civilization and the term "creation myth". see - Mesoamerican creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, etc.

From the cursory exploration I did the first option appears much more common than the second. Both of these observations also appear to be in line with scholarship. Scholars are just as unlikely to ever use the phrase "Enuma Elish creation myth" as they are to use the phrase "Genesis creation myth". The Enuma Elish is a ancient narrative and there is consensus that this narrative can be grouped with others in a general category we call "creation myth". Likewise the passages in Genesis discussed in this article are a narrative and there is consensus that this narrative is also included in the category of "creation myth". However, what these passages are most plainly are narratives. That basic fact of narrativness is very clearly articulated in virtually every other article on other similar narratives but not this one. Why is that? I noticed a couple of arguments against "exceptionalism" but I wonder if those arguments are not in fact turned on their heads. The current title is clearly itself an exception and not in accord with scholarly usage. If the conventions of other articles were followed this one would not contain the term "creation myth" in the title, but would retain the notion that it is primarily considered a creation myth in the introduction and body of the text. Perhaps this observation has been stated before and discounted for some reason (I must admit that while I was fascinated by the discussion I could not read the entire archive). I do not wish to enter this dispute but I figured I'd share these thoughts. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that given the observed convention I mentioned above there would be two options available here. Either something like Israelite creation myth, Judeo-Christian creation myth, Abrahamic creation myth, etc. or to be in line with the more common convention a title that signifies the narrative without the word "creation myth".  Just in case that wasn't clear.  Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ancient Near Eastern creation myths would be an excellent setting in which to place the Prologue to Genesis. I do hope others explore this option. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Genesis (the whole 50 chapters) doesn't deal with creation, only the first two chapters do. And those first two chapters don't have a name like Enuma Elish. Nice thought, but impractical. PiCo (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with you PiCo, but it's worth realising even Enuma Elish doesn't have a name. If Enuma Elish is the name, then B'reshit is the name of Genesis. Likewise, Enuma Elish (the whole work) doesn't deal with creation, only the first book does. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your second point is a good one, Alastair. As for the namelessless of Enuma, yes, but my point is that we need to call the article by a title that's easily identifiable to the average wiki-user - he's going to type "Creation Genesis" or something similar into the search-bar. PiCo (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as searching goes isn't that taken care of by doing what I just did for Norse creation myth and Babylonian creation myth? It is my observation that some rather excessive and complicated tangents have been and are being discussed on this page related to what is really a much simpler naming issue.  My advice is to seriously consider the convention I mentioned above and its implications to the title of this article.  Someone should explain why this article needs to be the exception or else figure out how to move on.  Using the current title is also an exception in scholarship, BTW.  I'm not sure anyone has done so yet but I'd bet the farm on the fact that combinations of words like "Genesis creation story", "Genesis creation narrative", or "Genesis creation account" is much more common in scholarship than the current title phrase.  What I've seen are a lot of arguments conflating the title itself with the scholarly consensus that this section of Genesis is in fact a creation myth.  It is no more a creation myth than Völuspá or parts of Enûma Eliš and that is the simple point.  Anyway good luck once again.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm... both of those are creation myths. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Of course they are.  Did you read what I wrote?  They are (and/or contain) creation myths but the articles about them are not called: "Enuma Elish creation myth" or "Voluspa creation myth".  This article appears to be the only one titled in this fashion.  Have a look for yourself across the Wiki.  The convention is to use the two types I listed clearly above.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't want to get into this debate. There appears to be a knee jerk reaction here against anyone who suggests that the current title is bad to assume that they are also arguing that this section of Genesis is not a creation myth.  This section of genesis is a creation myth, but logic does not necessitate that the term go in the title and convention says it probably shouldn't.  These types of assumptions are what I was afraid of before commenting and I'm seriously done now.  Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You said, "It is no more a creation myth than Völuspá or parts of Enûma Eliš and that is the simple point." We're not saying Genesis as a whole Genesis is a creation myth, but the creation story is. If the creation myths contained in Völuspá or the Enûma Eliš stood out enough to deserve their own articles, sure, we could have Enûma Eliš creation myth. Note that the articles with the words "creation myth" in the title are specifically about the creation myth itself, not the source book/poem/tablets/whatever. And yes, there are other articles with "creation myth" or "creation mythology" or just plain "mythology" in the title here. Finally, your own knee-jerk reaction in your second comment is noted, but doesn't really help anything. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite
 * I understand where the confusion came from and apologize for jumping to conclusions. What articles that are comparable to this one have "creation myth" in the title?  Do you disagree with my claims above (in the very first post of this string) regarding the convention I observed across this category of entries?  If so contradictory examples would be helpful.  Clearly the words "creation myth", etc. are in article titles (see my first post above), but the observation I made is that they are not in titles of articles like this one.  Is that because there really is no article like this one?  Is this really an exceptional case that merits an exceptional title?  In my view, given the clear convention, that should be the foundation of an argument for keeping this title.  I've said to much already, but I did want to apologize for jumping to conclusions.Griswaldo (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Creation according to Genesis
alternative move suggestion discussion started (see below). --RegentsPark (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [ [:Genesis creation myth]] → Creation according to Genesis — The article was the most Stable under this name, Secondly if the first thing we have to say in the introduction is a defense of how "it is neutral"; than odds are it is not neutral. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Notified Projects: Religion Atheism Christianity Judaism Islam Mythology Interfaith Admin Notice Board Bible

'In this Discussion Please dont use Straw man Arguments, they insult both the User writing them and the Users Reading them'

* Support The article was the most Stable under this name, Secondly if the first thing we have to say in the introduction is a defense of how "it is neutral"; than odds are it is not neutral Current title seems to be a POV-push of how it is just myth; whether or not it is a myth or not in academia. It is unacetable to label something held as sacred to half the world (Jew+Christian+Muslim), This is not Censorship but common sense. The instability of This article since i think an acceptable middle ground would run something like

"'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 has been identified as a creation myth by scholars,[1] and has religious significance for Christians and Jews.'' (AFA Prof suggest two months ago)" Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE "Creation according to Genesis" implies reality, it is inaccurate and in disharmony with other articles about other creation myths. This article is not religious propaganda. We have already discussed this at great length and we will not have a small minority of editors force their ideology down everybody's throats. <span style="padding: 0 8px 0 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 · 18:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC).
 * According to Genesis is just what it is. if people want to take Genesis and take it as literal fact that is their prerogative. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, I think you're shying at shadows - does anyone think "Creation according to the Rig Veda" would imply acceptance of the Vedas as history or fact? PiCo (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - It's high time this POV-pushing sham of a title was put out of its misery and restored with something more sensible and less partisan. The current title was only chosen for the sake of its offensiveness value. I think the few editors who insisted on this title have already received all the mileage reward they're ever going to get, hope they enjoyed it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE Why does Christian-judeo religious belief deserve special treatment? The genesis creation myth clearly meets the definition on the Myth page of wikipedia as a "sacred myth". We haven't gone around changing Greek Mythology to something like "Heros and gods according to ancient Greeks". Christian Mythology refers to this as one of a body of myths. Myth: "academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on its truth or falsity". Myth: "a myth is a religious narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form" -- the term is neutral from an encyclopedic perspective. If this is changed, then the Myth article needs to be changed to say something like "Myth means that the story is false". I don't think you'll find a source on that to use as a reference! Reboot (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, theologians have never agreed on a scholarly definition of "myth", and it is a complete fiction to pretend that they ever have. (Sources.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that is important. I'm fairly sure anthropologists and archaeologists would use the term quite casually. What's your point? Reboot (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought your point was that this was a supposedly 'formal' definition, and my point is that there has never been any such thing as an agreed 'formal' definition. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The moved to Genesis creation myth first passed 7 weeks ago (Talk:Genesis creation myth/Archive 6) and was reaffirmed in this exact same request 4 weeks ago (Talk:Genesis creation myth/Archive 6). WP:LETGO Currently comes to mind. It's time that this discussion be left and everyone move on.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Labattblueboy, Observe the Archives since beginning of of those 7 weeks the past seven weeks have generated more controversy than any all the other section of the archive combined.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am aware. I went through the discussion and saw no indication that consensus has changed and frankly, I am really not a fan of seeing multiple move requests in a short periods of time. Its sets a poor precedence for people inputting request repeatedly until their desired result is achieved. You will find that my positions is quite consistent in such cases, wherein I will support moves if consensus has changed or been formed and oppose when move request are continuously hammered. I should note that I am certainly open to changing my position if consensus is clearly shown to be 'Creation according to Genesis'. My opposition is entirely based on a procedural motivation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You call this consensus? I'd hate to see a page you thought didn't have one!EGMichaels (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who makes the call one way or the other. All I can say is that two different admins, who are both extremely active in the requested move area, thought so.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last admin had the same reaction I did -- there was no consensus and a third title should be found. I then tried to bring folks together to brainstorm for a third title and was gamed beyond anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia.EGMichaels (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I could support Genesis creation story. Yes, it breaks with the mold of most articles but I think it's a good compromise in alleviating the deadlock.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The move to Genesis creation myth was out of line with the umbrella content of the article and has proven to be highly disruptive and POV. Although I do see the benefit of a Genesis creation myth article as a study of Genesis in relation to ancient near eastern myth, within the literary genre of myth -- the very people promoting the title "Genesis creation myth" are the same people who oppose limiting the article to that genre. Since the advocates of "Genesis creation myth" cannot limit the content of the article to that subject, we should return the article to its previous NPOV title.EGMichaels (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support There was nothing wrong with "Creation according to Genesis." It's clear, descriptive and perfectly neutral. Why use the loaded word "myth" in the title of this article, where it will be misunderstood and viewed as provocative by many readers? The technical term "creation myth" should be introduced in the body of the article where its neutral scholarly intent can be made crystal clear.--agr (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I've always been uncomfortable with the "myth" language. I would prefer "Creation according to the Book of Genesis" b/c I think "Genesis" alone is a little ambiguous. But the proposed title is better than the current title. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstain—votes belong to sources not editors—I choose to represent Julius Wellhausen, who says Genesis 2 is myth and Genesis 1 is not. But Julius and I graciously conceed that a vote of Wikipedia editors is more likely to establish what will help readers better than stuff written in books. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But they're both Creation Myths (as defined as a religious account of the creation of life, the earth, universe etc...) hence why the title is appropriate. Nefariousski (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On behalf of Julius Wellhausen, I can pass on that he has changed his mind, he wrote in 1878 that Genesis 1 is "sober reflection" but that Genesis 2 and 3 are "marvel and myth", but he is willing to change his mind since Nefariousski must know better than he does. :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - "myth" carries a negative connotation. JFW | T@lk  21:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support When terminology used by regular people and academics don't match, the rule on Wikipedia is to use the common term. All of the arguments that "myth" isn't dismissive of the account may be true, in an academic context. But that isn't relevant. Story and account are neutral terms, which do not have either a denotation or a connotation which favors one side of the question of the account's historicity. I would be willing to compromise with either Genesis creation account or Genesis creation story, but Genesis creation myth is intentionally and unnecessarily incendiary. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstain—which has the advantage that one can do it multiple times—this time I represent the Oxford English Dictionary, which I'm reliably informed isn't permitted sufferage at Wikipedia, unless an editor chooses to give it a voice.
 * myth 1. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena.
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair Haines, i dont think any one hear is debating whether it is a creation myth, but whether it is necessary to be in the title. As an anthropologist i agree its the Genre but lets be it as the Genre and not as the title. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Weaponbb7, I am personally sympathetic to your proposal, but my opinion is irrelevant. I have simply attempted to give votes to the OED and Julius Wellhausen, who clearly agree with you that the current title is deficient. However, I'm still running around as fast as I can, listening to dead people who can speak intelligently to support your alternative title. Julius does call Genesis 1 and 2-3 "accounts" (at least in the English translation). Julius writes so lucidly and lyrically that I'm charmed away from listening to others. Must go, the dead are clamouring to be heard. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a move to a neutral name without a POV problem. Grantmidnight (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, with alternatives okay. "Creation Myth" is a standard term, with quite an anthropological pedigree. And it can be used for verifiable events, so long as it refers to a ritualized, collective imagination of how they happened. See, for example: "The scientific culture is no exception; we have our own scientific creation myth called cosmology" . Still Genesis creation account or something similar sounds just peachy, too.--Carwil (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support-ish—grrr, I forbid anyone to count this as a vote—Genesis creation account, Genesis creation narrative and Genesis creation story seem deficient as alternative titles for this topic. Too many scholars doubt that what is being offered in the early chapters of Genesis is simply an account or narrative of creation. The Sabbath thingy, for one, has everything to do with what people actually do, rather than merely what might have happened. And some people still get married don't they? If people want this article to discuss creation in Genesis, then that is what it should be called (and it covers more and less than Genesis 1-2). If people want it to discuss Genesis chapters 1 and 2, then that is a rather odd division of the book, since chapters 2 and 3 are married to one another. Why Creation according to Genesis, when in is shorter than according to, and implies somewhat less? Alastair Haines (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair, thanks for your vote. Seriously, though, how is "story" anything but neutral? If anything, it can be seen as meaning something made up. It certainly doesn't imply that it happened, even if you think "account" would. I think Genesis creation story is probably the best choice. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noooo! Dat no vote! Yukyyy! The OED says: "Lisa is right, story is neutral, myth is not." The only problem is Julius Wellhausen and others think Gen 2ff are a story, involving borrowings from other myths, BUT (and it's a big but) Gen 1 is a "sober reflection". Not only that, "image of God", "Sabbath", "original sin", "marriage", etc. go beyond a mere alleged account of an alleged creation, in the view of many scholars. Perhaps, although Julius might not agree with Lisa, most other scholars would: "story" is a richer word than account, permitting "morality play"-type interpretations. Lisa may understand better than other editors here that Genesis is more about telling people how to understand the now rather than the then. I guess that does make it a story, but other editors might not be interested in those story parts, just the parts that are about creation, which they think are an alleged (and demonstrably false) narrative. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support BOTH #1 Creation in Genesis; #2 Creation according to Genesis. But to my honored colleague Alasair Haines I must say, drat it! While you were writing your above thesis proposing the dropping of "according to," I was writing my below thesis supporting it. Why have none of us proposed Creation in Genesis 'ere now? It's painful to admit that it has never occurred to me.
 * (1) Both Creation in Genesis and Creation according to Genesis avoid unnecessary specificity such as "myth," "account," "narrative," "Gen. 1-2," "Gen. 1-11," etc.
 * (2) Weaponbb7 's proposal, "According to", still is a great choice. It is not even marginally POV. It is truth neutral, as is Creation in Genesis. It simply means "As stated or indicated by." The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene is a gnostic gospel not recognized as scripture by any Christian group; yet, no one objects to the prepositional phrase "According to" in its title. Christianity still accepts the title "The Gospel According to John" and it continues to be printed in many versions of the New Testament─even though many modern scholars disclaim its authorship by John. "Creation according to Genesis" is simply a good way of saying "Creation as reported by (or in) the Book of Genesis." It carries no connotation of validity. The "reputation" rests with the word "Genesis" and whatever the reader may believe about the creation narratives. But "myth" in any form carries a highly significant connotation of falsity─disclaimers notwithstanding. We collectively have wasted so much time arguing about "myth" and who has it helped? We are not writing a refereed academic journal article. We are supposedly writing for the "average reader." No one has been able to show that "myth" to the average reader does NOT mean "purely fictitious narrative."
 * (3) "Creation according to Genesis" was the title of the Wiki article until late 2009. It was when creation "myth" became an even more virulent Talk page issue that a very few editors decided not only to prevent any quashing of the phrase in the opening paragraph, but to put it into flashing neon lights in the "title" so that anyone offended by the term in conjunction with Genesis would be thoroughly outraged. I can think of no more neutral a title than "Creation in Genesis" with "Creation according to Genesis" a very close second.
 * (4) John Walton, Wheaton graduate professor of Old Testament and Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College, says: "We sometimes label certain literature as 'myth' because we do not believe that the world works that way. The label becomes a way of holding it at arm's length so as to clarify that we do not share that belief." That's hardly NPOV.
 * (5) This all started with a move to demythologize the article (dropping "myth" from anywhere but perhaps a footnote). I was among that group. My impression today is that the non-mythers have made a huge compromise and backed off from that stance, agreeing with "myth" being listed as an a.k.a., but not in the title. It would be so nice if the "myth group" would conciliate and meet halfway. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How very astute and irenic, good Sir! It's a pity we don't have your words on the very great quality of Lisa's proposal. If we are to extend some kind of literary classification to the title, "story" seems exactly the right word to me. But if we can't all feel that we have something good to say, perhaps it is best we say nothing at all. CiG or CatG would be the way to go: "creation" first word as some people are more interested in creation de re, rather than Genesis de dicto.
 * Perhaps I shouldn't throw even more dust in the air, but I'm not even sure "creation" is the best word. More precise terminology would be: "origins", "beginnings", brshit (Hebrew), "archeology" (Greek), "genesis" (Latin). "Creation" is inherently POV imo, because the English language assumes the monotheism associated with the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh. "Creation" implies an agent: "created by ..." Indeed, this is precisely what scholars identify as the radical demythologizing of Genesis 1: how is "the Beginning" to be understood? As the unilateral direct creative purpose and action of Yahweh. That is the first sentence of Genesis. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, now, now my dear academicians. Let's not overly confuse the fake scholasticism with real educated wit! ;-) Granted, bereshit is the title in Hebrew and not bara, but the subject matter of origins here falls pretty well into the more specific subject of "creation" rather than simply "beginning." I've been looking for that third alternative for a full month now, and Alastair has been the first to give one that avoids all the words both sides love to hate: I LOVE "Creation in Genesis." Bravo! Poli kala, ha chaver sheli.EGMichaels (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. It's pretty much been stated before; I agree that "mythology" is a POV violation. It has been brought up that "Genesis" may also have to be unambiguated, so a possible title may be "Creation according to Book of Genesis" or something like that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Backtable's proposal is a good condensing to a potentially workable consensus. Maybe I need to take a little away from other things I've proposed, though. Reference to the whole Book of Genesis might give a little too much scope, and dilute our focus. Creation in the prologue to Genesis is my best refinement of Backtable's excellent suggestion to disambiguate the Genesis part of the title. EGM's points are also taken on board here. "Creation" simply is an unavoidable term. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose': The term creation myth is the standard (and hence neutral) term. This has been demonstrated with reliable sources (many of Oxford's reference works like their Dictionary of the Bible, Encyclopedia Britannica, and relevant experts affirming what is mainstream as opposed to cherry picking sources that simply do not use the term) ad nauseum on these talk pages, including two previous Requested Moves. In light of that, allow me to point to the archives instead of retyping all of that again, though by request I'm happy to dig them out again. Some important notes: This RM presents no new information from the past two RM's. Editors who participated in the last two RM's should be notified about this RM. Many of the support votes above wreak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lofty "It's POV" claims (presumably a violation of a neutral POV) tied to support votes without supporting reason or reliable sources should be discarded as a waste of bandwidth. Ben (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What does it matter that it's the standard academic term? Wikipedia needs to be understandable to the average reader. Everyone understands "story". You know that the average reader doesn't understand "myth" the way academics do. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia needs to be understandable to the average reader." For once I find myself supporting Lisa - will wonders never cease. PiCo (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa, the problem is not so much that "the average reader" doesn't "understand" myth the way academics do, but rather that the editors promoting the use of the term do not use it in the way academics do. In the archives are reams and reams of arguments on the falsehood of Genesis. When pressed to give any example on any subject in which the term myth would NOT mean "false", Ben slapped me with an ANI for being unreasonable! Even after I gave an example of how several academics (Tolkien and Lewis) used the term in a pivotal conversation (in which Lewis converted to Christianity precisely BECAUSE it was myth), Ben et al were still not able to follow my lead. Given that the editors promoting the use of the term "myth" are not only unable to use it in an academic sense, and even accused me of being unreasonable for requesting such an academic sense, they can no longer be taken as credible promoters of said "academic" sense. I do know that Alastair is capable of using the term in this way, as is Afa Prof. But then, they are academics in real life (and don't just play it on WikiTV).EGMichaels (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Curious, EGM, that's a very long way of saying "Lisa is right". I'm surprised at PiCo's surprise at supporting Lisa: she's made some of the briefest and best contributions to this discussion imo. But I'm new here, forgive me. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Lisa's not "right"; Lisa is "quite right." Just wanted to add a bit there! There is an irony here: those who can use "myth" in a non prejudicial way are also able to use synonyms instead. Those who demand to use the term myth, however, are clearly doing so because they are trapped in a prejudicial use. Those who claim an academic use, then, are clearly not doing so precisely because of their adamant refusal to consider anything else. This isn't the ASV, and we aren't stuck with some rigid concordance here.EGMichaels (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the editors here appreciate your speculation into their motives. -- King Öomie 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * King, take a look at that pointless ANI Ben hurled at me and see the repeated arguments that "well, it's not fact." And the "unreasonableness" Ben was accusing me of? Uh, asking for any example on any subject in which "myth" is used for something that is not false. That's not speculation on my part. It was hurled in my teeth on the ANI. You can't cram something down someone's throat and then accuse him of "speculation" when they gag on it.EGMichaels (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the sock puppet crap Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, whatever works, right? I haven't seen much of Deadtotruth after that. And to be honest, I haven't been so motivated myself.EGMichaels (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ben Tillman-what case would you make for naming this article "Genesis creation myth" when neither of the sources you've listed above (Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible and Encyclopedia Britannica) refer to it by name as the "Genesis creation myth" or even contain the phrase? Although they do describe the story as a "creation myth" they do not refer to it by that name, and the reader entering that search term is "redirected" to articles with alternative titles. I've checked the Columbia Encyclopedia--same result: no use of the phrase "Genesis creation myth". Professor marginalia (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article's topic does not have a name, so mainstream reference works will simply offer a description of what they're talking about. How exactly they phrase that description will obviously vary according to editorial constraints, preferences, and so on, however one thing the mainstream references do agree on is the descriptor creation myth. Our article title (description) must be consistent with other mainstream reliable sources (NPOV) up to terminology used, not word order. The current title satisfies this. As an added bonus, this article title is consistent with our other similar articles, including the main creation myth article, which is undoubtedly helpful to our readers and editorially sound. It's easy to find sources that use the exact phrase "Genesis creation myth" (I was recently reading Tree of Souls and it had no problem using that phrase), but this completely misses the point: this article's topic does not have a name. Ben (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't referred to as proper name, but it is commonly referred to by a handful of terms that are very close to a "name". The Tree of Souls probably isn't the best representative of "common usage". The book is about myth, Jewish myth, and every page in it talks about one myth after another taken from the Hebrew texts, almost none of them besides this one will have "myth" in the article here in Wikipedia. Using this book as a guide, why not Genesis flood myth instead of Noah's Ark, Myth of Enoch instead of Enoch (Biblical figure), Myths of the Messiah instead of Messiah, and the Exodus myth instead of The Exodus. (Notice again-no redirects because nobody talks this way. I will say that "Genesis creation myth", like these, is an atypical usage for most contexts--that makes it awkward to use in most sentences). Professor marginalia (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The present title is leading to confusion and instability. Incidentally, Genesis 1-2 is only one of a number of places where the Hebrew Bible deals with creation - it might be more inclusive if the title were Creation according to the Hebrew Bible. PiCo (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding PiCo's point, it's beyond the Hebrew Bible. For example, ; ; ; ;, , and {{Bibleref2-nb|Isa|43:15}. Several New Testament passages also affirm the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives: ; ; , and others. They are affirmed by Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Not only is it a creation account, narrative, story, and anything creation myth might represent, Genesis is the beginning of the development of the doctrine of creation to the Christian faith. According to "The doctrine of creation" in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, "among all the theologies, myths and theories, Christian theology is distinctive in the form and content of its teaching. It is credal in form, and this shows that the doctrine of creation is not something self-evident or the discovery of disinterested reason, but part of the fabric of the Christian response to revelation." The Apostles' Creed, recited in thousands of Christian churches every Sunday, begins: "I believe in God the Father, maker of Heaven and Earth." That foundational theology comes from Genesis. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very impressed with PiCo's ability to both to modify his position slightly in response to other opinions, and more importantly to extend the proposal in a direction that allows key reliable sources to be recruited to help us give readers a complete picture. Like PiCo and AFA Prof01 I agree we could helpfully expand the article, without it becoming unwieldly, by incorporating scholastic analysis of the well-known Genesis passages alongside a substantial but very countable and finite set of "creation and myth" related passages in Hebrew Bible and New Testament. I lean more towards PiCo's suggestion, because extending to the New Testament means we'd be inclusive of Christians, but exclusive of Muslims and Mormons. Expanding to incorporate those movements would make this article cumbersome.
 * Perhaps some of the boffins here could allay any concerns the rest of us might have, by giving a list of the "creation and myth" related passages most pertinent to addressing the issues most readers would be interested in regarding the first few chapters of Genesis. I do remember once personally finding very helpful, scholastic examination of various Psalms and Job in comparison and contrast with Genesis and the surviving ANE literature.
 * I'm also particularly keen to hear back from editors opposed to the current proposal. I want to ensure that we have heard them clearly, that we are all aware of the sources they cite in support of their position, and that every possible attempt is made to reach a common mind, rather than a "lowest common denominator" compromise. If they're not very active, I may take up their cause, as best I can, to ensure we don't crowd out important sober criticisms in the current, apparently rather one-way direction this discussion seems to be going.
 * But to be very specific just now, AFA Prof01, Sir, how do you feel about keeping things to just the Hebrew Bible? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the article discusses only references in Hebrew scriptures, or includes references from scriptures Christian, Mormon, Islamic or whatever should not affect the title. The primary subject of this article is still the account in Genesis. If there is an account of creation in the Bible that is not based on Genesis (and I am not aware of any) it might be mentioned as an aside here or have its own article if there is sufficient material for one. --agr (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed.EGMichaels (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alastair and agr→I'm losing track. As far as keeping things just to the Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, are we saying "Creation in Hebrew Bible" (or something similar)?


 * I agree with agr that the primary subject of this article is still the account in Genesis─which leads to the question of how much of Genesis, but if the title does not specify quantity, then we don't need to deal with that today. I also agree that the subsequent biblical, and possibly qur'anic, creation references that are clearly based on Genesis can be handled in their own sections within the article, or in their own articles given sufficient material─also a future decision. In principle, I am amenable to most any title proposals that refer to Genesis or Hebrew, sans "myth" or any variation of that term. I also accept your concern about "creation" moving to "origin" or other more neutral synonym.


 * Re: New Testament. In re-thinking my initial objection and the comments that followed, I withdraw my objection to PiCo's idea. My hope is that the agreed-upon title neither demeans nor denigrates post-Genesis OT or NT references and quotes back to the Genesis accounts. Thanks! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE "Creation myth" can't be parsed out into "Creation" and "myth", electoral college doesn't equal a university where people study elections etc... Formal / informal etc... (it's all in the FAQ) Not to mention policy support is overwhelming for current title.


 * 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

Nefariousski (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from UCN those refer to article content not title. UCN actually supports the move to a neutral title.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT move, per user agr and WP:UCN. A title such as myth is telling people what to believe, an encyclopedia needs to be neutral.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose. There's nothing terribly wrong with "creation according to Genesis", but if people are going to write (and read) an encyclopedia they ought to learn what "myth" means in a scholarly context. The use of the word has nothing to do with whether the story is true or false. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Akhilleus — I don't think Wikipedia has a mission to promote "scholarly" terms. The purpose of a title is to identify an article. Within the body of the article is ample space to wax eloquent on the "scholarly" use of the word myth in relation to the subject of the article. But "myth" is not an indispensable term to the basic purpose of identifying the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: this title is neutral in that all creation myths share the same format. There is no policy-based reason for this one, or any of them, to be different. I see a lot of "I don't like it" and "it makes people uncomfortable" but no arguments based on policy. Auntie E. (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've gone through the exercise of summarising arguments for and against. It seems to me that what is claimed above is close to the truth: we are getting to the point that there is little new information (see Ben's comment). The basis of conflict is clear and the relevant policy is cited by both sides and claimed in support of both positions: all points of view from the neutral point of view--WP:NPoV. The question, according to people who've posted so far, is: whether formal use of the word "myth" (see WP:WTA) in the title presents Genesis as "purely fictitious", according to the common usage of the word, which would certainly be PoV, or whether failure to use the word in this formal sense would introduce a PoV treatment of Genesis in comparison with the creation myths covered in other articles.
 * The support case boils down to insisting on WP:UCN and the oppose case boils down to insisting on WP:WTA#Myth. Personally, I think WP:WTA trumps WP:UCN (Though it should be noted that WTA does say formal senses of myth are diverse and recommends "use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally", emphasis added). Were that all there was to the matter, were I closing this discussion, I'd close it as proposal rejected.
 * However, there is, in fact, a lot of information that has not been presented in the discussion above. If we allow the oppose case to stand--"myth" in the title is the formal usage--then the applicability of that formal usage depends on reliable sources having a unanimous (or at least consensus) agreement on the applicability of the word "myth", in its formal sense, to Genesis or to some identifiable part of Genesis. If reliable sources diverge, we cannot use the formal sense without favouring those who apply myth to Genesis over those who don't.
 * So, to close this discussion, we must turn to reliable sources of information. The support case will be upheld if it can be demonstrated that at least a significant and notable minority of scholars consider Genesis not to be formally classifiable as myth. The oppose case will be upheld if it can be demonstrated that all but a WP:UNDUE minority of scholars consider Genesis to be myth in the formal sense of the word.
 * Because of my day job, I happen to know dozens of reliable sources that think Genesis is self-consciously demythologizing literature. And that doesn't even count Genesis literalists, who I don't spend much time reading. Even excluding that--I would think--rather notable group, there is sufficient scholarly opinion that Genesis is "anti-myth" or "polemical", that Wikipedia would look ignorant or partisan were it to title this article as though they didn't exist.
 * I've interacted in this thread considerably more than I intended and now I will leave it. I think editorial opinion has gone as far as it can, and nothing new will come up. It is now up to people to actually turn to reliable sources to see how they can decide the matter for us.
 * If anyone actually looks, they will find plenty of (non-Genesis-literalist) scholars who do not think "myth" in its formal sense is a suitable description of Genesis. Anthropologically, for example, other things, but not creation, were ritualized in ancient Israel. The formal concept of myth is absolutely important in scholastic treatment of Genesis, because, in it's day, it was the mother of all myth-busters. If you can't find the scholars who say that, you're either not looking, or you're beyond help. ;)
 * Best wishes to all, Alastair Haines (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair WTA is about article content so how can it trump UCA which is about naming articles?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How does WTA lead you to that conclusion? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how Words_to_avoid (the correct link, can be used in support of the present name, which is both much less common and widely perceived as non-neutral. I accept that it can be used by scholars in a neutral way, but frankly some of the die-hard supporters of the current name have worn WP:AGF very thin indeed, if you have been watching trhe page for any length of time. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mention below, I agree with you John, the case for "myth" in the title is tenuous. However, I'm just trying to be fair. We can't write off WTA as dealing with content only. Also, I'm new to this discussion, so I couldn't express an opinion regarding WP:AGF even if I wanted to. Though I do find it hard to see how a vote or bad argument, offered in bad faith, needs any other treatment than being ignored. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Though Genesis creation story or "account" are both preferable. WP:COMMONNAME trumps the "myth" policy, and the current title is in fact strikingly rare in scholarly use as an overall term, though there is no shortage of sources treating the Genesis story as a creation myth, but that is a different matter. I won't repeat the statistics on this, originally produced by D Bachmann, but they're here. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think sources that treat Genesis as a creation myth count in favour of the current title, even if they don't show up in searches on the terms "creation myth" or "Genesis creation myth". But I don't want to frustrate people I agree with any more than I already have. Thanks for this input, John. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the title. Creation myth should be mentioned very early on, and linked, but that does not mean we need it as the title. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose but .....yech..that "note" attached to the article name needs to go! According to WP:COMMONNAME the "neutral" arguments are irrelevant. What matters is the terminology most commonly used. Using that standard, and my several very ad hoc hit counts (scoping google, google scholar, google books, the handful of online reference libraries I have access to and printed sources I've collected on the subject) to gauge common usage in reliable sources (and without the wiki padding the counts), Creation according to Genesis is the clear loser. But first is "Biblical creation story", no "myth", or Genesis creation story. Next come Genesis creation account or Biblical creation account. Both versions using "myth" fall way behind. However Creation according to Genesis is very clearly in last place. The fact that neither "Biblical creation account" or "Genesis creation account" have redirects, even while they're far more often used terms than "Genesis creation myth", is telling in itself, but having witnessed I don't know how many edit battles over pipes like Genesis creation] ], I will say both the pro and anti "myth" fiends are scratching their own private itch and need to put the guns away and defer to sources. Give It a Rest already. [[User:Professor marginalia|Professor marginalia (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose for two major reasons. First and most important, there is much academic work to support the current title for the article as legitimate and reliable. Second, the proposed alteration flagrantly violates the same policy that others accuse the current title of violating: WP:TITLE. We are told to avoid "pedantic" titles and I don't see how Creation according to Genesis (or another fanciful concoction like Creation according to the Hebrew Bible) is anything but a contrived title masquerading as an encyclopedic effort. It's not a common reference to the myth, story, or whatever you want to call it. You can't argue against the current title by butchering the very Wikipedia standards you ostensibly support.<font face="Century Gothic"> UBER ( talk ) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it strange then that there are so many more academic uses of the proposed title, and other alternatives, than the current one? See the stats. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know to which stats you refer specifically, but I do know that the word myth is used overwhelmingly in academia to describe creation accounts for cultures throughout the world.<font face="Century Gothic"> UBER ( talk ) 02:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

--
 * Summary 1

The following is a summary of comments above, irrespective who offered the comments, or how many people did. Except for comments regarding points of order (or process), comments regarding the presumed motives or attitudes or alleged behaviour of other parties have been omitted.


 * Proposal: rename (and move) article
 * Main issue: word "myth" in current title
 * Alternative titles:
 * 1a Creation according to Genesis, also
 * 1b Creation in Genesis (choice of preposition);
 * 2a Creation in prologue to Genesis, and
 * 2b Creation in Hebrew Bible (choices of scope);
 * 3a Genesis creation account, and
 * 3b Genesis creation story (choices of genre designation).


 * Points made to Support move:


 * "myth" is not neutral (implies "purely fictitious" OED, see also WP:NPoV)
 * "myth" is PoV (e.g. Julius Wellhausen thinks Gen 2 myth, Gen 1 not myth, see also WP:NPoV)
 * Sense of "myth" is not ordinary English usage (OED, see also WP:UCN)
 * Article history shows "myth" to have destabilized content -- verification?
 * Use of "myth" in title requires explicit disambiguation in text
 * Technical use of "myth" is best introduced and applied within the article
 * Many scholars believe Genesis (particularly chapter 1) to be deliberately demythologizing in an ANE literary context (WP:RS and WP:NPoV)
 * WP:COMMON; the current title is much less commonly found in scholarship than alternatives.
 * Point of order
 * Recent change of title to include "myth" based on poor process


 * Points made to Oppose move:


 * Absence of word "myth" from title implies Genesis is factual (WP:NPoV)
 * "myth" does not imply purely fictitious (see Myth)
 * "myth" applicable in anthropology when there is collective ritualization
 * "creation myth" is an inseperable collocation, or standard phrase (no one was there at the time)
 * There are lots of "creation myth" articles at Wikipedia (WP:NPoV)
 * Points of order
 * This decision has already been made
 * There is no new information in this discussion -- verification?

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment For consistency with religious cosmology, Islamic cosmology, Hindu cosmology, Buddhist cosmology etc. the correct title for this article is Judeo-Christian cosmology. Currently we have Biblical cosmology, which is not as complete and should be merged into this article, and Christian cosmology which is a redirect to Biblical cosmology. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There is so much more to this article's topic than cosmology. This article is about the creation myth found in Genesis, that is all. Ben (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support change to Biblical cosmogony or Judeo-Christian cosmogony (after corrective moves) ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support change to Biblical cosmology, and merge content into that article. Excellent catch. Ἀλήθεια 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: cool new suggestion, though it suggests a survey of all existing Genesis-Creation-Cosmology related article titles currently at Wiki wouldn't go astray in helping people consider coverage with adequate information. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment for clarification: I would be glad to assume responsibility for any searches and/or corrections or redirects should this proposal necessitate it. I very much like the idea of Cosmo...(something). In strict usage, cosmology refers to the study of the universe as it is now (or at least as it can be observed now); cosmogony refers to the study of the origins of the universe. NASA had to struggle with the terms when it conducted the Genesis Mission. (Interesting that they report no struggle with the word "Genesis" and went forth with it.) It would appear that we have some Wiki article titles that might need correction. Here is what NASA has written about it:


 * Support I don't think that "standard terms" are necessarily neutral. We say holocaust denial to indicate the widespread belief in the non-Islamic world that the Holocaust is real, and that the deniers are promoting a POV that is outside of the historical mainstream. Likewise, we speak of scientists disagreeing with the "consensus" about global warming indicating that their view is within the scientific mainstream.


 * It would really help our NPOV policy if we would take pains to use neutral titles, as opposed to titles which imply support for a mainstream against a minority. Creation in the Book of Genesis is 100% neutral, in the sense that it makes no comment on whether the Book of Genesis is right or wrong.


 * The whole point of neutrality is for us to step back editorially from presuming to evaluate the veracity of sources. We merely say that A said B about C. I thought this was settled way back in 2001 and 2002, but apparently there has arisen a "consensus" that we shouldn't be neutral any more lest we mislead our readers somehow into thinking that two opposing POV's have equal validity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In support of what Uncle Ed is saying above, I find at WP:AVOID: "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If "myth" were being meant in a non-judgmental way, there would be no need to retain it in favor of any other other neutral synonym (or in the case of "Creation in Genesis" no synonym at all).EGMichaels (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I support the move from Genesis creation myth to Creation according to Genesis. The title presently on the article gratuitously carries commentary. Titles should identify subjects and go no further. The phrase "creation myth" represents a characterization of Genesis that is not intrinsic to its identity. That other articles use the term "creation myth" may or may not be justified or represent the best title for those articles. Our responsibility is to get the title right for this article. We should not rely on what in some instances may represent missteps in naming other articles. The particulars of each article should be examined individually. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If you want to promote biblical literalism, or protect the tender eyes of Christians, go to conservapedia. It's a creation myth not unlike all the other creation myths and we should not give it any special place of privilege by naming it in a way that falsely implies some rational basis for believing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a straw man argument. I don't know of anyone promoting the view you seem to oppose.EGMichaels (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The terms "creation myth" and "creation mythology" apply ex vi termini to all religious traditions. Presuming exceptionalism for the Book of Genesis will not change either common English usage or basic Wikipedia policies. Keahapana (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't about exceptionalism, but about use. It is not the most common term, and in fact links in other articles require Creation according to Genesis in many places just to lure people into this article. If you have to hide behind an entirely different name just to pull readers in, why not use the functional name?EGMichaels (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out these redirects, many of which I've corrected. Keahapana (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support This move was done in stealth without fair consultation with the religious WikiProjects who contribute to this article. It's obvious from the great deal of opposition to the move, that the reason for this is because the move couldn't have possibly occurred otherwise. It's time to change the title back. Masterhomer 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything stealth-like in a requested move. Given the request moves results in publication at WP:RM and any relevant projects through article alerts, a wide level of notice is normally provided.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I agree, this title change was a strange move, and that it's time to change the title back. I have been fully convinced by Alastair Haines arguments and his use of sources to hold up his position. SAE (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose; those who think "myth" is pov are not familiar with the correct terminology. You might as well go argue for a move from Retraction to Changed my bullshit statement (per The Fugitive (1993 film) for those of you unfamiliar with that, as well.) Ignorance is no argument; nor is faith. This is not the Catholic Encyclopedia; nor is it Conservapedia - the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth, and the rationale for terminology is and should remain accuracy. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: My primary argument would not be that myth is POV. My primary argument is that myth is extraneous. A title doesn't need added commentary. A title needs essential material. The purpose of a title is identifying the subject of the article. Adding the word "myth" to the title adds unnecessary commentary. No — no one said this was the Catholic Encyclopedia — except you. You are arguing against a straw man. Obviously there are those for whom the Book of Genesis is literally true. But they are not arguing for an indication of that in the title. The article is adequately identified by a title such as Creation according to Genesis. Yes — the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability. And there is adequate space within the body of the article for exploring all the verifiable material pertaining to Genesis as a "creation myth." Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a page about a creation myth found in an ancient text. Creation doesn't proceed "according" to a text, that's backwards. It's like calling Ragnarök something like Destruction according to Poetic Edda. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The phrase, "Creation according to Genesis," is not prescriptive; it is descriptive. The Book of Genesis describes its version of how creation came about. It is not telling us how creation should come about, or will come about. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I think "The End of the World According to the Poetic Edda" is an interesting mental exercise that demonstrates Alastair's suggested title. "The End of the World in the Poetic Edda" simply shows a literary portion of that mythos, just as "Creation in Genesis" shows a literary portion of the biblical mythos. Readers, sources, editors, and article are completely free when discussing what the text says without embedding a value judgment within the title. Thanks for the example, Science! "The Poetic Edda End of the World Myth" is both unwieldy and unnecessary. It is more off balance than Thor's unfortunate mjolnir after Loki turned himself into a gnat and spoiled the forging of the thunder hammer. But "The End of the World in the Poetic Edda" is far superior. Perhaps we can make a small aside (while I'm offline for Pesach for the next two days) and explore the proper title for Ragnarok. OF COURSE "Ragnarok" is the best title, but only because it has such a snazzy name all to itself. Let's assume it didn't have such a cool name and come up with a different hypothetical title, using the same arguments we have been using about the present article. If a particular argument becomes recognizably silly (or unnecessary) for "Ragnarok" then we might see it easier. The first thing I would like everyone to notice, though, is that the title is not "Ragnarok myth". The "myth" is unnecessary.EGMichaels (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Poetic Edda eschatology would be the correct one since it incorporates the term in most common academic use. The parallel to something like Poetic Edda creation myth (or Book of Revelations eschatology for a needed article on the tales told in that particular book) is obvious to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)


 * Support change. I am now convinced by the sound reasoning of Alastair Haines. It would be helpful to build out the new article on Biblical cosmogony. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Friend, I like your prefered title a lot. Cosmogony specifies which parts of the Bible we are interested in conceptually, without assuming location or literary genre, nor even the kind of cosmogony—a solo creator. Those specifics we can leave to the sources. I'm rather embarrassed you attribute any reasoning to me, personally. I've tried very hard only to present the views of others, and views from quite different perspectives at that. Reasoning is something we can all do and share, it doesn't belong to any individual. But thanks anyway. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The word myth is misleading to the average user - most are not academics. rossnixon 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that Genesis creation myth is absolutely fine, as I explained in the previous section. Stop these misguided attempts to change the title.<font face="Century Gothic"> UBER ( talk ) 04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: SECOND VOTE Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? This is a vote on a different issue, or am I mistaken? That's the impression I was under. I cast the first vote in opposition to renaming the article Creation according to Genesis (or some other variant of that title) and the second vote in opposition to renaming the article Judeo-Christian cosmology or another similar variant.
 * Either way, this is not really a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. The reasoning behind my decision is more important than whether I said support, oppose, or something else.<font face="Century Gothic"> UBER ( talk ) 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to say "Comment" now.<font face="Century Gothic"> UBER ( talk ) 06:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the name is entirely factual. It is a myth (in both senses of the word), relating to creation, contained within Genesis 1.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm pretty sure I've said why before - this is an encyclopedia, not a popular journal. The name is correct and we shouldn't be taking into account the sensibilities of some people, which is that the effort to make the change is doing. WP:MOSIslam is analogy where we don't cater to the sensibilities of another religious group. The article should also use some of the material in the Encyclopedia of creation myths By David Adams Leeming & Margaret Adams Leeming, if anyone can get hold of a copy. As for the average user, well, we explain it, that's what encylopedias do. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug, for actually giving a vote to a reliable source of the PoV that Genesis contains a creation myth. Scholars of comparative literature have a voice alongside those of ancient languages, biblical studies and theology. What would help more, though, is a source that makes it clear that there is no other PoV. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Genesis is a very broad topic, and having one article on it will (and is) leading to edit warring. Better is to have a couple of articles:  one focusing on the religious aspect (Book of Genesis) and one focusing on the literary/anthropological/sociological aspect of Genesis as a creation myth in the formal sense of that term.  This article should be the latter.  The current name seems very accurate, and although I understand that many readers may not fully appreciate the term "creation myth" that is no reason to change the article's name.  --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - The last title was clearly much more stable. This one is a mess.  If someone wants to write on the current popular view of "Genesis 1 AS as Creation Myth" then please start your own article.  This article began as a description of the creation on the world as Genesis interprets/sees it.  As a source that is well over 2000 years old, I believe there is reason for analyzing it as it presents itself, rather than through forcing every reader to see it through a 21st century structure/outline/category.  Leave it be, and start your own elsewhere. 76.253.104.255 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. So what you are saying is that Creation is real and only the view on it may differ. That is an irrational, unscientific, unencyclopedic, and hence unacceptable POV that has neither a place in the article nor in its title. The position that the creation tale in Genesis has whatsoever truth about the actual origin of the world is invalid, as it is completely detached from reality due to its source in faith and subsequently only in people's minds. <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 · 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You make absolutely no rational sense. Genesis is not my pov -- at all.  Genesis is Genesis' own pov.  don't shoot the messenger, I didn't write it.  and don't get mad at me because some person/people 3000+ years ago did not feel the need to see or care whether or not Cush would vehemently disagree with their position or not.  ha!  fact is, genesis is a literary giant and it deserves to be analysed for it's opinion.  Cush's views however, because they have not such wide renown, are just pov, no matter how much you throw your arms in the air and yell "irrational, unscientific, unencyclopedic, and hence unacceptable."  76.253.104.255 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you just report what Genesis says there is no problem. But as soon as you make the claims expressed in Genesis the POV of Wikipedia you stop contributing to an encyclopedic article. <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 · 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you changing your vote Cush? "As long as you just report what Genesis says there is no problem." In which verse does it say it is a "myth"?
 * "As soon as you make the claims expressed in Genesis [you adopt its] POV". So you'd be in favour of distancing the article from its subject by use of a phrase like "according to Genesis" (i.e. not according to Wikipedia). Alastair Haines (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Genesis IS a creation myth. Creation myth is the term for a story of the origin of the world by supernatural means. Don't tell me that the opening chapters of Genesis are anything else. Why don't you just take a look at the Creation myth article and then tell me why exactly Wikipedia should treat the Judeochristian creation myth differently from other creation myths. Would you do that? <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 · 13:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Cush, I like you. I had a real go at you. You didn't bite back. Instead, you asked me to READ something ... much more constructive.
 * Impressed by that, and feeling that reading is a responsibility necessarily fulfilled before speaking I did look at Wikipedia's Creation myth article. I was a little disappointed, but hardly surprised. At least it could cite Encyclopædia Britannica for its own definition of "myth". However, Britannica has a less assertive, more precise and clear definition of "myth": "Symbolic narrative of the creation and organization of the world as understood in a particular tradition."
 * I'm not that interested in what Wikipedia articles say about things, because many of them depend on the opinions of Wikipedia editors rather than reliable sources. Wikipedia content is produced by a years-old ceremonial edit-war called a "proposal", at which editors cast votes rather than actually reverting one-another. Whichever side gets the most votes is deemed to have won the edit-war, unless an administrator with a different PoV jumps in to close the "discussion" first in favour of her or his own opinion. Fortunately, Wiki policy forsees this as a problem and makes it clear that Wiki itself should not count as a reliable source.
 * So, let's use Britannica as the basis of our original research instead. Yes! Genesis 1 most certainly is a "myth" under the definition provided by our reliable source. In fact, I particularly like Britannica's phrase "symbolic narrative". As a biblical scholar and theologian, I can confirm that this is precisely the way I understand Genesis 1. Is it now acceptable for us to retain the current title because Cush and Alastair Haines applied the Britannica definition to Genesis 1 and found a match?
 * Well, unfortunately it isn't, because you and I haven't published our opinion. That's not too much of a problem, because other people have published precisely the same opinion. But, the main problem is that party-poopers like biblical scholarship's own "Darwin", Julius Wellhausen have published views that distinguish Genesis 1 from myth. Partly that's because myth is being used in a slightly different way to the Britannica definition. In fact, myth is a bit of a slippery term. There's more to the story of what myth means in technical usage than Britannica can adequately summarise in a single sentence. If that were not so, why bother writing the rest of the Britannica article? Britannica provides a general all-purpose definition, trusting readers to exercise judgment in how rigidly they apply it. They are interested in giving a good description of the concept of myth, not in giving a good description of the content of Genesis.
 * How good is myth as a description of Genesis? We need Genesis experts familiar with myth, just as much as we need myth experts familiar with Genesis. The former actually carry more weight, because this is an article about Genesis, not about myth. Indeed myth is very much a part of understanding Genesis, according to Genesis experts, but it is a problematic term to use to describe Genesis.
 * To conclude. Alastair Haines agrees with Cush that Genesis is a myth (in Britannica's sense). However, because several scholars (whom I've read and some of whom I've cited), who know much more than me, see Genesis as "sober reflection [as opposed to] myth", "anti-mythological", "demythologizing" and "polemical", I can only conclude that they would not vote in support of the current article title, which means the current title reflects only one strand within scholastic description of Genesis. It is a PoV. So, unless this is to be a PoV fork article, it should not retain the current title. As mere editors, I don't think we get sufferage, so any "vote" I cast here is merely a proxy for those to whom WP:RS actually limits sufferage. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But does your Julius Wellhausen (whom you so inadequately call "biblical scholarship's own Darwin", which is creationist-speak) give the reasoning why Genesis is not a creation myth like all the others? How is Genesis symbolic? A symbol for what? And how can a text that so obviously recycles other creation myths not be a creation myth itself? You still fail to convey the actual arguments why the tale in the opening chapters of Genesis is not a creation myth. What exactly is there more to the story that distinguishes it from other creation myths? It's a deity performing incantation. How is that special among the plethora of stories about the deeds of gods? <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 · 16:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you're talking Cush! Questions, questions, questions! Great questions! Questions addressed by thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of sources. Questions that have different answers and different rationales in different sources.
 * This is not WikiAnswers, though. It is an encyclopedia documenting questions asked by scholars and their analyses of the issues. You're giving us an outline of the sub-topics we need to cover. Superb!
 * But, the best of your questions, imo, is "how can a text that so obviously recycles other creation myths not be a creation myth itself?"
 * The key words in that question are "obviously" and "recycles". Is recycling obvious to an untrained eye? Or do we need sources? Do they all agree?
 * Alastair is obviously recycling Cush's words. How can Alastairs obvious recycling possibly be saying anything other than what Cush has already said?
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The recycling might not be obvious to the untrained eye, but then the person with the untrained eye is not supposed to participate overmuch in an encyclopedia article, right? We want experts to be our sources. But how far does expertism go when it comes to the mythical and ultimately the supernatural? What experts and reliable sources are there for the supernatural? Really hundreds of thousands? I suppose we both know the answer to that.
 * And as for the recycling itself, we both know that the Bible extensively recycles tales that are classified as myth in this encyclopedia and in academia. So it is only logical thet the biblical tale is itself myth, or do you assume that myth suddenly turns to something else, namely an accurate historical account, when it is told by the biblical authors?
 * What it comes down to, is still the question whether Biblical Creation is real. That is the only criterion that would set the Judeochristian idea of the world's origin apart from other ideas of the world's origin. <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 · 16:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In 2001 the Conservative Movement of Judaism released a commentary stating as follows:
 * The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling.
 * So from that significant perspective, Genesis is not recycled from Gilgamesh, but parts of both go back to an original tradition. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Precisely, Til. This is like saying that humans are descended from chimpanzees.  They are not.  Both are descended from a common ancestor.EGMichaels (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What the heck are you talking about? Have I said anywhere that Genesis were some kind of textual copy of Gilgamesh (to use the example) ? I have not said that nor even hinted at. I say that the way that YHWH is described creating the world in the opening of Genesis bears resemblance to much older traditions that the authors of Genesis have certainly read of, namely Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths. I am not so stupid as to suggest any verbatim copying, rather a copying of concepts and general stories. The Flood story is another example. Of course the details are different, but the idea is the same (and even parts of the overall story).<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 · 17:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to understand that Genesis is its own species here. If we insist on too close a copying from Babylon we may miss parallels to other traditions, such as Egyptian.EGMichaels (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the Genesis stuff derives from Mesopotamian traditions. Most important of all, the biblical characters until and including Abraham are all Mesopotamian. Also, the Genesis text was assembled during and after the Babylonian Captivity and was subsequently prefixed to the Exodus material.
 * In the Ancient Middle East a constant and extensive exchange and mingling of ideas, beliefs, rituals was going on, so there was no cultural or religious isolation as many people erroneously assume today. The root is in fact Sumerian, even Egyptian tradition derive from that source. <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 · 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Although Mesopotamian accounts are the oldest preserved in writing, that does not necessarily give them precedence. Campbell, for instance, argues for an Egyptian primacy for most oriental mythology.  I have not yet read his volume, however, on occidental mythology.  I think it's important that we editors don't take our pre-existing knowledge for granted.  We are not the ultimate sources here, and need to do research in which we learn as we go, rather than merely plop down whatever we can cherry pick from our own backgrounds.  In other words, Wenham and Campbell both give Egypt more credit than you do, and I suspect they may be better sources than either you or I.EGMichaels (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, I'm not sure you're using "myth" in the way that Alastair or myself are using it. "Myth" is a literary desgination as much as anything else, involving symbolism.  Santa Claus is a "true myth" (as a metaphor for parents).  Those are real presents being left under the tree.  While "Santa Claus isn't real" is a great sandbox conversation, after a certain point people start to see that it isn't a lie, and they grow up to tell their own children the same myth.  There are three approaches to myth, then: 1) believing it as literal, 2) not believing it as literal, and 3) believing it as metaphor.  We need to move beyond 1 and 2 and get to more interesting things.EGMichaels (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please, save us your symbolism talk. Myth is just a story involving the supernatural or the mystical, there is no requirement of any symbolism. Fables include heavy symbolism and they are not necessarily myths. If a deity says "let there be light", what kind of symbolism is there included?
 * And how the heck is Santa Claus a metaphor for parents? You keep throwing around words like allegory, symbol, metaphor, and I am really not sure whether you are clear what these words in fact mean. <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 · 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apollo doesn't literally drive chariots through the sky, but the sun does move. Santa doesn't literally leave presents under the tree, but there are presents there.EGMichaels (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point being? <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 · 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus.EGMichaels (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose move, the title is accurate and neutral and in line with academic sources. We already know that some people think Genesis is literally true, that is their issue not ours. They can find a title more to their liking at Conservapedia. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy, I think you have it backwards. Those promoting the myth title do so because they believe the text to not be literally true, while refusing to accept the academic use of the term "myth" as a "symbolic narrative."  Had my "symbolic literary structure" phrase been affirmatively promoted by the "myth" side in the Words to Avoid guide, I would have easily sided with the "myth" side of the discussion.


 * The problem, then, is that the "myth" side is INSISTING in a "literal" take on the narrative -- a take neither accepted by the "non-myth" editors nor by academic sources. Ironically, it is the "non-myth" side that is open to academic use and not the "myth" side.EGMichaels (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy the current title is not in line with academic conventions at all. This text is most certainly a myth, and it is conventional to consider it a creation myth, but it is not conventional to use the phrasing that currently makes up this title when referring to this narrative.  It does happen, to be sure, but other options are much more common.  Those who keep on claiming this phrasing is the academic norm, despite being presented with evidence to the contrary appear to have little knowledge of what is "in line with academic sources".  I'm sure there are patrons of Convservapedia and other biblical literalists who would be happier to see creation myth taken out of the title, but what the heck does that have to do with this?  This sounds like guilt by association.  "If you don't agree with my view of this you must be one of them ... one of those 'others' who by definition are incapable of contributing neutrally to an encyclopedia."  I think its time for some people here to realize that there are a lot of good faith efforts going into this discussion on both sides of the aisle as well as a slew of people who really don't seem to be on either side of the proverbial aisle in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---
 * Summary 2

Many of the points noted in the first summary were supported by editors posting both in support of or opposition to reverting the current article title to the prior one. Only new (or substantially rephrased) points are included in this second list. It is noted that the 7 day period mentioned in the proposal header expired some time ago. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal: rename article
 * Main issue: word myth" in current title
 * Main new alternative titles:
 * Genesis Cosmology (universal world-view)
 * Genesis Cosmogony (theory of universal origin)


 * Two proposals for a content (PoV?) fork: e.g. Genesis 1 as creation myth


 * New points made to Support move:
 * cosmology and cosmogony reflect technical descriptive usage without the ambiguity of technical usages of myth
 * cosmology and cosmogony are neutral with regard to the truth-value of the theories they describe
 * cosmology and cosmogony are attested in the titles of Wikipedia articles, similar or related to the current one
 * Note: one editor offered to do the work necessary to generalize this terminology to article titles deemed appropriate
 * New point of order
 * clearly no consensus for current title, should revert to last title


 * New points made to Oppose move:


 * removing "myth" from the title advocates the biblical literalist PoV and censors a PoV offensive to Christians
 * religious literature purporting to address universal origins is everywhere mythological and should be noted as such without exceptions
 * ignorance of the meaning of myth is no defense under the law of "Wikipedia is not censored"
 * "Creation according to Genesis" means "Creation proceded according to the description in Genesis"
 * Genesis has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Creation Myths

Alastair Haines (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you our great summarizer now? You still fail to explain why and how the Judeochristian creation myth is different of should be treated differently from other creation myths. <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 · 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the summary, feel free to change it. I provided it as a service, not as a statement of my own opinion, nor as any claim to authority. Only reliable sources have authority at Wikipedia. Though there are certainly plenty of urban myths here to the contrary of that.
 * Regarding why this topic might need different treatment, there are sources quoted on this talk page that answer your question, Cush. Though I agree with you, those arguing for a change of title have not addressed that objection explicitly. I can't know for certain, but that might be because they don't see it as a particularly strong objection. Are all religions the same, in all aspects? Are they in this one? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

---

"I would say it is clear that you do not understand neutrality - and if there is anything on that page which creates this misunderstanding, it needs to be fixed. Neutrality means that Wikipedia should not take a stand on any controversial issue - it is absolutely the case that we should factor in whether or not people would be offended when working on an article title when that offense stems from the title making a controversial assertion with which they do not agree. The goal is not to "not offend people" but rather to ensure that Wikipedia is not taking a stand. Give the facts in the body of the article, give them in a manner that everyone can agree with, and name the article accordingly. "Genesis creation myth" is blatantly and obviously not neutral on the key question of whether or not this story is true. We should not, equally, choose a title which suggests that the story is true, for example "Creation" without a qualifier would be a bad title for this article. Or How God Created The World - very bad. But "Creation according to Genesis" or similar does the correct thing - it avoids drawing any conclusion about that bit. The key here is that there have been produced, as far as I have seen, no arguments against that title that have been persuasive at all." --User:Jimbo Wales.
 * Observation by Jimbo (Transplant From Jimbo's Talk Page)
 * Clearly I respect the opinion of our founder, but I'm also very skeptical about what he's saying here. For example, Wikipedia takes decisive and brutally honest stances on "controversial" issues such as Evolution and Global warming, which are both among our best articles. We don't say "Climate change" or some other such hogwash that politicians have been recently publicizing in lieu of Global warming. We call it like it is: the Earth is warming, so the article is called Global warming. The current title does not take a stand on the issue; its title and its content reflects the information found in reputable sources. No one is trying to be offensive here, and it's really difficult to predict how any given person is going to react to any random Wikipedia article. People take offense at very unexpected things sometimes. Our job is not to worry about who we might "offend," but rather to worry about accurately presenting reputable sources. This policy gets amended a little bit when we're dealing with living persons, but even then we can report "controversial" information if it's found in reputable sources. I just fundamentally disagree with the rationale of Mr. Wales.


 * But here's what's also funny: even if you agree with Mr. Wales, the argument he presents appears to advocate removing the word myth from any and all articles that currently contain it. If, in his opinion (and not, by the way, in the opinion of academia), the word myth could somehow refer to the falsehood or veracity of the account, then all those other articles also violate WP:NPOV and need to be retitled. Like I said, I don't agree with his reasoning, but I'm trying to flesh out the implications of his ideas, which reach far beyond this article.<font face="Century Gothic"> UBER ( talk ) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jimbo Wales: Please explain why you object to Genesis creation myth, but not to Chinese creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths. In what way is the Judeochristian idea of the world's origin less a creation myth than the others?
 * As has been discussed here at great length before "Creation according to Genesis" is not neutral language. "Creation according to A", "Creation according to B", "Creation according to Genesis" implies that Creation is real and only its description varies. <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 · 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have to side with Jim here. Genesis 1-2 contains a creation myth/sacred history/allegory/foundational religious document/metaphor/a dozen other things you can call it.  Mythologists will argue that it borrows from Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian sources, while biblical commentators will often as not argue it is an anti-mythological polemic.  While the subject of Genesis as myth and in relation to myth certainly must be addressed, the title should be worded in a neutral manner.  I'd add that the title should be worded in an accessible manner.  The "Genesis creation myth" title has spawned at least a half dozen other forwarding titles because no one would think of looking for the subject under that title.  While I do regard it as a creation myth, it would never occur to me to look for the cosmogony of a living religion under a title normally used for an extinct religion.  If you have a title so bad that you need a bunch of forwarding titles to get you there, why not just use one of those forwarding titles?EGMichaels (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Cush -- as far as I can tell those are all extinct religions. The terms "myth" and "religion" are often used to differentiate between dead and living belief systems.  It's not really a value judgment so much as a historical designation.  It's not really neutral to call a living religion a myth because there is always someone to argue about it, but all the proponents of a dead religion are, well, dead.EGMichaels (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, there are always some people who still adhere to "extinct" beliefs. Second, it is a fallacy to assume that present beliefs are somehow less mythical than past beliefs. And it is a pretty arrogant self-righteous position also. Sumerian or Egyptian religion were certainly more beautiful than the modern one-dimensional abrahamic ideology. And to call King Solomon less mythical than, say, King Arthur is simply ridiculous. <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 ·  11:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we're connecting on the term "neutral." To be, er, bland, "neutral" is that place you and I aren't arguing before we even begin an investigation of a topic.EGMichaels (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To call past beliefs myth while you imply your current belief is something else, is not neutral whatsoever. Any wording that sets one religion over another is not neutral, no matter how extinct you think a religion is. If you take the position that YHWH has a different reality to it than, say, the Greek pantheon, you leave the neutral position. <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 ·  11:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep acting like I'm personalizing this in some way. I'm not.  Islam is a religion.  Judaism is a religion.  Christianity is a religion.  Mormonism is a religion.  Hinduism is a religion.  I most certainly do NOT believe ALL of these religions; I merely recognize that people do.  At one time the Norse beliefs were a religion.  While one could argue that all religions are mythologies, not all mythologies are religions (see Religion).  Tolkien's mythology is not a religion because no one believes it.  Therefore, one could see a "religion" as a specific subset of "mythology" in which adherents still exist.EGMichaels (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but once the religions that have adherents today were contemporary to religions that have in the meantime fallen out of popularity. A religion is a concept and as such is timeless. Also, I see no structural difference between current religions and past ones, especially since current religions derive from past ones. Judaism is so pumped full with Zoroastrianism and Christianity with Mithraism it is just dishonest to draw any dividing line as if there were a substantial difference between adherence to myth and religion. Religion is just the ritualized adherence to the mythical. Time is irrelevant when it comes to the alleged supernatural. <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 · 12:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The distinction is made in what is a significant viewpoint nowadays. The argument of ancient religions being followed today seems out-to-lunch. I've seen absolutely no evidence of any significant population of followers of ancient pagan beliefs, who take the Greek myths seriously today, or who specifically object to their being agreed upon as "myths" by everyone. (If there is, show it) That's why currently-held widespread and significant POVs are treated so different from extinct ones, and that's a complete red herring analogy.  On the contrary, the one neo-pagan group that has even a barely noticeable size, Asatru, has specifically issued statements that they do consider the Norse myths to be myths, and do not take them as true, nor object to their being called myths. So we can say that there is no demonstrable POV objecting to the Norse sagas being treated as myths; but the same cannot be said for the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, or the Sutras which are all currently widespread.  So I have to agree with the other posters that Jimbo's right on this one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the founder of Wikipedia, furthermore I move that we change the article back to its original title "Creation According to Genesis" on April 5 since there have been no persuasive arguments presented for the current objectionable title. Deadtotruth (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This new RM and the archives are full of persuasive arguments: any reason attached to an oppose vote was obviously persuasive to the person giving it. Ben (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments based on false information and invalid logic typically have pursuaded not only the person who offers them, but frequently others as well. But so what? A polite critic might not come right out and say "that's false and illogical," but rather "that hasn't pursuaded me and won't pursuade others." I fail to see how the personal convictions of editors at Wiki are relevant to establishing content, or resolving conflict. Indeed, that's been argued by the oppose voters several times: we don't make decisions based on protecting people's feelings. The supporters of the move have agreed with that point. We must decide whether to move or not to move on the basis of reliable sources, policy and reason, whether people feel pursuaded the move is right or wrong is not really relevant to the decision. It is nice if everyone feels pursuaded it's right, but the only way to maximise those good vibes is to have sound sense which produces con-sensus. Sometimes people refuse to accept reason, or simply can't follow it. Those difficulties should and must be dealt with personally, but cannot be allowed to influence decision making.
 * That said, it's really nice to hear you caring about people's feelings, Ben, and I for one am right behind you in that. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is so much to read on this talkpage, that I am only now catching up with the discussion this morning below, when Cush suggested the compromise title "Biblical Creation", and several editors agreed that it is fitting. So now let me add my 2 cents to everyone else who said that this is a surprisingly good title.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, it should go without saying that 99% of the comments here were actually believed by the person making them -- but conviction is not the same as persuasion. I could be convinced that Jesus is God or that Jesus is not God, but a simple statement either way would not be persuasive.


 * Further, to be persuasive one must be on point. Most of the arguments I've seen in favor of the myth title fall into several unpersuasive categories:


 * It IS myth. Sure it is, but that isn't a reason to have it in the title.
 * Every scholar says it's a myth. First, NOT every scholar says it is a myth.  And second, the veracity of it as "myth" is not an argument to have it in the title (see first bullet).
 * Everyone opposing the myth title must be a raving literalist. As pointed out in the "Evolutionists only, please" thread, the vast majority of those opposing the current title accept the status of the passage as myth and accept the fact of evolution.  The argument is unpersuasive because the ad hominem is misdirected.


 * While I share your conviction and assumptions, I have not found your arguments regarding the title to be persuasive. Neither, apparently, has Jimbo.  Can we all agree that neither "myth" nor "fact" in the title is seen to be "neutral" by all parties?  And can we at least agree to EXPLORE a third alternative that would actually be neutral?


 * My own choice of title would be something that a normal rational speaker of English would think to search for if he were trying to find the subject we are discussing. I'd rather have a title I didn't like that people could FIND than a perfectly esoteric one no one would look for.  Charles Schulz positively LOATHED the title "Peanuts", but that was the only title he could get a contract for, and the rest is history.EGMichaels (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I'd like to echo Til's admiration for Cush's "biblical creation." It's a fine title.EGMichaels (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposed title implies that creation happened and that Genesis documents it. This falls short in the NPOV department. "Genesis creation myth" is a correct, common, scholarly and neutral term for this creation myth. I might have not bothered to oppose "Genesis creation story", though I think that too is an inferior title. And at the moment, it would similarly be special treatment for this particular creation myth (systemic bias). Also, creating requested moves until getting the "right" result is ill-advised and disruptive if the beating of a dead horse continues aggressively enough. The recent appeal to Jimbo was quite timely. The RM backlog certainly does not need to be expanded with the same proposals again and again. Prolog (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. Sometimes I think I am at a Discovery Institute website... <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 · 11:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps we need a new proposal, and an extension of time. We want a stable title and perhaps neither the current title nor the previous one will provide that. Perhaps we need to settle precisely what scope of content is expected first, then find a title for that.
 * Perhaps that content genuinely needs two articles: 1. "the demonstrable falsity of the picture of the physical aspects of the early universe in Genesis 1 if taken literally" (which conservative theists like myself will support, with the exception of literalist creationists, who should still be documented as a notable PoV against); and 2. "the metaphysical/theological implications of the Genesis 1 text as understood in the history of interpretation". I'm personally interested in (2), and find it rather a nuisance that people want to hijack a very important, interesting, beautiful and complex set of issues in an ongoing discussion among biblical scholars, to address the very mundane matter of (1) instead. No doubt others are just as irritated to find convoluted discussions of Hebrew grammar and debates about metaphysical nonsense, when what really matters is people being clear that Genesis 1 is most unsuited to being a science text book for school students.
 * Perhaps (1) is already covered in other articles? Would it hurt for it to have its own, though?
 * (2) still needs to work out its own scope questions: whole Bible or just Genesis 1, Genesis 1-2, Genesis 1-4? It probably needs to be bigger than Gen 1, 'cause that has its own article already.
 * Please note carefully, I am proposing a content fork, not a PoV fork. I suspect a good deal of recent friction is due to mistaking content differences for PoV differences. Sort that out and we just might find stability is the result.
 * I don't know what the appropriate process is to "roll over" this discussion into a new proposal or proposals like those I've suggested. And I'm not sure whether it's necessary. I'd particularly like to hear back from Weapon on this. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur on the questions of scope, and I share your interest in item 2 and weariness of item 1. I feel like I'm attempting to engage in a discussion of the thematic structure of "The Godfather" only to keep hearing "but Al Pacino isn't REALLY a criminal in real life!!!"  Oy!  Yes, it's myth, great -- but that doesn't END the question; rather, it STARTS the question.  "Myth" is a symbolic literary structure that makes a "tale" something meaningful.  I'd like to explore what makes this a "myth" rather than a mere "tale."  But those who use "myth" as some kind of slap are bogging down the rest of us who are actually INTERESTED in myth.EGMichaels (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As an outsider I read this on Jimbo Wales' web page, and initially the move sounded like a fair idea - but User:Nefariousski's logic changed my mind.  We can't have Chinese creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths, Creation Myth, Uranus (mythology), Earth-maker myth, Baluba mythology but Creation according to Genesis.  It makes Wikipedia sound like it is only sensitive to the complaints of Americans and maybe some Europeans (which is true, but no need to make things worse).
 * I should add that if the current name is retained, it would be desirable to quickly qualify the term by explaining what a myth and a creation myth is in the non-pejorative sense, providing a Wikilink to an article about other such myths e.g. creation myth.
 * On the other hand, if a move is insisted upon, then the new name should be Genesis account of Creation rather than Creation according to Genesis for reasons of NPOV discussed, and because it is probably a more standard phrase. Note that the phrase "Biblical account of [creation]" is already used in the first sentence, which I assume has also been discussed in some depth. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The thought is appreciated, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. If you give reasons to believe the other page titles are legitimate the analogy might be useful, but then the same arguments might as well be applied directly to this article, so mention of the others would again be superfluous. You know?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose this blatant novel synthesis. What kind of conceit is this? Sitting down to decide what esoteric term we can use that will be least offensive to the fundamentalists? Away with you. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFL! Can you offer anything constructive, Guy? In case you missed the point here, we're looking for anything to replace the blatant novel synthesis of the current title--an esoteric term designed to offend literalists of one kind, while leaving another complacent in their naivety. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy, the only people here who are taking Genesis literalistically are those who demand no alternative to "myth" in the title. In short, they are trying to disabuse the non-myth advocates of a belief they do not hold.  It's like that old question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"  The question is unanswerable by someone who never beat his wife to begin with.  I've repeatedly (as have others) been forced to defend my own acceptance of evolutionary theory, as well as my own acceptance that Genesis does indeed contain a "creation myth."  And yet I see this as a poor choice of title for several reasons:
 * It is not being used in an academic way as a "symbolic narrative." Your own post here demonstrates this, because you keep leveling the question on whether or not Genesis is literally true, when as far as I can tell almost no one on any side of this discussion believes Genesis is literally true.  In fact, you are insisting on a literal interpretation that is not shared by the consensus of those on the "non-myth" side of the discussion.
 * The academic use as a "symbolic narrative" was in fact not supported in the Words to Avoid guidelines by the "myth" advocates, demonstrating that they were not only failing to use the term "myth" in an academic way, but were actively opposed to doing so.
 * The academic descriptions of this narrative use a number of terms as alternatives to "myth." The "myth" advocates are adamantly refusing to even consider other terms used in academic writings.  And in fact it has been demonstrated a number of times that "myth" is in a distinct minority of academic labels for this narrative.


 * Please note that when I first came to this page I voted in favor of the title "Genesis creation myth." It was only after finding that those advocating "myth" were doing so in a non-academic way that I changed my position to oppose the current title.  We editors on Wikipedia are required to edit in a NPOV manner, using notable and reliable sources.  Those notable and reliable sources offer a number of alternatives to the term "myth" that are in fact more commonly used in those sources than the term "myth" -- and those using the term "myth" are doing so with an academic meaning adamantly opposed by the "myth" editors here.  We at Wikipedia cannot do this.  If you wish to write a blog or a book, go ahead, but at Wikipedia we have guidelines to follow.EGMichaels (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Relax EGM. We are not voting here. Placing a signature next to the word Support or Oppose only says "I can't think of anything more to add to the current discussion, all that needs to be said has been said, as far as I'm concerned." Guy has in fact contributed, he's said he doesn't think he can do better than the arguments already put forward for the phrase "creation myth". He's not interested that Julius Wellhausen thinks Genesis 2 is myth but Genesis 1 is not, nor that Gerhard von Rad thinks Genesis 1 is anti-mythological. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough -- I'll be forced to relax anyway since I'll be involved with real life for the next few weeks. Thanks for the reminder!EGMichaels (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For context, I decided to do a quick, informal check using Google Books: 775 results for "Creation according to Genesis", many of which are books presenting the creation myth as fact, and 1,140 results for "Genesis creation myth" or "Creation myth in/of Genesis", many of which are books examining the creation myth from an academic standpoint. I noticed that a high number of publications were over 50 years old, so I decided to break down the results by time period:
 * Oppose move. My first preference is the current title, because "creation myth" is the commonly used phrase among the sources. My second preference would be "Genesis creation story" so long as the other creation myth articles were also moved. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose any move away from the current title (Genesis creation myth). Creation myth is an established, accepted, and neutral concept; Wikipedia must adhere to reliable sources, and reliable sources clearly support the current usage.


 * The results are striking and, to the extent that one can draw conclusions from the sample provided by Google Books, show a clear shift over time toward usage of "Genesis creation myth" over "Creation according to Genesis". -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A similar analysis using Google Scholar:


 * In general, both the overall pattern and the specific percentages are quite close in both analyses. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2: Biblical Creation
I hereby suggest to change the title of this article to "Biblical Creation". In this the scope and context of the article is conveyed, while controversial terms as "myth", "story", "account" are avoided. Also, with this title the article can be found easily in a visitor's search. <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 · 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support EGMichaels (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support i never thought it would be Cush who would come up with the the most fitting compromise Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Biblical creation is a term that would not be limited to Genesis since Colossians, John, etc. have passages that address creation. I believe that this would dramatically increase the scope of the article. I would not opppose the "biblical creation" title if the group wants to make that change.Deadtotruth (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the creation stuff is expressed in Genesis, the other paasages are negligible. The Judeochristian creation myth is the incantation by YHWH in the six days described in Genesis. <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 · 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as one of many good possible titles. This one is particularly suitable to possibly end up being a parent article to more specific topics, which might be very much less contentious, if we end up doing the hard work sourcing the top-level conceptual focus this proposed title zeros in on. Bravo Cush! Alastair Haines (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As if a third RM wasn't bad enough, this RM is now in its own third cycle: the original by Weaponbb7 (who now appears to have abandoned it), a cosmogony/cosmology cycle and now this one. This endless cycle of WP:IDONTLIKEIT needs to stop. This article's topic is centred on Genesis, in particular the creation myth contained within, not the Bible as a whole where there is much further discussion of creation. If you feel this project could support an article with broader scope then by all means go and create it (where a suitable article title can also be discussed), but there is more than enough material on the Genesis creation myth to support an article on just the Genesis creation myth and I as a reader of this encyclopedia would be interested in an article on the Genesis creation myth. A subsection of the new article will obviously discuss the Genesis creation myth and point here for further discussion and this article should point back to the new broader article. I look forward to seeing the new article unfold, but for now the title of this article is fine as is and I oppose any change for the sake of the removal of the obviously relevant and suitable term creation myth. Ben (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I do not know if this is the best title but it is certainly better than the current one. If it means helping you all get over this mess then I would also support it.   There are two major reasons why the current title is a poor choice and these reasons appear to be misunderstood by many of the people commenting here.
 * 1) "Genesis creation myth" is NOT a commonly used phrase in scholarship at all. If you asked scholars from a variety of relevant fields and sub-disciplines whether or not this section of Genesis is a "creation myth" there would be widespread agreement that it is a creation myth.  However, you'd be hard pressed to find these scholars actually referring to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth."  Instead you would find a wide variety of other options the most common utilizing terms like "story," "account", or "narrative" instead of "creation myth" -- again despite the fact that these scholars would agree that it is an example of a creation myth.  If we were really following the scholarly view the body of the article would be clear about the notion that this is a creation myth, which it is already, but the awkward title would be gone.
 * 2) "Creation myth" is NOT conventionally utilized in the title of an article of this type across Wikipedia. I tried starting a discussion of the actual conventions below but it went dead in the water when I asked for contradictory examples from someone who did not agree with my points.  A very small minority of articles tagged with the "creation myth" category use the term in their titles, even though they make it clear right away what their subject matter is.  If this article had a different title (and possibly different a scope) it might conventionally be named something like Ancient Near Eastern creation myths, and that would follow the convention.  However, naming a narrative and then utilizing "creation myth" is not conventional.  Anybody with two minutes on their hands can see this for themselves.  Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Actually, "Creation myth" IS conventionally utilized in the title of an article of this type across 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 · 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is used where appropriate, I think in 5 other cases - see Category:Creation myths. But most articles in this category have other types of name, as individually appropriate, which is correct. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Please see the thread below titled "Looking past the obvious".  It is used only in a handful of cases in the following formula -- "name of civilization" + "creation myth".  When discussing specific narratives with other names it is never or almost never utilized.   I provided examples below and have asked for counter examples but I don't see any.  Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as better than current title. "Genesis creation story" or "account" are better still. I agree with Griswaldo's comments, and see mine at various points above. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support SAE (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Present title is neutral, factual and precise.  Please stop trying to change this by proposing titles that are less factual and less precise.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the present title is neutral, factual, and precise, but unfortunately the majority of editors here are unable or unwilling to see beyond their religiosity, and they insisted that exceptions be made for their belief system. So I came up with a compromise. <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 · 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...which, we hope, will also satisfy the zealots from the Atheism project who have previously insisted on this title, which is so very rarely found in scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is only because most scholarship is not religiously neutral or objective. After all, admitting that one's religion is the same stuff as every other religion means to destroy the very basis of ones faith. There is no intellectual honesty to be expected from believers. How could they possibly say that YHWH is in the same category of world views as Krishna, Horus, Odin, Zeus, and whatnot without admitting that their own personal adherence is pointless? Religious people are in a COI when it comes to determining reality or even in comparing their own faith to others. <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 · 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the new proposed title is inadequate, since there is more to creation in the Bible than just Genesis 1. The "rarely found in scholarship" is a red herring.  If scholars refer to the content of Genesis as "creation myth", then "Genesis creation myth" is a legitimate title.  There are plenty of what look to be reasonably respectable works in Google searches for the phrase (i.e. they're not word lists or link spam), and there are similar results using the formulations "creation myth of Genesis" or "creation my found in Genesis", etc.  That a certain group of people choose not to use the words is precisely that order is neither here nor there, since in this case it does not result in a significant change in meaning.  This compromise is a poor solution in search of a problem.  Much of the points made in favour of a title change boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reason why most editors reject "creation myth" as part of the title is their own conviction. That is why they ask for an exception that their belief system be treated differently from all the others. Since creationism and similar ideologies are on the rise it is not surprising that the war over truth has finally come to Wikipedia, after it has been going on in school boards and courts for decades now. Just look to YouTube, which has become the battleground for this in the internet. <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 · 07:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, why are you pandering to them? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely not a red herring -- though I think the term "rarely" may be a tad too strong. I found something rather informative in the archives -- Talk:Genesis_creation_myth/Archive_7.  I'll copy the links to Google books, scholar, etc. here with an addition:
 * "Biblical creation" has by far the most hits in Google scholar but I'm not entirely sure how that parses in in terms of actually referring to the content of this article. After that "story", is the clear winner with "account" running a close second and "myth" lagging rather far behind.   Of course there are scholars that use the term myth in relation to this story. Doing so may also be more normative in select contexts, like comparative religion, but those contexts are not producing a majority of the work related to these passages.  The red herring comes from the false assumption that scholars tend to refer to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth" because they agree with the categorization.  I think there is another false general assumption going around that the term "myth" has some monolithic, agreed upon and neutral definition in scholarship when the real picture is not that rosy.  Using the term when referring to Genesis, to Hindu narratives, to native American stories, or creation myths from any other corner of the world may carry baggage with it -- baggage that can range from the purely definitional to the ideological (see Bruce Lincoln's Theorizing Myth for instance).  Of course the same could be said about terms like "religion", "ritual", "culture", etc. and the point isn't that debates and disagreements render these terms useless, but at the same time acting like these debates don't exist is naive at best. The argument from authority that keeps cropping up here is possibly the reddest of herrings.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm recalling another misleading argument I've read on these pages. There are those who claim that this isn't about the term "myth" but about some more specialized term called "creation myth". Sure it is ... but that specialized term is only specialized because it describes a specific category of myth.  In other words the "myth" in creation myth is 100% synonymous with "myth" more generally. This is a non-argument, but I remembered reading it because I realize that I've brought up issues involving "myth" generally and it would be nice to forgo the "this isn't about myth but about 'creation myth' rebuttal".Griswaldo (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The use or otherwise of the exact phrase "Genesis creation myth" absolutely is a red herring. By that sort of argument, we shouldn't use titles such as Georgia (country) because nobody refers to it as "Georgia (country)" with the parentheses.  It's already been pointed out that "Biblical Creation" is inadequate, since there are multiple accounts of various aspects of "creation" in the Bible.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That comparison is rather far from being spot on I'm afraid. 1) The current title is not "Genesis (creation myth)" and 2) the creation narrative in Genesis is part of the larger text and not one of several referents of a homonym that need to be differentiated with parenthetical clarifications.  More importantly the scholarship issue has been brought up to suggest other other exacting phrases that are preferred by scholars over the current one.  I'm sorry but no rationale is provided for why we should go with less common and more awkward language here.  Outside of common and specialist use the logical argument is also lacking.  All myths are by definition narratives (or stories).  Logically it makes complete sense to call any myth a narrative.  The question becomes whether or not it is preferable to get a bit more specific.  Once again I wonder why we would do so when scholars chose not to most often.  It would be nice to have the (pseudo)empirical evidence of scholarly usage actually dealt with head on instead of dismissed as a red herring, which strikes me as pure evasion.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Biblical creation" has by far the most hits in Google scholar but I'm not entirely sure how that parses in in terms of actually referring to the content of this article. After that "story", is the clear winner with "account" running a close second and "myth" lagging rather far behind.   Of course there are scholars that use the term myth in relation to this story. Doing so may also be more normative in select contexts, like comparative religion, but those contexts are not producing a majority of the work related to these passages.  The red herring comes from the false assumption that scholars tend to refer to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth" because they agree with the categorization.  I think there is another false general assumption going around that the term "myth" has some monolithic, agreed upon and neutral definition in scholarship when the real picture is not that rosy.  Using the term when referring to Genesis, to Hindu narratives, to native American stories, or creation myths from any other corner of the world may carry baggage with it -- baggage that can range from the purely definitional to the ideological (see Bruce Lincoln's Theorizing Myth for instance).  Of course the same could be said about terms like "religion", "ritual", "culture", etc. and the point isn't that debates and disagreements render these terms useless, but at the same time acting like these debates don't exist is naive at best. The argument from authority that keeps cropping up here is possibly the reddest of herrings.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm recalling another misleading argument I've read on these pages. There are those who claim that this isn't about the term "myth" but about some more specialized term called "creation myth". Sure it is ... but that specialized term is only specialized because it describes a specific category of myth.  In other words the "myth" in creation myth is 100% synonymous with "myth" more generally. This is a non-argument, but I remembered reading it because I realize that I've brought up issues involving "myth" generally and it would be nice to forgo the "this isn't about myth but about 'creation myth' rebuttal".Griswaldo (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The use or otherwise of the exact phrase "Genesis creation myth" absolutely is a red herring. By that sort of argument, we shouldn't use titles such as Georgia (country) because nobody refers to it as "Georgia (country)" with the parentheses.  It's already been pointed out that "Biblical Creation" is inadequate, since there are multiple accounts of various aspects of "creation" in the Bible.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That comparison is rather far from being spot on I'm afraid. 1) The current title is not "Genesis (creation myth)" and 2) the creation narrative in Genesis is part of the larger text and not one of several referents of a homonym that need to be differentiated with parenthetical clarifications.  More importantly the scholarship issue has been brought up to suggest other other exacting phrases that are preferred by scholars over the current one.  I'm sorry but no rationale is provided for why we should go with less common and more awkward language here.  Outside of common and specialist use the logical argument is also lacking.  All myths are by definition narratives (or stories).  Logically it makes complete sense to call any myth a narrative.  The question becomes whether or not it is preferable to get a bit more specific.  Once again I wonder why we would do so when scholars chose not to most often.  It would be nice to have the (pseudo)empirical evidence of scholarly usage actually dealt with head on instead of dismissed as a red herring, which strikes me as pure evasion.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Biblical creation" has by far the most hits in Google scholar but I'm not entirely sure how that parses in in terms of actually referring to the content of this article. After that "story", is the clear winner with "account" running a close second and "myth" lagging rather far behind.   Of course there are scholars that use the term myth in relation to this story. Doing so may also be more normative in select contexts, like comparative religion, but those contexts are not producing a majority of the work related to these passages.  The red herring comes from the false assumption that scholars tend to refer to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth" because they agree with the categorization.  I think there is another false general assumption going around that the term "myth" has some monolithic, agreed upon and neutral definition in scholarship when the real picture is not that rosy.  Using the term when referring to Genesis, to Hindu narratives, to native American stories, or creation myths from any other corner of the world may carry baggage with it -- baggage that can range from the purely definitional to the ideological (see Bruce Lincoln's Theorizing Myth for instance).  Of course the same could be said about terms like "religion", "ritual", "culture", etc. and the point isn't that debates and disagreements render these terms useless, but at the same time acting like these debates don't exist is naive at best. The argument from authority that keeps cropping up here is possibly the reddest of herrings.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm recalling another misleading argument I've read on these pages. There are those who claim that this isn't about the term "myth" but about some more specialized term called "creation myth". Sure it is ... but that specialized term is only specialized because it describes a specific category of myth.  In other words the "myth" in creation myth is 100% synonymous with "myth" more generally. This is a non-argument, but I remembered reading it because I realize that I've brought up issues involving "myth" generally and it would be nice to forgo the "this isn't about myth but about 'creation myth' rebuttal".Griswaldo (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The use or otherwise of the exact phrase "Genesis creation myth" absolutely is a red herring. By that sort of argument, we shouldn't use titles such as Georgia (country) because nobody refers to it as "Georgia (country)" with the parentheses.  It's already been pointed out that "Biblical Creation" is inadequate, since there are multiple accounts of various aspects of "creation" in the Bible.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That comparison is rather far from being spot on I'm afraid. 1) The current title is not "Genesis (creation myth)" and 2) the creation narrative in Genesis is part of the larger text and not one of several referents of a homonym that need to be differentiated with parenthetical clarifications.  More importantly the scholarship issue has been brought up to suggest other other exacting phrases that are preferred by scholars over the current one.  I'm sorry but no rationale is provided for why we should go with less common and more awkward language here.  Outside of common and specialist use the logical argument is also lacking.  All myths are by definition narratives (or stories).  Logically it makes complete sense to call any myth a narrative.  The question becomes whether or not it is preferable to get a bit more specific.  Once again I wonder why we would do so when scholars chose not to most often.  It would be nice to have the (pseudo)empirical evidence of scholarly usage actually dealt with head on instead of dismissed as a red herring, which strikes me as pure evasion.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The use or otherwise of the exact phrase "Genesis creation myth" absolutely is a red herring. By that sort of argument, we shouldn't use titles such as Georgia (country) because nobody refers to it as "Georgia (country)" with the parentheses.  It's already been pointed out that "Biblical Creation" is inadequate, since there are multiple accounts of various aspects of "creation" in the Bible.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That comparison is rather far from being spot on I'm afraid. 1) The current title is not "Genesis (creation myth)" and 2) the creation narrative in Genesis is part of the larger text and not one of several referents of a homonym that need to be differentiated with parenthetical clarifications.  More importantly the scholarship issue has been brought up to suggest other other exacting phrases that are preferred by scholars over the current one.  I'm sorry but no rationale is provided for why we should go with less common and more awkward language here.  Outside of common and specialist use the logical argument is also lacking.  All myths are by definition narratives (or stories).  Logically it makes complete sense to call any myth a narrative.  The question becomes whether or not it is preferable to get a bit more specific.  Once again I wonder why we would do so when scholars chose not to most often.  It would be nice to have the (pseudo)empirical evidence of scholarly usage actually dealt with head on instead of dismissed as a red herring, which strikes me as pure evasion.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, you make some excellent points of logic that are hjard to refute. One thing, when you say "Doing so [ie defining scripture as myth] may also be more normative in select contexts, like comparative religion" - I'm not so sure Comparative religion is right either.  The first thing I learned in University Comp Religion class (in the 80's, but still true today) is that the modern landscape of world religion is predominantly divided into major quadrants represented by the Bible, Quran, Vedas, and Sutras (and of course many other doctrines outside these).  The second thing we learned was not to refer to any of these as "myths" or "mythology" since it was not neutral and offensive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it truly a comparative religion class or a survey class of a group of religions? Either way I cannot speak to what your professor told you specifically about this and there are concurrent differences in opinion, and also fads that come and go.  Note as well that I think of this as "more" normative in a field like comparative religion than lets say Biblical studies.  Also please understand that I am neither a comparative religionist nor a Biblical scholar, though I think there are some folks that hang around here who have a more intimate knowledge of those fields, and they may well tell you I'm not entirely correct.  However it is uncontroversial to state the modern study of myth is itself born out of comparative religion (or vice versa) and is loaded with comparitivist assumptions.Griswaldo (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it was a top Canadian University (Dalhousie) so it was fairly in depth course on Comp Religion, with plenty of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist students. This particular professor was from India, I still vividly recall his telling the entire class while forbidding the use of 'myth': "This would be tantamount to saying 'my orgasms are cool, and yours are not'." Somehow, one never forgets a statement like that.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, although I like the term "myth" and can freely use it for my own religious experience, I recognize that only Alastair uses the term "myth" the way I do -- as a symbolic narrative. It's a rather academic use of the word, and can be used positively and affirmatively for your own beliefs.  C. S. Lewis is a well known example of a person who actually converted to Christianity because it was "myth."  But, then, C. S. Lewis was an academic.  My experience on this page is that "myth" is absolutely not being used in this academic sense.  None of those promoting or open to the use of the term "myth" (other than myself) were using it in reference to their own faith.  Further, the arguments being given were along the lines of Genesis not being true.  Fine.  It's not literally true.  But neither are most stories we find so meaningful that we govern our lives by them.  Who cares that "To Kill a Mockingbird" is not literally true?  I even attempted to tweak the use of the term Myth in the guidelines by adding "symbolic literary structure" but didn't really get any support for that to take with me to some village pump, so I tabled it for now.  In any case, the term "myth" should NEVER be used for another person's religion, period.  You can use it for your own religion, or for a dead one, but not for another living religion.  If you do, you are being deliberately insulting and pejorative, and to claim "academic use" as a way to insult the other person's intelligence is to triple the insult: 1) to insult him with the term, 2) to insult his "lack of academic sophistication" by taking offense, and 3) to insult his intelligence with such a baloney excuse.  Let's accept that "myth" for living religions is poor form and move on.  And if we cannot accept that ourselves, let's at least accept the fact that everyone else on the planet accepts it.EGMichaels (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Scholars consider Genesis 1 to be anti-mythological and demythologizing, which is also neutral, factual and precise. Calling a demythologizing symoblic narrative a myth is rather gauche, therefore hardly a title de rigeur, however true. It may be neutral, but it's still PoV taken technically. If it's taken non-technically, it's blatantly non-neutral, as well as PoV. When last I checked atheism was still a non-neutral PoV. The very essence of neutrality is agnosticism, let's stick to it please, and keep working towards consensus--a title with sense that all can see. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is a story involving a deity possibly not mythological? And could you please demonstrate that the overall determination of what the creation narrative in Genesis is, is by the majority of scholars, theologians, anthropologists, etc described anti-mythological and demythologizing? The only two ways that Genesis is not myth is that it is either an accurate historical and astrophysical account (and that is without any evidence whatsoever, in fact the evidence is 100% against that), or Genesis is rather a literary play and only symbolic in its meaning, but then you need to explain for what it is a symbol or allegory or whatever form of substitution you suggest. <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 · 07:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple answer: because there might just be a deity! Who knows? Certainly not any Wikipedia editors (as editors) and most definitely not Wikipedia.
 * But to address some of the issues behind what you say.
 * The only people in the world who think the Prologue to Genesis is literal are: 1. modern American creationists (and those who follow them); and 2. some atheists (of a rather narrow-minded type). There are scholars included in both groups, so, strictly speaking it is possible to provide reliable secondary sources for the point of view that Genesis is a very ancient and out-of-date science textbook. However, among scholars of language, literature and religion, I think it would be hard to find many who think Genesis is anything but a symbolic narrative.
 * Now, according to your definition, that makes Genesis not a myth, which shows you mean myth in the common usage sense of "pure fiction" ("myth", Oxford English Dictionary). But that's not actually any help to us, because we could only use the word myth in the title if we mean it in the technical sense, i.e. it is a "symbolic narrative" ("Creation myth", Encyclopaedia Britannica).
 * But that's precisely what everyone (except Cush it seems, and creationists) think Genesis is: a symbolic narrative--using symbols to communicate its claims about the nature of universe and the nature of its God. Indeed, the latter is far more important to Genesis in particular, and the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Genesis doesn't care about animals, birds and fish, it cares that men and women are to rule them, as they themselves are ruled by Yahweh.
 * Now, how on earth can we possibly know if that metaphysical/theological picture of things is true or false?
 * Fortunately, scholars of language, literature and religion frequently don't care (or don't dare) to try to answer such a big question. They content themselves with investigating just what the text itself is trying to say. They find quite enough to disagree about doing just that, without being distracted by the bigger question.
 * Finally, I don't need to demonstrate that all but an undue minority of scholars view Genesis as demythologizing, because I'm not trying to suggest the title of this article should be The anti-mythological cosmogony of Genesis. However, I've already supplied representative sources of that school of thought from the academic literature, which shows the unsuitability of the current title. The current title shows no knowledge of this strand of scholastic opinion. Whatever title we come up with needs to be broad enough to admit the full range of scholastic points of view, yet specific enough to know what we're actually talking about. That should not be hard. We need to specify only a portion of a text, without additionally committing ourselves to some evaluation of that text portion.
 * We can take our time, whatever Genesis was saying (our topic) won't ever change, and books that have been written on that topic will not go away. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Once more, the term "creation myth" makes no assumption as to truth. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone, except perhaps Cush, seems to know that. It's absolutely irrelevant though. Let's say Genesis is absolutely false, even in the metaphysical claims of its symbolism. It's still anti-mythological, false demythologizing it would be, to be sure, but still demythologizing. A demythologizing myth sounds like nonsense, and indeed it is. Since a notable number of the very best scholars think Genesis is demythologizing, it would be just a tad arrogant of us to ignore them and embrace the unqualified designation of Genesis as myth.
 * Creation myth implies symbolic narrative. I'd like for us to assert that, sybolic narrative, if we're to assert anything, though it would exclude Charles Darwin's analysis of Genesis, which I think unwise. Darwin didn't think Genesis was technically a myth, he thought it was myth in the common usage sense of the word. He was right about evolution, but wrong about Genesis, he gave up theology for biology, remember. But his PoV would have to be notable wouldn't it? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Of course the term "creation myth" makes no assumption as to truth, but wasn't the foremost argument of the opposing faction that it does exactly that? That is their point in keeping "myth" for the other creation tales but making an exception for the biblical stuff, so that the Judeochristian foundation of faith will not be presented as a fairy tale with no greater significance. And to be honest, in the parlance on the street "myth" does indeed mean "made up crap".
 * And btw, as for the literal understanding of Genesis: the belief that Genesis is somehow real, is the very foundation of the abrahamic religions, no matter to what extent the deity influenced the origin of the world. If there is no truth in Genesis or if it is just symbolic, then the rest of the Bible falls apart and Judaism, Christianity and Islam are finished. You will never get a religious editor to admit that Genesis is detached from reality in every possible aspect, be it as science or literature, because that would just kill their God. <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 · 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation myth implies exactly what it says - a religious or supernatural explanation of the origins of all things (for some value of "all things"). Which this is, indisputably.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in scholarship it implies a whole lot more than that actually, but that is neither here nor there. In terms of what you're implying consider that "creation myth" is of the same kind as the term "red dog" -- an adjective modifying a noun in a manner that retains all the general qualities of the noun.  A red dog is a particular type of dog, but it is still a dog.  If your culture treated all dogs as dirty impure animals then a red dog would be treated in that fashion along with brown dogs, and yellow dogs.  The fact that a creation myth is a specific kind of myth does not erase the baggage that more general term carries with it.  It doesn't do so in academia and it doesn't do so in popular culture.  As I stated above this notion that somehow the way people view "creation myth" transcends the baggage that comes with "myth" is a non-argument.  Of course I also disagree with all the people who claim that the term "myth" needs to be avoided because of popular connotations.  That's hogwash.  Yet at this point that argument seems to get aired much more often by people arguing against it's phantom than by people who actually support it.  Let's just follow scholarship on this as well we can.Griswaldo (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I cast a vote as proxy for Charles Darwin. Genesis is a "manifestly false history of the world". It is not a myth in any technical sense, what hogwash. Genesis is in no way a symbolic narrative, it is a purported history, and a false one. This is my, Charles Darwin's, point of view, and I most certainly have good reason to believe other points of view exist! (Philo and Augustine jump to mind.) To be fair, we need to give them a say, so that the superiority of my own point of view can be seen clearly against opponents more worthy than mere straw men. Good day to you all. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The dead don't get a vote, not that it is one. We currently define "creation myth" as "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe".  Does the account given in Genesis 1 somehow not fit this description?  Supernatural?  Check.  Story or explanation?  Check.  Beginnings?  Check.  Humanity?  Check.  Earth?  Check.  Life?  Check.  The universe?  Check.  Did I miss one?  81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello 81.111.114.131, As Alastair pointed out, the only people in the world who think the Prologue to Genesis is meant to be literal are: 1. modern American creationists (and those who follow them); and 2. some atheists (of a rather narrow-minded type). This leaves us with a third category of people – those who believe that Genesis is a symbolic or allegorical narrative. Group 1 believes that Genesis is literal and factually accurate – nonfiction. Group 2 believes that Genesis is literal and factually inaccurate – myth. Group 3 believes that Genesis is meant to convey symbolic or archetypal ideas and is symbolic or allegorical narrative meant to convey truth about existence. Gulliver’s Travels is a well known example of symbolic narrative. Only children, modern American creationists, and some atheists (of a rather narrow-minded type) believe Gulliver’s Travels is about a man named Gulliver who takes a trip. Everyone else knows that it is a symbolic narrative of life in England in the 1800’s meant to convey truths about the foibles of 19th century politics in England. Gulliver’s Travels is not a mythological text. Gulliver’s travel’s is not meant to convey literally accurate geographic or anthropological facts. The lilliputians are not meant to be taken literally as tiny people – they symbolize a political group. Similarly the people in Group 3 believe that the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis is meant to symbolize religious strife and is not meant to be taken as a story literally about a man named Cain – whether he existed or not and did or didn’t kill his brother is entirely immaterial what matters is the truths conveyed in the symbols concerning the nature and consequences of religious strife. So the people in Group 1 would maintain that Cain really lived and did what was written. The people in Group 2 would maintain that it is myth and not true and proceed to find inconsistencies in the account. The people in Group 3 would maintain that history has repeated the truths contained in the archetypal concept of Cain and Able throughout all interfaith religious conflicts – catholics versus protestants, pharisees versus essenes (Josephus), sunnis versus shiites, etc. Myth is not the same as symbolic and allegorical narrative. Gulliver’s travels is not a myth except to children. The prologue in Genesis like the story of Cain and Abel is also allegorical in nature except to someone like yourself who believes that Gulliver's travels is a myth. Deadtotruth (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The belief of Group 3 is also accurately called "myth". Thus, you have one group that believes it literally true, and two groups that consider it "myth".  Does anybody dispute that the subject of this article meets the definition at the head of our article creation myth?  That is the only basis on which I would support a move.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well said Deadtotruth (but not allegorical truth it seems:)). There are two more very large, perhaps largest groups of all, who think Genesis 1 is a symbolic narrative expressing things IT believed to be timeless truths, but which themselve believe:
 * 4. that those "timeless allegorical symbols" are nice ideas but false, and
 * 5. that those "timeless allegorical symbols" are pretty much gobbledigook (however it spelled, and doesn't matter really 'cause it's gobbledigook;).
 * And, sure enough, there's a bunch of other people, who think parts are this and parts are that.
 * Now, as a Wikipedia editor, I'm committed to not knowing who is right, when writing as an editor. My only job is knowing what the groups are, which writers have famously represented them, and in which books. Then I deliver a smorgasboard of choices to a reader, who I respect as being smart enough to be able to make the choice between the menu options (and come up with the same solution as non-Wiki-editor me;).
 * The important thing is, though, that I give the reader the very best of each meal available. Some of that will be all-time classics from a long time ago, other parts of the selection will be recent clarifications and major changes of direction if, and only if, there have actually been recent clarifications and major changes. There's no point in quoting crib notes on Einstein if we can quote Einstein himself, quoting the crib notes misleads the reader regarding the source of E=mc2, which could prove to be embarrassing in an examination. Unlike Einstein, Darwin's theory has be tweaked, just a little. And unlike Darwin, Wellhausen has been radically reconstructed. You can't know what people think about Genesis today, unless you know about Wellhausen, and unless you know several people since him (who don't often makes sense unless you know about Wellhausen).
 * That's enough for now. I do believe we were in the process of deciding what the new title should be, given the wide-spread disatisfaction with "creation myth", which is loaded with Judeo-Christian PoV in the word "creation" (which is OK for Genesis, but not in all cosmogonies) and loaded with confusion in the word "myth" (especially in the case of Genesis). Alastair Haines (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to move away from "creation myth", I'm afraid you're at the wrong venue. You want to be persuading people in the field that it's a poor term.  Otherwise, the bulk of the above discussion, over several headings, appears to be arguing over people's beliefs, which is a poor basis on which to be deciding article titles.  If anyone was able a suitable title that is as accurate as the current title without deviating from the facts and without losing the precision, I imagine they would have done so by now.  In the meantime, we can't be doing with arguing over such frivolities such as whether the title is neutral with respect to whether the account is true or false as if such was somehow an open question.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The founder of Wikipedia, Wales, has indicated that the current title is inherently POV and I concur. Whatever we decide part of the outcome should be certain from Wikipedia's NPOV policy the current title will be changed to something else. So far I haven't heard anything persuasive for retaining the current title and Wales has stated that he hasn't either. Wales specifically targetted the word "myth" as POV offensive and I agree. The word myth should not be in the title.Deadtotruth (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't let yourself be impressed by the "authority" of someone who has only thought about the issee for a minute or so. Myth does not convey a POV. And Mr Wales is clearly abusing his position here. <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 · 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cush, and peter pan doesn't convey fairy tale. what world do you live in? i hope you said that with your fingers crossed, or else your pov has so blinded you that you can't reason correctly anymore 76.249.24.95 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Myth is just the Greek word for story. In the modern meaning the involvement of the supernatural is included. In what way does that a) convey a POV as to the veracity, and b) convey a POV that Genesis does not convey already? I see the core of the problem rather in the dismissive use of the word by adherents of the abrahamic religions to defame other beliefs. <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 ·  23:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I see..." =  "my pov is..."  (or in the context = "I can't stand it that 2 billion people in this world today don't see things my way") 76.249.24.95 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh how you delight and amuse me. Do you honestly think that either the meaning of words or the veracity of a religious claim is determined by popular vote? Oh how you delight and amuse me. <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 · 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Myth does not convey a POV" -> you like to amuse yourself it seems. 2 billion people have a pov.  they admit it.  you have a pov and you try and claim, "really, it's not pov."  that's a lot of things -- amusing may be one of them -- but rational thinking it is not. 76.249.24.95 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush? He's gave an opinion like everyone else on this dang page, and hell he did'nt even do it on this page! I transfered it here as food for thought! i dont see him blocking everyone who disagrees with him and moving the page to his opinion.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you transfer Jimbo Wales' opinion onto this page? To use him to impress us? That's clearly appeal to Jimbo. <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 · 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly Cush, i Tire of you demeaning your perceived opponents Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I tire of people who try out every trick. And people who disagree with me are still not my "opponents". You see, I get offended pretty often, and do I complain or start RfCs or appeal to Jimbo?? I do not. You can call me pretty muc anything you like, such as asshole (Lisa did) or anti-semite (you did) and whatnot. Why? Because this is the internet, and I'd be pretty busy taking everything seriously and personal. <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 · 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We at a point where this is WIki-World War Every one has been shunted into two camps, Frankly I really dont care any more. I come on Wikipedia to try to expand knowledge. This is a Perversion Neutrality of in my opinion. I was personally attack the moment i stepped on this page as "Creationist." and "Scientifically illiterate" and was thus was "disqualified" to render any opinion all by you Cush. If you had AGF you might find out that i beleive in Evolution, One of my Favorite movies i have seen recently is a "flock of Dodos." and Guess what Cush scienfitically the big bang theory is a "creation myth" yes paradoxically it is also supported by physics. Yet if you truly think "creation myth is a neutral term" in "academic usage" then you would not have thrown a fit with me when i stepped on here and called the big bang theory "Anthropologically a Creation". So yes you assumed that my use of myth implied falsehood. So dont patronize me with it being used academically. Every Joe Sixpack and Susie Bible-tumper walk on here and sees myth and feels their religion under attack. It is inflammatory and out of all the words in the Wikitionary i find it hard to believe we cant find two or three that work better that Satisfy most people.  Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Big Bang is not a "creation myth". It lacks the two defining characteristics we (appear to) ascribe to creation myths: it is neither "religious or supernatural" nor does it account for life, the universe and everything.  These are two, simple, factual tests.  You will notice that "is not true" is not one of them.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly you need to take an anthropology course as that is a pretty standard way those textbooks make a point of how to look at things through the lens of anthropologist. I have seen it in three different textbooks by different publishers use it as example. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you show us where the supernatural element is? Can you show us how it would account for life?  In the absence of these, it doesn't meet the definition we have for "creation myth".  81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you were acting in good faith, you were wrong nevertheless. Maybe I should not have been so harsh but you were unfortunately coming at a time when numerous editors were claiming that creationism were a valid position. You claimed that the Genesis story of creation had the same credibility as the Big Bang theory, to which I naturally replied "bollocks", although in more words. And you know, what you "believe" or what your favorite movies are, is not my concern. I am only interested in what you can show me reliable sources for. And to say that you "believe" in evolution or that the Big Bang Theory were a creation myth is a further assault on science. And this concludes my interaction with you on this talk page for the time being. <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 · 03:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, because it cannot be our purview to determine which religions' scriptures are true or false or canonical. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly Ip-81.111, This not about whether or not it is a creation myth But rather is it absolutely necessary to have it in the title? Does it harm the Article not to have it in the Title? To me both answers are no, i think Cush did a very good thing sticking an Olive Branch compromise out. Especially since he has been one of the Most Vocal in the "Creation Myth Title Camp." now We are working now towards a compromise, as both sides have restated their opinions numerous times. Your Borderline Trolling here is not welcome, please lets try and collaborate and not nit pick. Secondly i find it very suspicious when Ips jump into these debates seemingly know all the ins and outs of wikipedia. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be in the title? Yes.  In the absence of a distinguished name, we have to give it one.  Does it harm to not have it in the title?  In the absence of an alternative that is as neutral, factual and precise as this, yes.  To move this one but retain the others would appear to ascribe some special status to this account of creation over the others we document.  "Biblical creation" loses some neccessary precision.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Borderline trolling? There is no trolling, just an IP user (from what appears to be a stable IP - it's simple to review their edits) that had been reviewing requested moves on a number of pages. Your suspicion of this user is unwarranted. Please show good faith to IP users that deserve it. Now the above IP user that personally attacked Cush in his very first edit as if he was very familiar with him may deserve some suspicion, but not 81.xxx. Auntie E. (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. let me guess, you hold to cush's pov, and not mine, so therefore you don't have to assume good faith? you are unbelievable to jump in here and spout off like that. very nice. very classy.  show me your statement is not utterly biased - show me that you pov is different than cush's.  76.249.24.95 (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Right Striking Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IP, all of your edits were personal attacks as if you know him. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Saying that you may deserve suspicion is actually a mild response to those attacks. My point of view is somewhat different from Cush, but immaterial in this instance in the face of your behavior. Auntie E. (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok, you don't have to assume good faith. you're somehow different than weaponbb7.  not sure how, but i don't really care.  notice how weaponbb7 took back her/his comments?  that's impressive. oh, by the way, did you know the user ip's from people's houses change slightly in the last few digits every so often? (hmm... maybe i have edited here before...)  perhaps you might have thought of that if you had assumed good faith.  but, since you were busy doing the exact opposite of that, (what makes me chuckle is that you did it while accusing weaponbb7 of doing the very same thing...) 76.249.24.95 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Midday in Australia, and thankfully it seems posters above have been forced by mother nature to sleep on things.
 * Discussion above seems a bit robust, but not impolite in my ignorant and uninvolved opinion.
 * But inferences however true or false about editors' motives belong on user talk pages first, not in public discussion.
 * I've dared to retitle this section as "side discussion", and want to close it.
 * Please feel free to ignore me and continue the sparring.
 * But I trust I'm merely everyone's servant making nothing more than the observation that the to and fro has ceased. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh... but I was so close to receiving an apology from auntropy.
 * by the way, if she reads this, i voted above on apr. 1, and cush replied by telling me that my vote was "an irrational, unscientific, unencyclopedic, and hence unacceptable POV." That might account for me calling him out here for what I see as irrational, no?  but look here, now I'm explaining again when it's YOu who should be assuming good faith. (since we're so good at telling others the rules and all...)  76.249.24.95 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Friend, we're doing a bad job of encouraging you to register, so we have a name to insult, instead of a number! ;)
 * Shame on us, thanks for your patience. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Biblical Creation is a reasonably good title for an article about all aspects of the Christian belief in Creation, but perhaps the title should be more clear regarding whether or not the discussion of the beliefs of later Christian philosophers and contemporary creationists is welcome.  (See Creationism).  There may well be a need for both a title about creation references in the Bible and also about Christian creationism as opposed to the all-religions scope of Creationism.  But each of these things is a new article with a new scope.  If you want to start an article "Biblical creation", then you should start it first, going over and figuring out which things belong in the expanded scope and which don't.  Then propose a merge with this article if it still seems appropriate.  But don't combine a move and a change in the scope of the article at the same time, because the disagreements will cause more trouble. Wnt (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm very sympathetic to the point that the current article clearly focusses on Genesis, and expanding to the whole Bible is quite reasonably seen as two proposals in one. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Title should start with Genesis - keep creation myth or change it to creation story(if that seems less upsetting) or whatever but whoever is searching for this article will most probably start with the word Genesis. Think about who is going to be looking for this article. Nitpyck (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nitpyck — I don't believe we've seen any evidence that anyone is "upset" about anything so I don't know what you are referring to by "less upsetting." Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, changing titles purely because they may offend some is either pandering or censorship, dedpending on the actual result. Neither of these is a Good Thing.  (Look at Conservapedia for the sort of trainwreck that you can end up with)  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Biblical Creation could then include some of the later affirmations from Job, Psalms etc. rossnixon 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Seems like a good way to resolve this, and the name I would think of using for an article like this, &mdash;innotata 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose any change from the current title unless all the other "creation myth" article titles are similarly bowdlerised. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr Marcus most articles that are about creation myths actually do not have the term in the title. Please poke through the "Creation myth" category where you will find articles with titles like Völuspá and Enûma Eliš.  The articles that do use the term in the title are almost exclusively of a different type.  These articles identify the creation myths of specific civilizations -- see Sumerian creation myth and Mesoamerican creation myths.  These articles are both in the vast minority and almost exclusively of this type: "name of civilization" + "creation myth(s)".  I've tried to make this point repeatedly in the discussion but people unfortunately follow their gut and assume the opposite.  Since the basis for this argument simply does not reflect conventional reality here on Wikipedia I really don't see how we can count it in this discussion.  I do sympathize greatly with what drives people to make the incorrect assumption, because there are a very small minority of people who would prefer to never ever refer to their own creation narratives as myths.  But this discussion is not about eradicating the term from the entry.  If the conversation ever gets to that point most of us would strongly oppose that.Griswaldo (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your post below. I must have started this before you posted that.  Apologies for repeating a point you came to on your own.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose any the proposed move away from the current title (Genesis creation myth). Creation myth is an established, accepted, and neutral concept; Wikipedia must adhere to reliable sources, and reliable sources clearly support the current usage. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the most common phrase in reliable sources at all, nor is it within convention here. This point has been repeated ad infinitum but people keep on coming here and blindly repeating the opposite assumption.  What empirical evidence do you base this one?  "Genesis creation account" and "Genesis creation story" are much more common in scholarship.  I'm getting sick and tired of parroting myself on this.  I understand the inclination to believe what you've written to be correct, but some research, or just some reading of this talk page, will quickly dissuade you of that belief.  Also please, please do understand that what scholars use to refer to these passages in no way makes this passage any more or less a creation myth in scholarship.  Scholars agree that it is a creation myth, but that fact does not lead to this term.  It just doesn't.  Please do some research before making definitive sounding statements about scholarship that do not reflect reality.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have (done some research, that is), please see my comment in response to Suggestion 1. However, I have done the same informal analysis for "Genesis creation account":


 * Not counting the result of the general search (General search), which is suspect because nearly half of the results are lost when breaking down by year of publication, the results of this informal analysis do not support your claim that Genesis creation account is "much more common" than Genesis creation myth. In fact, "Genesis creation account" and "Genesis creation myth" appear to be used in relatively equal numbers in the last 20 years, and the latter tends to be more common before then. (Yes, I realize what an imperfect analysis this is, but it is the best I can do in a short time and about a subject (longitudinal trends in specialist language) in which I am not expert. If you can offer a better analysis, I would gladly reconsider.)
 * However, what stands out to me is that a high proportion publications which use "Genesis creation account" appear to present the account as truth (e.g., ) rather than approaching it neutrally from an academic standpoint. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I see what you did and it's either sloppy or disingenuous . Your search for myth includes any hits to books that include any one of the following three phrases - "Genesis creation myth" OR "creation myth in Genesis" OR "creation myth of Genesis" - while the account search is delimited to only the one exact phrase "Genesis creation account".  What gives?  You should use the one phrase in both or all three options in both.  This is really misleading.Griswaldo (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also note that if you search for the second two -- "creation myth in Genesis" OR "creation myth of Genesis" you get 391 . If you ask Google to exclude "Genesis creation myth" you only lose 1 hit.  The new result is 390 .  There is no reason to believe that a scholar (or author) who is happy to discuss the "creation myth" in "Genesis" is also willing to call it the "Genesis creation myth".  If there were one would find more than one solitary example of overlapping usage.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your table appears to have the wrong headers since it says "Creation according to Genesis on it". However I can also not replicate your results in Google books (Note I now see what you did).  Here are the results I get for 1990-2010 for the following phrases in both Books and Scholar:
 * Google Books
 * Genesis creation myth - 233
 * Genesis creation account - 624
 * Genesis creation story - 637
 * Google Scholar
 * Genesis creation myth - 55
 * Genesis creation account - 292
 * Genesis creation story - 370
 * I've provided the links for immediate verification. What I did was - exact phrase delimited to the last 20 years of publications.  Myth lags way behind.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did make a mistake with the header, and that was sloppiness on my part (I copied the table from the above section and forgot to change the header); it is now corrected. As for one search term versus three, that is a valid point; however, limiting to only one search term as you seem to have done is not the optimal solution. There is no significant difference between "Genesis creation myth" and "creation myth in Genesis" or "Creation myth of Genesis". Give me a few minutes to produce the results for 3-vs-3. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is little semantic difference since we have two different ways in which nouns are modifying nouns, but it strikes me as significant that authors discussing the "creation myth(s)" in or of Genesis never also seem to use the phrase "Genesis creation myth". From your links I'm also finding that commonly, amongst the "of" and "in" examples there is more than one creation myth identified in Genesis.  In other words, the two narratives mentioned in the article are referred to as separate "myths" as well. So "creation myths in Genesis".Griswaldo (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated results of your analysis (1990–2010), with totals for Genesis creation account including results for "Genesis creation account", "creation account in Genesis" and "creation account of Genesis"; totals for Genesis creation myth including results for "Genesis creation myth", "creation myth in Genesis" and "creation myth of Genesis"; and totals for Genesis creation story including results for "Genesis creation story", "creation story in Genesis" and "creation story of Genesis".
 * Google Books
 * 689 results for Genesis creation account
 * 606 results for Genesis creation myth
 * 743 results for Genesis creation story
 * Google Scholar
 * 925 results for Genesis creation account
 * 177 results for Genesis creation myth
 * 1,500 results for Genesis creation story
 * In Books results, "account" and "story" are higher, but not dramatically so. In Scholar results, the results for "account" and "story" are dramatically higher. To the extent that valid conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, I think you are partially correct. So, I want to make clear that my "strong oppose" in this section applies only to the suggestion to rename to "Biblical Creation", and not to any other proposal.
 * Noting that, I must again repeat the point that publications which prefer "creation account" or "creation story" over "creation myth" seem to have a greater tendency to adopt the point of view that the Genesis creation account/myth/story is factual rather than approaching the issue from a neutral, academic standpoint; see e.g., . -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that those types of phrases should be avoided - I have a similar problem with "Biblical creation" mentioned way below. "Creation according to Genesis" also rubs me the wrong way because it implies that there is some true version of this story. Are we sure that "story" usually refers to a factual creation?Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A brief glance at the google scholar results suggests that "story" is not often (or never) used in that fashion while account may well be.Griswaldo (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Actually, upon closer investigation, this appears to be less of an issue with "story". I had checked several dozen results for "Creation according to Genesis" and "Genesis creation account" and so was fairly confident about them, but I had only checked about 20 results for "Genesis creation story". -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Genesis creation story has always been one of my personal preferences. I don't recall what the objections to it have been.  It appears to be most common in scholarship, it doesn't imply that creation was factual in any shape or form, and it doesn't force the most common scholarly frame through which to interpret the story (myth) onto the story itself.  Personally I think this is equivalent to using common names when they are available to refer to a creation myth, like Enûma Eliš.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Having now checked eight pages of results, I can say with slightly more confidence that it appears to be less of an issue with "story", though it is still an issue. In general, it seems that publications which advance the point of view that the Genesis creation myth/story is factual avoid using "creation myth" and instead use "creation account", "creation story" and "creation according to Genesis"; and publications which adopt a more neutral, academic standpoint (i.e., analyzing the story but not taking a stance on its truthfulness or falsity) seem content to use "creation myth" and "creation story", and to a lesser extent "creation account", but avoid "creation according to Genesis". (To be honest, I cringe at the idea of making such generalizations without conducting a planned, systematic and controlled study, so I can't emphasize enough that these are my impressions of patterns in the data, not conclusions drawn from a systematic analysis of data.) Based on this, I think "Genesis creation story" could be a good alternative to the current title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've done enough Googling. The fact is that Google results aside, story and account and myth are all objectionable not only to a segment of editors, but to a segment of the population at large.  While "narrative" is utterly neutral according to everyone.  So let's stop playing and just change it to "Genesis creation narrative".  It's the one title that is absolutely bias- and agenda-free and doesn't irk anyone.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your preference for Genesis creation narrative, but there is no need for you to dismiss discussion of any alternatives, especially through recourse to inaccurate statements such as "'narrative' is utterly neutral according to everyone". Wikipedia is not censored, so the goal is not to find a wording that is not "objectionable"; rather, it is to find the wording that best reflects reliable sources on the topic. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose move, per Black Falcon. The current title is my first preference, for the reasons explained by BF. My second preference would be Genesis creation story, so long as the other creation myth titles were moved too. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 04:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon is not correct about reliable sources see above. Also what entires will have to be moved?  Only a handful have this term in their title, most entires about specific creation myths do not.  Look at the category for yourself.  This is another misguided assumption that keeps on reappearing. The ones that do are not of this kind either, they are always of the kind "name of civilization" + creation myth and never "name of text" + creation myth.  The text/narrative examples always use the name of the text instead.  Apples meet oranges.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Black Falcon. My second preference would also be "Genesis creation story", with the condition that other creation myth articles be similarly moved, per SlimVirgin. and support move to Judeo–Christian creation myth, per my vote here. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 13:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon is not correct about realiable sources and Slimvirgin is not correct about the convention of using "creation myth". Editors who have bothered to investigate these understanble but mistaken assumptions have discovered this for themselves.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Judeo-Christian creation myth was one of the options I suggested when I first found this discussion. However, if that move were made we would want to consider also bringing other living world religions in line with this terminology.  See, for instance, Hindu cosmology.  I remain rather dismayed by the amount of mistaken assumptions here about convention and reliable sources (this isn't directed towards you CIS).  It appears to me that the existence of culture wars nonesense regarding creationism colors so many of the opinions here, even if people don't realize it.  I get that those who assume scholars must use the term "Genesis creation myth" or that Wikipedia clearly uses that term in the titles of articles on other creation myths are well meaning.  But I think you're all reacting, based on common sense instead of empirical evidence, against what you think is a religionist whitewash attempt as opposed to something else.  What this discussion lacks is some truly dispassionate POVs.  Ugh.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my reply to you about Hindu cosmology at the below section. For the record, I'm not arguing that "(Genesis) creation myth" is the academically-accepted term, I'm simply saying that using weasel words like "narrative" or "story" instead of "myth" would present a pro-Christian bias over articles like Chinese creation myth and Sumerian creation myth, which would need to be moved to Chinese creation narrative and Sumerian creation narrative if I were to support the excising of "myth" here. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 14:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your reasoning but the entire argument is a tough sell because it implies that the most commonly used terms by scholars are "weasel words". We also should not be regulating the perceived bias in other articles through this one.  However, there is another important point here that is much more significant -- It is not up to us to counteract the possible biases found in the mainstream POVs of reliable sources.  For instance if most reliable sources refer to Mesoamerican creation myths by that name and the Biblical creation story by that name it is not up to us to override that,whether or not we think it is a bias.  I'm pretty sure there is no policy here that asks us to do so.  In fact I thought that policies forced us to do exactly the opposite.  Report what the sources say.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose- its the term used in the scientific literature. You cant have your religion as a Story or Narrative and everyone elses as a myth. As someone says above, if this one is changed, ever single other creation article should be changed. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the term used in the scientific literature. "Story" is used in scholarship much more often.  This is a common misconception but if you read some of the threads here you will see the results of investigating scholarly use.  Regarding the gripe that "all myths should be labelled in the same way" ... you'll have to take that up with the academy.  Part of the problem here is that this particular myth shows up in scholarship from fields other than mythology or comparative religion, where undoubtedly "myth" is more common.  Because of the living aspect of biblical belief we see this myth referred to not just in Biblical studies and myth studies but also history, sociology, etc.  If you want to argue with scholars I don't think this is the place.  We simply follow their lead and as I said you've fallen pray to an unfortunate and misguided assumption.Griswaldo (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Support per User:Jimbo Wales. <font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Appeals to or by Jimbo Wales are no criterion in decisions about article titles. <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 · 20:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice of a new proposal
As far as I can see, both Weapon's and Cush's proposals above have succeeded. All that is missing is an extremely brave person to close those discussions in favor of the proposals on the basis of the evidence and arguments offered, noting a substatial number (but still a minority) of editors have expressed no objection to the term "creation myth", indeed their preference for it, and they are not without considerable non-partisan scholastic support.

The decisive issue is that not all scholars support the expression "creation myth" in its application to Genesis 1 in particular. Indeed, this disagreement is also expressed by non-partisan scholars, though strictly speaking scholastic commitment never invalidates their arguments or opinions, they all believe what they say, or why do they say it, and how could we trust their reliability?

However, although I have supported both proposals myself, and think both could work, I don't think either is ideal. I think discussion has been dominated by the issue of using "creation myth", and support or opposition of the proposals in nearly all cases has come down to opposition or support for the phrase "creation myth".

As a baby theological writer, I am willing to go on public record as believing the text of Genesis 2-3 is a symbolic narrative and, in all meaningful senses of the technical usage of the phrase, a creation myth. I happen also to have the personal conviction that it is a divinely inspired and absolutely reliable symbolic narrative, with implications for daily life as explained in the New Testament, but I mention that only in the interests of full disclosure.

I am not willing to go on public record as believing Genesis 1 to be a purely symbolic narrative, though I am willing to admit that I am personally persuaded by the established results of contemporary science, which entail that much of Genesis 1 reflects the standard ancient view of the physcial world as they knew it, which we now know was somewhat myopic. It is very important that it be understood I am advancing an opinion here that makes my own religious tradition vulnerable to being falsified. I am claiming that substantial parts of Genesis 1 are supposed to describe the real physical world accurately, as they could then be known. Parts of Genesis 1 can indeed be described as scientific, according to scientific paradigms that are now outmoded. Some of the "science" of Genesis 1 is much better understood now than then. As such, Genesis 1 is a reliable primary source of ancient scientific paradigms, but an unreliable source of scientific understanding now, since science has "moved on". So Genesis is a good resource for the history and philosophy of science, but a poor one for physics, chemistry and biology.

But Genesis 1 is not merely ancient science, it is also, in part, symbolic narrative. Since ancient times the "days" of Genesis 1 have been understood, even by some notable believers, as symbolic days. But does this mean that those parts of Genesis can be felicitously called "myth"? I think not. For two important reasons. Firstly, "myth" in the technical sense usually involves wide appeal to diverse supernatural powers, which is certainly true of the myths of the Genesis writer's neighbours. Genesis is demonstrably not the earliest cosmogony in its region. So many scholars (many have claimed a consensus) consider Genesis to be a secondary source regarding those earlier myths, and so many of those scholars have also considered it to have interacted with them critically, rather than uncritically, that we must admit the PoV that Genesis 1 is anti-mythological or demythologizing, in the context of the world of its composition. It should go without saying that calling an anti-mythological text "myth" is stretching the bounds of clear use of language.

There is a last feature of issues in this discussion that warrants little explanation, but must be stated. It violates the spirit of the technical sense of "creation myth", if not the very letter of its ordinary definition, to apply the word "supernatural" indiscriminately to a real God at work in human history. Such a God would not be merely supernatural but natural as well. Such a God would not be merely part of a pantheon hypothesized to have given shape to features of the world, but the actual first cause of everything. I happen, personally, to believe in such a God, which makes me appreciate more acutely why "creation myth" is inappropriate in the context of Genesis 1. But it is not necessary to believe in the God of Genesis to appreciate the point.

So, then, the current title must be altered, as discussion above has already demonstrated. My new proposal will assume that fact. I will ask people to either support, or to raise any verifiable or reasonable objection, other than a preference for the term "creation myth", to entitling the current article Creation in Genesis. If no objections can be substantiated within a week, I trust someone will close the discussion by renaming and moving the current article.

I am happy not to make this proposal if Weapon or Cush wish to continue with their own, and would really appreciate their feedback, and that of any others who care to comment. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're joking right? [The current title] violates the spirit of the technical sense of "creation myth" .. [by applying] the word "supernatural" indiscriminately to a real God at work in human history. If you're serious, then please see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ben (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to reread those policies Ben. That's my point exactly. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppose you are an intellectual impostor, ... what kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose [you]. Or maybe I'm an intellectual deadbeat and the problem here is mine. Either way my advice is: make clear your point. Ben (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, a person doesn't need to be an intellectual deadbeat to have problems following a point that falls outside of his paradigm. In other words, a Macintosh computer could be a perfectly fine piece of hardware and have trouble loading a Windows operating system.  You strike me as rather intelligent, but sometimes you seem to lack that appreciation for others.  Alastair seemed pretty straightforward there: Weapon and Cush both offered proposals that easily cleared the hurdle of acceptable consensus, but Alastair's proposal was more ignored than rejected, so he'd like to make sure it didn't just get lost in the excitement to replace the current title.  In other words, he's giving his proposal a "bump" because he'd much rather have it rejected than merely lost in the shuffle.  As for "creation myth" I'd have to agree with him.  Those promoting "myth" are doing so basically as "false science" rather than merely a (true or false) "symbolic narrative."  And "supernatural" doesn't really delimit a concept of God which is immanent (nature) and not merely transcendent (supernature).  In other words, the Jewish and Christian concept of "God" is not merely "supernatural" but more specifically "natural", and must be so by definition.  It is not merely divine action if God were to raise someone from the dead, but rather it is divine action that anyone lives at all: each natural heartbeat echoes the presence of an infinitely immanent deity.  The confinement of the Jewish/Christian deity to supernature is therefore not applicable to that deity.  It would be like rejecting Jesus because he was a woman... while that may actually BE your view, no one here is actually CLAIMING that he is a woman.  So, therefore, your rejection, though noted, is irrelevant.


 * None of this means that God exists. It merely means that your SPECIFIC definitions of that deity are not applicable to the actual religions who's text you are trying to label.  You've been trying to reject a definition no one here is trying to promote.  Most of your arguments fall along the lines of "noise."


 * As I said, you are quite intelligent, and if you will merely recognize that others here are ALSO intelligent then you may take the time to have a discussion regarding their own views, rather than the views you imagine them to have.EGMichaels (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly Cush's is far better, it allows for slight broadening of the scope, and since he came across the aisle with a compromise. I think it is the better of the two thus i struck my original Proposal Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Alastair, I think Weapon has two good points there. "Biblical creation" certainly leaves the door open for a more... systematic exploration of the subject.EGMichaels (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Biblical creation should be an article about making bibles. I really hope you can keep Genesis in the title. And I will cheerfully accept whatever title is decided as long as I can still find the article about the creation story found in Genesis. Nitpyck (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bible Creation" would do that, people generally will get the Gyst Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the word "biblical" is too vague. See here (Humanities Reference desk) and here (Language Reference desk) for the wide range of meanings people assign to the word "bible" which is of course very much related to the word "biblical." I don't see what advantage there is in substituting "biblical" for "Genesis" in the title. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think again most people will not try to include the Book of Enoch here, to me common sense is the solution if it comes up Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, "Creation in Genesis" is my favorite title. As I hinted to Alastair, "Biblcal creation" opens the subject to a more systematic approach.  It is no longer text based, but rather subject based -- and thus would be more applicable to input from Systematic Theologians rather than Biblical Scholars.EGMichaels (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * EGMichaels — Why do you (apparently) prefer "Creation in Genesis" to "Creation according to Genesis"? Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, when I did a sanity check of "Creation according to the Silmarillion" I did see Cush's (Pico's? I've lost track) point that "according to" does connote reality of some kind. It just didn't work with Silmarillion because it's obviously fiction -- and to anyone who's POV has Genesis as obviously fiction it won't work either.  We need a title that will work for ALL POVs.  As for Lisa's suggestion below: "Genesis creation narrative" is perfectly fine, as would be the sanity check of "Silmarillion creation narrative."  I simply like "Creation in Genesis" because it doesn't call Genesis ANYTHING -- not story, not narrative, not myth, not history, nada.  It's just bare bones, and works just fine, although "Creation in the Silmarillion" might connote either Tolkien's creative process or his thematic treatment of the subject of "creation" in that work.  But, since we don't really know the author of Genesis, most of that potential pitfall is moot.EGMichaels (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about Genesis creation narrative? I mean, we're all talking about whether the narrative is an account or a myth or a story or whatever, but we seem to all agree that it's a narrative, no?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that acceptable. My opposition to "Genesis creation myth" was that it ("creation myth") constituted unnecessary commentary. If all agree that there is no controversy in referring to the subject of the article as a "narrative" then I don't think there should be opposition to your suggested title, "Genesis creation narrative," based on specific opposition to the characterization of the subject matter as a "narrative." Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly lets end this; I really tired of debating, we seem to have clear Consensus, Any serious objections to Cush's suggestion? I am giving till 10:00 Pm GMT/UTC beofore i post to The Admin Notice board to ask them to formally move the page Weaponbb7 (talk)
 * To this point I haven't expressed my concerns for future stablity of article content regarding Biblical creation as a title, because I wanted to support Cush's generous bid for compromise, just like Weapon (and probably others). I also wanted to see if other oppose voters would follow Cush's lead. I don't think that's happened, nor do I think it will.
 * The two major concerns I have with Biblical creation are scope and sense. Regarding scope, I guess I should ask Lisa how much of the lead she'll allow me to devote to the first verses of the Gospel according to John. Need I say more?
 * Regarding sense, I'm glad it is not me who has had to bring up the fact that it does strike me as being about creating Bibles, or something like that. In fact, I think a reader would need to know quite a bit about the topic, and about a broader context for the topic, to know what we mean by it. If Bible must be the scope, I'd still prefer "Creation in" nomenclature, like a swag of other editors above: Creation in the Bible.
 * But, as I've said, I'll not prolong closure of the current discussions by holding out for Creation in Genesis, if Cush objects to it. All I'm saying is that discussion appears to have run its course and closure is needed now. "Creation in" nomenclature seems most popular, and Genesis seems most popular for scope. I agree with both those views and have seen no objections to them, so I'm happy to propose them on behalf of all.
 * PS here are the words that are essential to a Christian understanding of Biblical creation. I really don't think we want to open that can of worms.
 * 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1, NIV)
 * Back to work on Indian religions. So much happier and easier. Cheerio all. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alastair Haines — why have you just removed the posts of other editors, including myself? Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was an edit conflict and my browser didn't handle it well.
 * It's nice to see that while I was typing that closure was needed, and soon, Weapon was typing that he'd be seeing to it that this would happen.
 * Biblical creation is a nice big topic "biblical theology creation" gave me 184,000 hits at Google Scholar.
 * The first few pages were full of books and writers I value highly.
 * I'm not sure whether the title is best for readers, but it's certainly a gift for Christian writers.
 * So you'll have no objections from me personally, but I do have reservations for the sake of others, but I've already posted them. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for Cush's suggestion. There is no reason at all to expand the scope of this article from the Genesis creation narrative to Biblical anything.  But if you go through the talk page, you'll see that no one has any problem with it being called a narrative.  So you could make a case that there's an implied consensus for Genesis creation narrative.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree with your first two sentences more. I don't agree with the rest of your post I'm afraid. Alastair, please be more careful. If you mess up discussion, please go ahead and fix it. Ben (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Implied Cases are just they are "not stated", lisa i dont know why you complain about this, this compromise solves alot of problems, I can think of three possible reason you argue this. (1) you think narative is better, (2) expanding it to biblical you might fear it exapnds it beyond the coverage of the torah, (3) giving in to Cush is not something you wasnt to. I am inclined to think it combonation of those. Please we are trying to compromise Cush has given in way more than i think he likes, let meet him halfway Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weaponbb7 — Lisa is making a suggestion. It is not a bad suggestion. Lisa suggested the title "Genesis creation narrative." Why not just comment on her suggested title? Do we really have to contemplate what's in any other editor's mind? Why don't just stick to discussing what would be the best title for this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding scope and "Biblical" I do not agree that Biblical necessarily implies more than Genesis narrative. For instance the Oxford Companion to World Mythology deals with only this creation narrative under the title "Biblical Creation".  It should be noted that "myth" is most likely implied given that it is a companion to "mythology" and given that "Biblical creation myth" appears in the text itself.  In other words by way of actual use it is not clear that "Biblical creation (myth)" conventionally includes anything outside of Genesis.Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't about how much Cush is "giving in". That shouldn't even be an issue.  This is about what's an appropriate title for the article.  I do think that narrative is better, because I have yet to hear anyone suggest that it isn't a narrative.  The people who pushed for "myth" think that the narrative is a myth.  Others think it isn't.  But everyone agrees that it is one.  Cush, for some unfathomable reason, thinks that both account and story imply that it actually happened.  I don't get it, but I accept it.
 * Expanding it to biblical is simply unnecessary. To do so for the sole reason that it would reward Cush for "giving in" seems patronizing beyond belief.
 * As far as me not wanting to "give in" to Cush, I dropped the idea of account or story, despite my disagreement, so you're misstating the facts, in addition to attributing motives, which is a no-no.
 * Why are you so adamant to force a consensus that doesn't exist? This discussion has been about what to name an article.  Changing the article to something else entirely shouldn't even be on the agenda.  This article is about the Genesis creation narrative/story/account/myth/fairy tale/hallucination or whatever you want to call it.  It isn't about "Biblical creation".  That wouldn't even limit it to creation of the world, for crying out loud.  It's more than a change of scope, it's a change of subject.  And there is no consensus to do so.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You've hit the nail on the head, Lisa. There is no consensus, full stop. But consensus is only required to change policy, not to apply it. The current title has had three weeks to defend itself against the substantiated and majority objection that it is POV, and the defense has failed. By default the title should revert to Creation according to Genesis.
 * Since that proposal has been withdrawn, we either accept the new proposal, which includes an expansion of scope (i.e. it is two proposals in one), or we offer a new proposal.
 * As mentioned, I'm still waiting for Cush to speak first. Cush's proposal would suit me personally, so I'll not oppose his proposal. However, for the sake of readers and the community, I'd prefer the title was: 1. focussed on Genesis and 2. made no claims about literary genre, since this is not settled unanimously in the literature and is unnecessary for identifying the topic.
 * If you formally propose Genesis creation narrative, Lisa, I'll support you. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I formally propose that we change the title of the article to Genesis creation narrative.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal.Mk5384 (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
EGM i love these tables! these are so handy!Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, another poll. Is this the 7th now? Let's see, 3 Requested Moves, the third split into three more successive polls, article name dropping on User_talk:Jimbo Wales, this table and countless threads in between, all by the same small contingent trying to erase, or at least obscure, mention of the term creation myth. The amount of effort you folks have put into doing this would be enough to turn this article into an FA twice over. It's time to quit the so obviously tendentious editing - continually starting new polls until you get the answer you want. In fact, I suggest a 1 year moratorium on discussion of the article's title. Ben (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, since the "non-myth" folks don't have an agenda, they are willing to explore what the sources say. While "creation myth" is one characterization that does appear in the available literature, it is in a distinct minority in the sources.  We are trying to find a title that is the most neutral POV, which ALLOWS both "creation myth" characterizations and "demythologizing polemic" and everything in between.  Wikipedia editors have an obligation to follow sources and be committed to neutrality between all notable and reliable points of view.  Only those truly and passionately committed to a singular POV will refuse to support equally documented alternatives.  Hence the need for a poll to explore what we are finding in the sources, and what strikes us as making the article available to readers who enter common terms in a search engine.  While "creation myth" is one possible name, it is most certainly not a name readers will think of typing.  How, then, are they even to find this article without a host of aliases constantly forwarding people's generic NPOV searches into a heavily POV limited article title.EGMichaels (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I second that, but of course the discussion will devolve into another tit-for-tat over whether we should have a moratorium in the first place. Everything here is like an endless argument, no matter what the particular topic. It's just a controversial subject I guess.<font face="Century Gothic"> UBER ( talk ) 04:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason there is a problem with making a decision is because Wikipedia processes are designed to do exactly the right thing: allow people who have already been committed to reading and documenting reliable sources to welcome people who are willing to come on board.
 * Unfortunately, in practice what happens is people who have modest knowledge of the sources and modest commitment to the article, but do have a broad ideological commitment related to a topic engage sufficiently with discussion to ensure their ideology is represented.
 * That is not always a bad thing, but sometimes it's pushed way too far.
 * No, what is happenning at the moment might be slow, but it is correct.
 * We are all contributing to building up a proposal that can be closed by someone who knows nothing of the issues, except what we document for them. A poll is part of that picture. It will show that there are a wide range of acceptable titles. Add to that information the data already provided showing "creation myth" is only one PoV, and the closer can toss a coin for any of the alternative titles proposed, or better still, pick any one that addresses the right scope, without having any substantiated objections against it.
 * A closure made by tallying votes is unstable without a quorum, but one made on reliable sources and clear reasoning will endure.
 * Closures here are not made by experts, so they depend on the value of the information discussion participants provide.
 * Our job is clear: provide sources and reasoning to make life easy for a closer, who represents a reader who knows nothing.
 * A poll is great, since it shows that there are lots of possible titles. It will also show which people are unwilling to compromise. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Guess who is most compromising so far? Weapon! Anyone surprised? Not me. Bravo Weapon! Alastair Haines (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What a silly comment! There was only one column that has "creation myth" in it, so according to your logic anyone who thinks that term is the main problem is automatically extremely compromising. I have added another column ("biblical creation myth"), which in my opinion is even better than "Genesis creation myth". Hans Adler 13:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush (or Pico?) did have a good point that "Creation according to Genesis" implies fact. And I DO prefer Alastair's "Creation in Genesis" the best because of its specific scope (Genesis) and last of characterization of the creation account (i.e. as narrative, story, myth).EGMichaels (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How is that a good point? How does Creation according to Genesis imply fact?  If Creation according to Genesis differs from Creation according to the Qur'an and from Creation according to Buddhism and from Creation according to The Silmarillion, then none of them are being touted as fact.  They're all being labeled as what this or that source says about Creation.


 * You said before that you think it implies fact. This time, I'd like you to explain that assertion.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa, I've already explained it. It's not a denotation but rather a connotation.  And, to be fair, it may not even be an implication, but rather merely open to that inference.  When I did a sanity check against "Creation according to the Silmarillion" it struck me as odd.  That's all.  I'm trying to be as fair to all sides as possible.  When Cush said it struck him a certain way, I did a sanity check and could see how he felt that way.EGMichaels (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa, thank you for saying this, because I used to think the same as you do about "Creation according to Genesis".
 * You are absolutely right, CatG does not imply or denote fact, however it is still problematic.
 * EGM's thought-experiment Creation according to the Silmarillion demonstrates that the phrasing connotes fact.
 * The fact that is being connoted is the fact of a creation, hence of a Creator or creators.
 * It is not the factuality of the Genesis account that is being connoted, it is the actuality of a creation, hence of a Creator.
 * Creation according to Genesis, is a fine phrase to use if one thinks Genesis is false but someone or something created the world.
 * But if one believes there is no Creator or creators, as well as thinking Genesis is false history or false science (say Dawkins), then one will object to this phrasing.
 * Strictly speaking, I should withdraw my support for that title, now DGM has provided a valid objection to it (as opposed to the invalid objections others have given). However, it requires very wooden, unimaginative and uncompromising interpretation to understand CatG in the PoV sense, so I will follow DGMs example and modify my poll position to Weak support. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Creation according to ..." is also stylistically awkward. The phrase "according to" is most commonly used to describe the opinions or claims of beings that have agency.  If we say, "according to Bob ..." we expect that whatever is attributed to Bob is an accurate reflection of what Bob claims, and we assume that if it isn't Bob is able to set the story straight.  When people say "according to the (X text)" there is a similar claim to accuracy involved, but unlike Bob, a text cannot set the story straight.  The obvious need for interpretation (and in this case translation for one or more ancient languages) should make us weary of implying that there is an authoritative version of what Genesis claims about anything ... creation included.  Personally I would be much less concerned about the "connotation" described above, and much more concerned about the implication of authority.  There is good reason for such concern as well because in common parlance statements that begin with phrases like "according to the Bible ..." are usually made by people who believe their very narrow interpretation is the only accurate reading possible.  So I agree, even if for different reasons, that this is a phrase to avoid.Griswaldo (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, I've recently encountered a similar issue in another religious tradition. There are multiple versions of the Ramayana and of the Mahabharata, but one cultural group appeal to minority textual traditions of each work as authority for the validity of their culture. That's fine by me, I'm very remote from all the issues involved, but I can see the point that "Culture X according to the Ramayana and the Mahabharata" are quite inappropriate. (That hasn't stopped Wiki editors from saying this though, and I'll not get fussy about their use of "according to" and change it.)
 * However, I'm only aware of one alternative text of Genesis: the Samaritan Pentateuch. And I'm not really sure that counts as a different text, and not in the sections relevant to this article. So, I'm just dropping in a note to indicate I understand your point: I can certainly see how it applies in other articles. But in this one, I'm not convinced it does, in fact, quite the opposite. "According to Bob" is a very uncertain thing, because Bob can change his mind or change his story. "According to the Mahabharata" is also uncertain, because we know it had a dynamic textual history. But "according to Genesis" is extremely well defined. The received text of Genesis is the Masoretic Text, which is not appreciably different from the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Septuagint Greek translation. Biblical Hebrew is an extremely well-known language.
 * Mesopotamian creation myths, however, are nowhere near as well-defined. People stopped transcribing them. Most have alternative versions, even among the copies that have been recovered by archeologists.
 * As far as I can see, it is only people, like me, who believe Genesis to be exactly what God himself wants us to think about, who could possibly interpret Creation according to Genesis as an appeal to authority. But, since this is an encyclopedia written from the neutral point of view, such an appeal to authority cannot be read into it. When last I checked, editors were not required to certify their commitment to the divine inspiration of scripture before being allowed to edit, whereas I do seem to recall that being a requirement at Theopedia. (Woops, obviously non-notable, I mean Theopedia.) The same title at Theopedia would indeed include an appeal to authority, as I'm sure readers and writers at that site would confirm.
 * But, in the end, I actually agree with you, Griswaldo, because we cannot assume readers know that the text and language of Genesis are very precisely defined, and there is little room for interpretative variation at the sentence level. Debates about biblical interpretation are normally about abstractions, rather like Wiki debates about article titles! Is Genesis 1 science? Is it myth? Is it true? How many people wrote it and when? Which parts were written by which people? Arguments about what it actually says are much more tame, except where those are perceived to be decisive in establishing more abstract matters of interpretation.
 * Since readers can't be presumed to know this about Genesis, many educated people will assume Genesis is somewhat vague with plenty of different ancient versions. Of course, that is an exceedingly long way from the abundantly documented facts. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not always being entirely clear. I'm not sure we're on the same page ... let me try again.  The fact that Bob can change his mind is a great way to get at this.  When Bob does change his mind we can authoritatively change our statement "According to Bob ..."  The problem with a text is that the text never changes its mind while people interpreting the text do.  In other words we will always be talking about "Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis" (or according to biblical scholarship if indeed our sources are that narrow).  If the entry presented the text of the narrative itself in its original Hebrew only then perhaps we'd have "Creation according to Genesis".  Does that make sense?  Let's compare this to the U.S. Constitution.  There is really no such thing as "According to the U.S. Constitution", though from the rhetoric of politicians and activists one might believe there is.  There can, however be endless "according to person (or group) X, the Constitution ...".  Authoritatively, in terms of U.S. law, we can say "According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution ...".  Like those interpreting scripture the Supreme Court may change its interpretation of the Constitution, which it does, but the constitution itself does not change its mind.  One could say that amendments to the constitution are an exception to this but they are not and if anyone wants an explanation of why I'd be happy to provide it (but I hope it isn't necessary).  So my point is that I really think that we ought to refrain from "according to" when not referring to beings that are widely considered to have agency.  "According to God" is much more acceptable to me than "according to the bible", for instance.  That is not because I believe in a "god" with agency (which I don't), but because a whole lot of people do in fact believe in such a God.  Those are just my two cents.Griswaldo (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that I do not in any way mean that "According to God ..." is acceptable as a title for this entry. I just mean the premise is more acceptable because within certain contexts and to certain people God has agency.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo -- I'd agree with your statements here, but I think we'd both agree that "Creation according to God" would be a poblematic title as well, even if we had someone claiming to be God to use as a reference.EGMichaels (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be very problematic and that's why I added the disclaimer.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks a bunch for such a cogent retort!
 * I completely agree with something you wrote, but first I want to defend an option that is not my preference.
 * according to prep.
 * As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
 * In keeping with: according to instructions.
 * As determined by: a list arranged according to the alphabet.
 * American Heritage Dictionary
 * I would have thought "according to Genesis" meant "as stated or indicated by Genesis".
 * The text intended by the name Genesis would have to be the text normally given that name, which just happens to be a text that scholars don't think has changed much over 2,000 years. A fundamentalist might make a scary neighbour, but someone who flogs himself for misspelling a word of his sacred text is just the kind of guy you want as a photocopier. And history seems to have borne that out according to text critics of all flavours. So, is Genesis a well-defined term (unlike Bible or Apocrypha)? I think so, I think we know exactly which Hebrew words we're talking about.
 * Back to "as stated or indicated by": Genesis states bara Elohim ("God created"), but does it indicate ex nihilo? Good question! Genesis states b'reshit bara Elohim, but does this state "In the beginning God created" or "At the beginning of God's creation"? Another good question!
 * I still think the title "Creation according to Genesis" implies a perfectly good, neutral question: "What does Genesis state and indicate regarding creation?" It states a fair bit and indicates a lot more, like any text, and indeed there are different readings with relative merits and demerits available for us in the documented reflections of people who are familiar with a lot of specialist issues.
 * The title does assume Genesis talks about a creation, but it is true all scholars agree that it does.
 * I still think the problem, if there is one, is with the word "creation". It's not as though we know there has to have been a creation, perhaps the Big Bang just happened, no cause, it just happened, just as matter–anti-matter particle-pairs spontaneously occur in vacuums. Nothing we know of "creates" them, and why should it?
 * The "sanity check" for me is trying "The creation according to Genesis". Now that would really express a PoV.
 * Now, here is where I completely agree with you.
 * 'The problem with a text is that the text never changes its mind while people interpreting the text do. In other words we will always be talking about "Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis" (or according to biblical scholarship if indeed our sources are that narrow). If the entry presented the text of the narrative itself in its original Hebrew only then perhaps we'd have "Creation according to Genesis". Does that make sense?' [Griswaldo, Appendix to Wikipedia, The Foundation, 2010.]
 * You bet that makes sense, to me anyway!
 * Yes, only the Hebrew truly gives us precisely what Genesis is saying, whatever that might be. Only that Hebrew text is truly "Creation according to Genesis".
 * But Wikipedia is not about that kind of truth or that kind of knowledge. Wikipedia is about the first kind you mention.
 * All we can report is what the best interpreters say is the sense of the text. Or, in your words, the substance of the article can only be:
 * "Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis"
 * Likewise, Nuclear physics means "Nuclear physics according to reliable sources".
 * It is a convention here to drop "according to reliable sources" from article titles.
 * What, then, should we call this article? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points. I think something I stated in the first post got lost as I tried to explain what I meant more thoroughly.  I think the most common usage of "according to" is akin to definition number one above, though even then I also think we're interpreting that definition slightly differently.  Does a text really "state" or "indicate" anything?  I'd say no, only beings with agency state or indicate anything, but I think that's where we may disagree (I believe rather strictly that signs are arbitrary and meaningless in the absence of human action, mental or otherwise).  The notion that the Bible, or the Constitution for that matter, can state something on its own which then can be claimed as "authoritative" has been (and is) a very seductive notion in Western history.  It is seductive in no small part because of the very fact that a text cannot change it's mind.  If we can authoritatively lay claim to the meaning of a text like a national Constitution or the Jewish or Christian Bible then we can tap into the authority granted by the power that sanctifies that text.  I would argue that even if we disagree about whether or not a text can "state or indicate" anything we cannot dismiss the fact that in practice, in human history, this is often what happens.  To say "according to" a fixed text is to claim ownership of its power, and usually this is done only when someone wants to exclude the views of others, or otherwise adjudicate their own behavior towards others.  I know this sounds like a stretch but I feel that with options like "Creation in Genesis", etc. we don't even need to get within a hundred miles of these types of associations.  "Creation in Genesis" or "Genesis creation narrative" are my preferences personally.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, and building off of something else you wrote, I think when we don't have "according to" in an article title it is, to me anyway, always implied that the content of the article is "according to someone(s)". When we interject "According to Genesis" it is as if "Genesis" itself trumps these otherwise implied someones.  "Creation in Genesis" would not require us to state "according to ..." anyone, and that's why we don't need article titles like "Gravity according to physicists".Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Valid points. I've changed my support to neutral for "Creation according to Genesis".  But I think "Creation in Genesis" is poorly phrased.  "Genesis creation narrative" is more explicit, and has all the benefits that "Genesis creation myth" had without the problems it has.  So far, no one has said anything to indicate that it could be problematic in any way.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think somewhere I read claims that "Genesis creation narrative" was not a common phrase in scholarship, but that claim is patently false. Variants using "creation narrative" are slightly more common in google scholar than variants using "creation myth".  "Creation story" gives many more hits than either but I think "narrative" is preferable for other reasons.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for such a clear presentation of your philosophy and sociology of language!
 * Ah yes! You and I agree regarding the current issue, but would be pushing one another on others.
 * Briefly, to meet your openness with my own, I value authorial intention above reader response.
 * Perhaps our focus in life pushes us to learn more about different sides of the same abstract issue.
 * Your approach strikes me as more demanding to learn and apply and generally more useful.
 * I concede, people can and do appropriate texts for their own purposes.
 * This can be done responsibly and pro-socially, but is typically the opposite.
 * On the other hand reflective listening, understanding authorial intention, can also be pro-social and useful.
 * I'm a student of dead voices, more interested in comprehending than evaluating, just an interpreter.
 * Perhaps one day I'll grow up and dare the risky thing of evaluating: praising the pro-social and condemning the anti-social.
 * I don't trust myself yet, though. How do authorial intention and reader response address the current topic?
 * I think, although this article must be titled and aim first at authorial intent, I think it can extend to reader response and evaluation.
 * There are a goodly number of scholars who read Genesis 1 as intending to promote human exploitation of the environment, for example. There are other criticisms of its ethics, especially if Genesis 2-3 are considered. Who cares if the science of Genesis 1 is out of date, if its ethics is out of date ... and millions still follow those ethics!!!
 * I'm not pursuaded by those critics, we agree about what Genesis actually says, but we evaluate it differently.
 * I hope what I'm saying shows that I hear what you are saying Griswaldo.
 * You're the first I've seen in my short time here to raise this important aspect of the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that we need to step back and ask a simple question. The question is NOT "do notable and reliable sources use the phrase?" Quite obviously notable and reliable sources can be found for all of the phrases.

However, a much better question is: "do notable and reliable sources REJECT the phrase?" Any title that is not explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources is allowed. Any title that includes a term which is explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources should be disallowed.

So,


 * 1) Creation according to Genesis
 * 2) Genesis creation myth
 * 3) Biblical creation
 * 4) Genesis creation narrative
 * 5) Creation in Genesis
 * 6) Biblical creation myth
 * 7) Genesis creation history
 * 8) Genesis creation truth

While there are many notable and reliable sources that will insist this narrative is myth (and I personally agree with them), there are other notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject that characterization.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much we may personally like a particular characterization -- if there are notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject it, we as Wikipedia editors must bow to the sources.

We may think we are important here, but we are only yeomen.

I'll add that this works FOR us as well as AGAINST us. While we cannot impose our view that this is myth (because notable and reliable sources reject it), we can be happy that other views of truth or history cannot be imposed on us.EGMichaels (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Narrative" seems unobjectionable but superfluous. "Biblical" greatly broadens the scope in distracting ways, such as John 1:1. Strong Suport: Creation in Genesis --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat my earlier observation that the term "myth" is similar to the term "cult". Both terms may be used responsibly in scholarly works, but a general audience is likely to read the term(s) as demeaning the subject(s) veracity.

I support any of those options that does not include the word "myth" as it is misleading. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind a little. I can see the arguments for the "narrative" title, and I've actually looked into it, and the only other "X creation myth" article I can find is Sumerian creation myth, with the other fanciful relgious stories being either sections of larger mythology articles or labelled as "cosmology" or the like. Unfortunately, I can't think of a new title for Sumerian creation myth that would match the renaming of this article, but I'll set my mind to it as and when it happens, since we must, per WP:NPOV, not give additional credence to Judeo-Christian mythology over the Sumerian tales from which it was cribbed. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the title 'Creation Myth',
but it is preferred to 'Creation Story' which would imply total lack of any fact. At least 'myth' implies some possible remote basis in fact--and this is more than it deserves from a purely scientific PoV (a compromise). This will have to remain imperfect--for now. When that which is perfect comes along, that which is imperfect shall be deleted and replaced with the perfect--right? Science must remain true to its erection of 'testable' hypotheses and rigorously tearing at and modifying them. Faith must remain true to the mothers/fathers History as brought down from the past--it is our only communication from then. I am a neo-anarchist and am definitely not a believer in majority (nor committee) rule of anything. These two opposing PoV need to remain separate. To mix them, ends up in hodgepodge. At worst (from a traditional faith PoV) a scientist should be agnostic--God hasn't been disproven, and how would we even form a testable hypothesis for a negative proof? Atheism is an opposing belief (faith), based on less truth, for the purpose of obscurantism. Atheism is a mean spirited 'religeous' concept intended to be devilish. God, however, is in complete control and affects that every roll of a die, every Powerball Lottery Drawing and every genetic mutation is completely random--what would we do and where would life be, if it weren't so? Hallelujah! Mouselb (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "myth" to debunk false notions
Our article Myth of the Flat Earth is devoted to debunking the idea the Medieval society generally believed in (or had returned to) the pre-scientific concept of the Flat Earth.

Ther the word "myth" is used in an article title specifically to connote the idea of a what Myth (disambiguation) calls:
 * A commonly-held but false belief or a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality

I suggest that we either change both titles to avoid appearing to taks sides on whether the ideas the two articles are describing, or acknowledge that our use of myth in Genesis creation myth is indeed intended to convey the idea that mainstream scholarship regards the Biblical account of creation as discreditable. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Ed, couldn't agree with you more. If you read above this has been the subject of much debate.  The counter argument to what you're saying is that the technical/academic definition of the word "myth" does not imply falsity.  Read above for more details. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But we need not resolve two problems to resolve one problem. This Talk page is for this article; the other article has its own Talk page. And this sort of composite reasoning can be taken up at the WP:Village Pump. According to WP:TALK I think a Talk page is especially designed to be used to improve the one article associated with it. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am opposed to the title "Genesis creation myth." It contains "spin." What is called for is a bland title that identifies the subject of the article. That was accomplished adequately by the previous title which was "Creation according to Genesis." Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The other article should change its title, but I think its best to have that discussion over there. I do not like the current title here either, but not for any reasons related to the problems of that other article.  Using "myth" in the popular sense should be discouraged across the board.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've come to realize that "Creation according to Genesis" is also prejudicial. It implies that there was a creation, and this is how it went according to Genesis.  Which is a problem for people who don't think there was a creation at all.


 * "Genesis creation narrative" fixes this problem without using the problematic term "myth". I don't think a single person has expressed any problem with the term "narrative".  It's even more neutral than "story".  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Narrative is the most popular of all the choices in the table that presented all of the choices somewhere above. Of course a lot of people who have elsewhere in this discussion insisted on "myth" have not chimed in there.  I'm personally comfortable with changing the title to narrative, especially given the more recent silence from the afore mentioned people, and then dealing with the fallout if there is any after that.  Others may not agree but I just don't think the "we're silent now because this has been discussed to much" argument should prevent us from doing something productive about this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think narrative is acceptable, but I'd prefer something like "Description of Creation in the Book of Genisis". That avoids the somewhat obscure "narrative" word while not being prejudicial. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 100% agreed on the title "Genesis creation narrative".EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "narrative" is perfectly neutral, even if other words might be better. But since "the best is the enemy of the best", I suggest we all compromise on narrative as in Genesis creation narrative. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "myth" accurately describes the Genesis story. You may as well create an article describing Tolkien's Silmarillion as a creation "narrative". The fact is that neither are accurate. Both are pure myth. They should be described as such. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that the discussion is not about removing the term "myth" from the main article. No one is suggesting that we stop calling it a creation myth in the entry, even in the open lines of the introductory paragraph. It is a discussion about the title only.  There have been many arguments on this page that actually focus on the title only.  The issue is not as simple as you think it is.  Scholars do not often refer to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth".  That's simply fact, and that's one of the many arguments that have been made here.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, and here's an example of the use of "myth" to mean "fiction". Is it any wonder that it appears to some editors as though there's a concerted effort to use prejudicial POV language behind the change of the article to "Genesis creation myth"?


 * This sort of argument can't be taken into account. The passages in the Silmarillion where creation is described certain is a creation narrative, but that's not even the issue.  The issue is that there are those who want to use a charged term rather than a neutral one, because they find the prospect of neutrality in this case to be offensive.  It's ludicrous.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The sequence of words "Genesis creation myth" is a contrivance. It is based, arguably enough, on the reference in some academic sources to Genesis as a "creation myth." It is a contrivance because one would not identify the subject matter in this article by that title unless one wanted to advance a very specific agenda. There is an activist spin to the title "Genesis creation myth" because it, more so than any other title under consideration here, rules out the possibility of literal veracity in the subject matter that is to be considered in the article. There is simply no cause for that in a title. There is ample space within the body of the article to refer to those sources that characterize the story under consideration as a "creation myth." There really is no argument as to whether or not reliable sources (some) refer to Genesis, chapters one and two, as a "creation myth." But it is gratuitous to hoist that one characterization up into the title. Genesis, chapters one and two, is also a story, a narrative, and an account. Those words (story, narrative, account) are far less committal on the question of whether the subject matter contained in this article is true or false or anywhere in-between. That is an advantage, because a title only has as its primary purpose the identifying of the subject matter of the article, not necessarily the characterizing of it in any particular way. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Word myth is ignorant. I do not believe in creationism, but it is still ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.113.232 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to be in agreement on "Genesis Creation Narrative". When is it finally going to be changed? It would be so nice to be able to put all of this behind us, and focus on the article.Mk5384 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I motion for a move request! Anyone second my motion? NickCT (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Seconded.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But please note that there appears to be a still active request above. I think the idea is that per that request there is consensus for "Genesis creation narrative" and we should be able to move forward with this. Griswaldo (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually someone needs to sort this out. On this talk page the move request appears open ended at the top of the talk page.  On the move requests page it is specifically a request to go back to "Creation according to Genesis".  What is the proper procedure here?Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really the only "procedure" is that if consensus for a move is achieved, you request the move. Let me ask this, does anyone have a serious objection to moving the page to "Genesis Greation Narrative"? NickCT (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would welcome the title change to "Genesis creation narrative." Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the very least you need to put together a clearly worded, legitimate WP:RFC narrowly targeted the potential change to this name. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support "Genesis creation narrative". The common usage of myth implies falsity, and that is counter to NPOV.  (Declaration of bias: I personally believe the narratives to be false.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Professor marginalia - Usually I'm all for RfCs. But I think in this case, we need not delay.  There seems to be strong consensus for the "narrative" wording.  It certainly seems less contraversial than the current wording. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't one of the essentials of NPOV that "neither side" feels that the wording gives an advantage to the other side? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no measurement of a "strong consensus" yet. If you don't do the work to gauge it, I predict any change in the title will be reverted within an hour and trigger even more dust and noise in the edit warfare. This battle has been going on for a very long time. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a move to the consensus title of "Genesis creation narrative"
<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 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. Ucucha 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth → Genesis creation narrative —

After a great deal of discussing and debate, there appears to be a consensus that Genesis creation narrative is the most descriptive and NPOV title for this article. See and  and. This consensus has been getting stronger and stronger over the past few days, and I think now would be a good time to move the page. And since it's been such a charged issue, I think the current lock preventing editors from willy nilly moving the page should be left in place. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the correct move.  The current title is not a common phrase in scholarship despite the fact that most scholars do consider this an exemplary creation myth.  There is no reason not to follow this lead and discuss the narrative as a myth in the entry without the non-standard title.Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support The current title clearly needs to be changed.  It has been filled with controversy since a few quickly changed it a few months ago.  Before that the article existed for years with normal discussion.  I agree with this proposed title and it has a lot of support.  SAE (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This seems to be a violation of WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. If "myth" is an inappropriate term for one narrative, because it is biased against the validity of the narrative, then it is by default an inappropriate term for all such narratives. And it seems that "myth" is the only term appropriate for some articles: Greek mythology etc. If this is an argument against the use of "myth" in general, it seems absurd, as the word "myth" is a neutral description of this sort of narrative. If it is an argument against the use of the word "myth" in this specific instance, it seems to be biased towards this "narrative" being more true than those which are labelled "myths", which seems both a violation of wikipedia policy and blatantly incorrect, in that it is a symbolic, metaphysical structure. Claritas (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that this term be removed from the entry. There is no censorship here.  We are only discussing the title. There are several reasons to change it that have nothing to do with the general usage of the term "myth" and many of us have come to this as the best compromise because it satisfies pretty much everyone ... except perhaps those who have other non-academic reasons to prefer the term "myth".  Academics do not prefer that nomenclature when referring to this narrative despite considering this a creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably consistency is desired - "creation myth" is used (although not as frequently as "creation narrative") to descirbe Genesis, and all other articles about such narratives use the term "creation myth". Claritas (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is one of the many false, but understandable, assumptions people keep on making here. "Creation myth" is not used in the titles of similar articles at all.  Please browse the "creation myth" category and see for yourself.  "Creation myth" is used in a handful of cases and almost exclusively when referring to the "creation myth" of a civilization -- e.g. Sumerian creation myth or Mesoamerican creation myths -- and not when referring to a text -- e.g. Enûma Eliš or Völuspá.  It is the current title that is inconsistent.Griswaldo (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Everyone seems to agree that the subject is a narrative.  Any further specificity about what kind of narrative, or implications about its factual basis, need not be made in the title, and would serve no purpose whatsoever, but to endorse a POV about the subject. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Neutral title. The "myth" concept is fully explained in the article body. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mr Collins in his concise dictionary "Myth: a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs etc came into being" supports the current title. Abtract (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But what is wrong with the proposed title? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong is that Creation myth, Greek mythology, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth and Mesoamerican creation myths would also need to be moved, to prevent prioritising Judeo-Christianity. Claritas (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my answer to you above. Those are the handful of examples of a different type of entry -- or at least a different type of title (see Lisa's response below).  An argument can be made for Pelasgian creation myth as of a similar type, but it, like this entry currently, is the exception and not the rule.Griswaldo (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. The correct analogy would be from Chinese creation myth to Jewish creation myth.  Or Christian creation myth.  Genesis creation narrative is different.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone sincerely objects to the characterization of the tales of Zeus, Athena, etc as "myths" they are free to take that issue up on that article's talk page. Personally, I think the stories described in this article are laughably primitive nonsense, but there are many living, breathing, Wikipedia-reading- and -editing people who think I'm wrong, and they have weighed in here on this article, so I'm going to give them the respect due to any language-using child of (mitochondrial) Eve and support the use of neutral terminology. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And we don't look to the dictionary definitions of words that make up part of a phrase in order to chose our titles here as far as I can tell. There are other conventions like common use, and technical use, and neither is satisfied with the current title.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Claritas has betrayed that he has taken an editorial position on the matter. The title should not take an editorial position. As far as "Greek mythology", that's the commonly used term. "Genesis creation myth" is not, except in certain narrow circles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From the tag on the article, I thought that we were discussing potential NPOV-violation of the article's current title. Apologies. Claritas (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Myth" is a POV violation, as it takes an editorial position on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Before everyone else says it... There is a pragmatic difference between the dictionary definition of the word "myth" and the colloquial usage. Since titles are supposed to be "common usage", this would be tantamount to calling the story a flat-out fairy-tale. Since there is no proof for this, that would be NPOV. The authorship has been called into question but the story has no viable way of being tested so it can't be falsified. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bingo. 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support As a Creationist, I find this current title offensive and miseading so I support any change that removes this false accusation of myth. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Genesis creation narrative.  The word "narrative" is perfectly neutral, and Wikipedia does not need to take the masses by the hand and lead them. Let the reader, rather than the title, decide what they think. Using words like "myth" is an attempt to lead the reader as opposed to their own ability to decide. --TK-CP (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support The article should be about the story itself, not it's validity (which has been falsified for quite some time). The article is dealing with the story, or narrative, that describes the myth, not the myth itself. The myth should be dealt with in the Christian creation myth where asserting that this is a myth is perfectly appropriate. This article doesn't talk about the myth, but the story in front of the myth. Padillah (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, not for nothing, but Christian creation myth redirects here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You caught me, I didn't check that. That should be changed to a valid article discussing the various Christian creation myths and their place in the dogma. Not being a seminary student I have no idea how that article would get a start. Padillah (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Wikipedia is written for the common man. The common man understands "myth" by its common definition (i.e. w/ implicit or explicit falsity).  Wikipedia must be super careful not to endorse or refute any particular religous belief.  Hence, "myth" language is innappropriate.  "Narrative" sounds like a good NPOV replacement. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. This looks like a token sop to the religon of most Wikipedians, in the face of common usage of the term "creation myth" to describe traditional attempts to explain origins such as are found in religious scripture. On the other hand as long as the redirect was maintained no real damage would be done, so my opposition to this token move proposal is also a token and I won't be losing sleep if I'm overridden by consensus. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This phrasing isn't actually common. I see no reason why the redirect can't be kept, but IMO few people will try find this story by typing in those exact words anyway.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support i think after months of bickering i think this is the closest we have come to consensus Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I am not convinced that the move is necessary, but it's not wrong, either. The only thing that really makes me hesitant is the prospect that once "creation myth" has been removed from the title, the absurd fight for removing it from the lead will start again. Hans Adler 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans I don't think that will happen. As I see it many people who support this move do not support removing the description from the article or its introduction.  However, should that happen I agree wholeheartedly that vigilant opposition is necessary.Griswaldo (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Consensus? This proposal doesn't even have a linguistic basis. The mythology article quotes Eliade, "In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative — (1) "true stories", or myths, and (2) "false stories", or fables." English dictionaries do not define myth and narrative as interchangeable synonyms, nor creation myth and creation narrative, nor mythology and narratology, etc. Keahapana (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You apparently misunderstand the point of this proposal. You are absolutely correct that myth and narrative are not synonyms, and that is the very reason for this change.  Whether Genesis contains a myth or not is disputed depending on one's POV and interpretation of that term, but that it contains a narrative (a less specific term) is something that seems undisputed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I fully understand this proposal because I've been following this ongoing Genesis-creation-myths-aren't-myths thread for over a year. Since you apparently misunderstood, I'll reiterate. "I just don't like the word myth" arguments to rename one particular creation myth a creation narrative are at best intellectual dishonesty and at worst apologistic doublespeak. This monkey suit-like proposal is comparable with a few individuals who don't like the word cock contending that editors should violate basic WP policies to rename the cocktail, shuttlecock, and stopcock articles. Keahapana (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Genesis-creation-myths-aren't-myths thread"? Apparently you're not following the more recent discussions here in which several editors who don't like the current title are also not the least bit shy about the fact that these narratives are also myths.  My mind is blown every time someone claims that they know all about what's going on here when their statements show little to no recognition of the many conversations that are ongoing in this discussion.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The battle has gone on far too long already. My opinion is based on policies and scan of references which I will describe more fully in the section below.  Nothing less than a genuine commitment from editors to put aside their own personal opinion and defer to the body of sources and pertinent policies will move this forward. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could start? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Further note: This battle is such a mess, there are currently two requested move polls on the same page, one timed out without result but no uninvolved editors have shown to close it, and those sent here from village pump who aren't spending their lives on this page aren't well guided to where to leave comment, here or there. This mess is such a time sink. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I've given my reasons numerous times, in numerous places.Mk5384 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - "Genesis creation myth" may be used in some schools of thought, but they are clearly a minority among scholars. There is no overriding reason to use such an awkward and ambiguous term as "myth" just to appease this uncompromising minority, but there IS plenty of reason not to, for example something being more of an "external" term, the same one used by detractors of a given text or whatever, rather than being used as an analytical term, is usually a pretty good indication of manifesting a discernible "point-of-view" - which the current title does in a rather pushy manner. Also, whatever was the true intended purpose of this title, it does not seem to be achieving it - unless it were dissension. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support → "Genesis creation narrative". There is no way to make "myth" NPOV in this article. That should take precedence over other possible reasons to term this a myth. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - → "Genesis creation narrative" or "Creation in Genesis". Please note that I still fully support the use of "creation myth" as a scholarly term that should be introduced in the lead paragraph, just not in the article's title. Ἀλήθεια 02:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - more people support this from all the options. In can always be changed again. rossnixon 03:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with what the professor says. However, with 15 for and 4 against, I think that "Genesis Creation Narrative" clearly has support. It's time to get this done so that we can all move on.Mk5384 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons I have often explained before, mainly WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and support a move to Judeo–Christian creation myth. I believe use of the word "myth" is supported, but the use of Genesis is inappropriate, as many readers may not (and need not) understand what "Genesis" is, and "Genesis creation myth" just doesn't work as a title. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 13:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that "many" readers "do not understand" what Genesis is. And I disagree therefore that, as you say, its use is inappropriate.  That seems to be quite an exaggeration, do you really believe that? (for one, what is Judeo-Christian?) Imagine someone saying that the title for the article Thermodynamics (for example) is too difficult and therefore would should just use "Heating Power" for a title instead.  You can see, that it just wouldn't work.  SAE (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is that "Genesis" is too unnecessarily specific, especially compared to those other creation myth article titles like Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, and Sumerian creation myth. I think a title like Judeo–Christian creation myth is best to correlate with those other creation myth articles without giving any sense of bias in favor of the Christian creation myth. However, lacking any support for my alternative, I would support the current title over any excision of the term "myth". A title like "Genesis creation narrative" would clearly show favoritism for the Christian creation myth over the others mentioned. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Judeo-Christian creation myth was one of the many suggestions I made when I first found this discussion and I would support it wholeheartedly. However, ironically (given some of the arguments on this page), if we made that move the articles on the creation myths of most other living religious that will need to have title moves for consistency.  See for instance Hindu cosmology.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there is already an article on Biblical cosmology, and cosmology refers simply to the study of the Universe as it now is and humanity's place within it, not how it is proposed to have been created. I think a comparison of Genesis creation myth to Hindu cosmology is unjustified—it's simply that no article has yet been written for Hindu creation myth specifically. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, and like I said I'm perfectly happy with "Judeo-Christian creation myth". I will say this though, it isn't the most commonly used name for this story, and its success as an alternative here will be severely impeded by that fact -- as is the currently discussed suggestion.  Alternatives like Genesis creation story, Genesis creation account, Biblical creation story, etc. will always win the common use argument when tested in Google scholar or Google books.  In fact the last one seems to get the most hits in google scholar at 661.  That's Biblical creation story.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will oppose any attempt to rename this article as Judeo-Christian anything. I find the term personally offensive.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure why it's offending you, it's an accurate description. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 00:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per Claritas. Kittybrewster  <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Myth is a POV term, "Account", "Story", "Narrative" imply no opinion on the truth or falsehood of the story/narrative/account. Myth, however, implies that the proceeding myth is false. This automatically violates WP:NPOV  (Unless reliable sources show that this is indeed a work of fiction, or false (Like Peter Popov having healing powers).Per NPOV it cannot be used in this title.    KoshVorlon  Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, I think that the proposed title is a lot better than the current one. I do believe that the old title Creation according to Genesis may be a lot better. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Surprised this still hasn't happened yet.EGMichaels (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Genesis creation narrative appears to be no more or less common than Genesis creation myth or some other alternatives which were offered (in fact, a few of the others are more common), but there does appear to be a pattern wherein a comparatively high proportion of publications which use the phrase "creation narrative" advance the point of view that the myth/narrative is factual, see e.g.,.


 * For books found by Google Books and published in the last 20 years, Genesis creation narrative is about as common as Genesis creation myth. In addition, the relative prevalence of "narrative" as opposed to "myth" has decreased over time. (I must point out, of course, that this is an informal overview of data from one source and my statements reflect only initial impressions of patterns in the data; outright generalizations and conclusions about relative usage should not be made to support or oppose this move proposal in the absence of statistically significant results.)
 * Based on (admittedly brief) glances at hundreds of Google Books and Scholar results, I would support either Genesis creation myth or Genesis creation story as having common usage and appearing to be the prevalent forms in publications which approach the topic from a neutral, academic standpoint (i.e., without taking a position on the truthfulness or falsity of the creation myth/story); Judeo-Christian creation myth is an interesting proposal which I think merits further consideration, but I admit that it does not appear to be as common as other alternatives. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That being said, I do think that Genesis creation narrative is better than some of the other proposals, especially Creation according to Genesis and Genesis creation account. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're getting warmer ...Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, as I have previously stated, let's please change the title and move on. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NPOV and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a journal read by theologians. "Myth" is not a term to be used in this context. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I too am in support but, theologians are unlikely to use the term "myth". "Narrative" is also an obscure phrase when it comes down to it, much more likely to be found in the pages of a journal than something like, say "story".  Just saying.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support move from Genesis creation myth to Genesis creation narrative. I'll repeat my earlier observation that the term "myth" is similar to the term "cult": both terms may be used responsibly in scholarly works, but a general audience is likely to read the term(s) as demeaning. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support as it's not wrong, merely inconsistent, pace all those wrangling about the gossamer thin division between cultural myths that survive through various sources and those which survive through a fairly consistent single source and just happen to have living believers. Although I'm loath to give in to the special pleading of Christians, this is clearly an argument that just won't go away, and it's preventing other important work on the article. I will, however, probably wander over to the other "X creation myth(s)" pages and try to get them renamed to "X creation narrative" for the sake of consistency at some stage. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Two points. 1) I resent being lumped in with Christians.  2) "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  Just saying.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment — "Special pleading of Christians"? The principle has nothing to do with anything like that. The basic principles that are relevant to this discussion do not pertain to religious views. Number one issue is that article titles should be succinct. Number two is that article titles should not be in the business of characterizing subject matter in any way except if unavoidable due to disambiguation concerns. The subject of this article is identifiable by two words, I think: "Genesis" and "creation." Words like "story," "narrative," and "account" would merely fill out the title as concerns complete language. Title such as "Creation according to Genesis" does likewise. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out Bus Stop, that he did give his support. So let's try not to berate him too much when he's helping us build consensus :)  Cheers, SAE (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and in the same conciliatory vein, I won't even try to defend my use of "special pleading", as this isn't the place for that argument. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is actually of interest that this got framed as "special pleading to Christians" because a fair number of the more ardent non-mythers here are Jewish if I understand correctly. Dr. Marcus I don't mean to quibble or pick on you, so please don't take offense that I'm pointing this out with reference to a phrase you used.  But I've said this before and I just think that too many assumptions here are colored by culture wars discourses and very many well meaning interlocutors here don't even realize how much their own comments might be shaped by these discourses.  This type of assumption is pretty high on the list.Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo — Did someone indicate that they were Jewish? I must have missed that part of the discussion. I was just trying to argue (immediately above) that the reasoning behind some of my own argumentation did not even take religion into consideration. As I see it the disagreement pivots on what constitutes a good title. Good titles shouldn't include superfluous information. Good titles should only include the least information necessary to identify an article, unless disambiguation (with other articles) is a factor. Bus stop (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I mentioned it here, but I've certainly mentioned it before. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gam ani.EGMichaels (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa on "Christians". I meant "special pleading by adherents of extant religions". Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weakened support -- a fitting word is unfortunately too "complex" (I believe the term was used previously) for those who are ignorant of the term. They will not be enlightened by learning the meaning of the word, instead they will be offended. I was hoping enlightenment would be possible. I'm seeing now it won't be. So turn it to "narrative" or whatever. There are more important battles. Auntie E. (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with some change The word 'myth', although it has many meanings, can be interpreted as meaning a fictitious legend. Whether Genesis is fictitious/incorrect or otherwise is a matter of POV. As Wikipedia is neutral and objective, documenting notable point of views but not presenting them as fact, it would be best to avoid calling the creation story of Genesis a myth, seeing as that word can be interpreted as meaning a fictitious story. I see the opposition's point, however.  'Myth' can be synonymous with 'story', without indicating how true it is.  But seeing as it is not limited to that definition, it should be avoided.  I will mention, however, that this is probably only one of many articles with 'myth' in the title used to refer to a story some think or thought was true, and probably one of many more that use 'myth' in this way within the article.  So while I feel this way about this article, I think it's just one small example of a much bigger issue.Kind Journalist (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support As many have mentioned above, use of the word "myth" is rather POV-ish. Sidenote: I wouldn't have a problem if you were to change the title to the Genesis creation story, which is an accurate descriptor for the written account, fits easily as a NPOV title, and best of all, does not imply fact nor fiction. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Narrative is certainly more neutral. Grantmidnight (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, it works as a neutral title and would avoid the problems here. We can argue about the linguistic nature of the term "myth" for months, but a simple move here to a title which still represents the topic and is not seen as problematic by others is surely a better option. --Taelus (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The generic term is "Creation myth", and that article includes all creation myths, including the Christian one. Since Christian creation myth redirects here, it's disingenuous and non-neutral to claim that this is somehow different from all other religions' creation myths. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 17:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you consider this the "Christian" creation myth first and foremost when clearly it was the Jewish creation myth long before Christianity ever existed? The current title is not inline with common use in scholarship.  The "generic term" is not the most used in this case in scholarship.  Are you suggesting we defy common academic usage in order to enforce our own rules of "fairness"?  That seems to be against the very grain of this project.Griswaldo (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm merely going by the way the articles and redirects are set up. There is no Jewish creation myth page, yet there is a Christian creation myth page that redirects here.  If this is first and foremost a Jewish creation myth, why no redirect?  All I'm suggesting is that it is clearly non-neutral to make an exception for this one article, when all the other ones, as well as the main article, are called creation myths.  Keep everything on a level playing field.  That's the best way to maintain neutrality. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is actually yet another misconception. Please browse the "creation myth" category.  Most entries about creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the title.  Only a handful do and all of those are of the following variety: "name of civilization" + "creation myth".  There is an argument for renaming this "Judeo-Christian creation myth" but even then it would pretty much be the only one of its kind here.  People need to stop and do some research before commenting here.  I fully understand why these assumptions are made but they are actually misguided.Griswaldo (talk) 01:26, 28 April 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.

Policy regarding the move request above
While I'm for the move, I wanted to point out that two long standing policies stand in direct contravention to the change we are trying to make.

From WP;_SAY Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.

Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.

From Neutral_point_of_view 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 note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view (bolding added), or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid.

Fankly, I think these policies have to change for many of the reasons discussed above. Does anyone want to join me at the village pump to try and overturn these policies? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the village pump? Also, there's another policy which goes against the ones you posted:


 * From UCN
 * Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. 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.

The following are examples of common names that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of a more elaborate, formal or scientifically precise alternative:
 * Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton")
 * Snoop Dogg (not "Cordozar Calvin Broadus")
 * Hulk Hogan (not "Terry Gene Bollea"'')
 * Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos")
 * Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)
 * Nazi Party (not Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)


 * It's been argued by some that "creation myth" is the common usage in reliable sources, but this has been shown by EGM not to be the case. The argument on the side of using "myth" comes down to "that's the technically correct term."  Which this policy explicitly rules out.  Yes, Aphrodite of Melos is the technically correct name of the Venus de Milo.  So what?


 * And it isn't clear that policies about religion are pertinent here. After all, the bulk of the article argues that the narrative is not what the religions which use it claim it to be at all.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:PUMP is the Talk page for Wikipedia itself.
 * Wikipedia naming policy effectively trumps the bits of the above-quoted guidelines that would seem to argue against Genesis creation narrative. For search and linking purposes, article names are to reflect common usage while remaining as neutral as possible. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In support of my oppose above, I submit the following analysis.
 * As per WP:COMMONNAME, "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...Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common."
 * And Article titles "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject."
 * And Article titles, "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.
 * And most importantly, Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.


 * Both this and the current "Genesis creation myth" are descriptions, not the most commonly used name or label for this subject. I'm currently surveying the references cited to get an idea how they most commonly address it. I'm a third of the way through them (not all available to me or quickly searchable, but none so far have called it explicitly "Genesis creation myth" or "Genesis creation narrative".)


 * To gauge the most common usage via google hits, the following are my search results. Except for the category "all", these searches are all mutually exclusive, meaning searching for hits where one term of use is used while the others are not.
 * {|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center"

! style="background:#efefef;" | All uses ! style="background:#efefef;" | Genesis creation (alone) ! style="background:#efefef;" | Genesis creation myth (only) ! style="background:#efefef;" | Genesis creation narrative (only) ! style="background:#efefef;" | Genesis creation story (only) ! style="background:#efefef;" | Genesis creation account (only) ! style="background:#efefef;" | Google web !colspan="6"| ! style="background:#efefef;" | Google Books !colspan="6"| ! style="background:#efefef;" | Google Scholar !colspan="6"|
 * Google Hits "Genesis Creation"
 * Google Hits "Genesis Creation"
 * align="right"|Count
 * align="right"|73,300
 * align="right"|8,140
 * align="right"|717
 * align="right"|214
 * align="right"|2,010
 * align="right"|1,560
 * align="right"|Percent
 * align="right"|11.1%
 * align="right"|1.0%
 * align="right"|0.3%
 * align="right"|2.7%
 * align="right"|2.1%
 * align="right"|Rank
 * align="right"|1
 * align="right"|4
 * align="right"|5
 * align="right"|2
 * align="right"|3
 * align="right"|1
 * align="right"|4
 * align="right"|5
 * align="right"|2
 * align="right"|3
 * align="right"|Count
 * align="right"|10,100
 * align="right"|5,460
 * align="right"|405
 * align="right"|572
 * align="right"|2,320
 * align="right"|1,620
 * align="right"|Percent
 * align="right"|54.1%
 * align="right"|4.0%
 * align="right"|5.7%
 * align="right"|23.0%
 * align="right"|16.0%
 * align="right"|Rank
 * align="right"|1
 * align="right"|5
 * align="right"|4
 * align="right"|2
 * align="right"|3
 * align="right"|1
 * align="right"|5
 * align="right"|4
 * align="right"|2
 * align="right"|3
 * align="right"|Count
 * align="right"|2,080
 * align="right"|1,050
 * align="right"|70
 * align="right"|96
 * align="right"|452
 * align="right"|356
 * align="right"|Percent
 * align="right"|50.5%
 * align="right"|3.4%
 * align="right"|4.6%
 * align="right"|21.7%
 * align="right"|17.1%
 * align="right"|Rank
 * align="right"|1
 * align="right"|5
 * align="right"|4
 * align="right"|2
 * align="right"|3
 * }
 * Given these results so far, I'm inclining towards "Genesis creation", period, and unless the references themselves reveal a clear preference or unless a very very very convincing argument is made here to support some alternative, I won't support a rename of the article. Narrative is no better than myth, and we need to resolve this once and for all.  It's become an absurd waste of time, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * align="right"|4
 * align="right"|2
 * align="right"|3
 * }
 * Given these results so far, I'm inclining towards "Genesis creation", period, and unless the references themselves reveal a clear preference or unless a very very very convincing argument is made here to support some alternative, I won't support a rename of the article. Narrative is no better than myth, and we need to resolve this once and for all.  It's become an absurd waste of time, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * NOTE In the hits above "Genesis creation" is almost always an adjectival phrase and not a noun. It modifies nouns like "story", "account", or "myth".  Can we use adjectives as titles?  I don't think so.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is relevant but WP:AVOID says "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." (Found here.) Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Prof. M. I did a similar exercise recently and I agree that "creation narrative" is not the most common alternative.  Your "Genesis creation" is quite similar to the "Biblical creation" idea Cush had.  However, like "Biblical creation" I'm unsure that all these hits for "Genesis creation" actually pertain to the referent in question here.  The best alternatives that clearly have these passages as their referent are "Genesis creation story" and "Genesis creation account", however, for whatever reasons, those two alternatives have been even less popular around here.  "Genesis creation myth", as you can see, is by far the loser here btw (in Scholar and Books that is ... I'm not really sure how significant the web hits are at all).  That simple fact is something that very few people here seem to either comprehend or be willing to own up to.  I'd be much happier with Genesis creation story than narrative, but this is the best compromise I think anyone has found.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)\
 * Also, Genesis 1:1–2:3 has always been an alternative. Not sexy but clearly neutral and more factual than any other alternative.  Prof. M, I'd also like to remind you that as far as I can tell there was another title on this article for quite some time before a group of editors changed it to the current title.  Ever since they did so there have been a ton of complaints on this talk page.  You quote something stating that: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."  That cuts both ways you know.  The old title would never have changed had not a group of editors debated it.  I agree wholeheartedly that there are better things to do here, but I also believe that a vast majority of the editors partaking in this debate who want to move on from this also want the title changed.  I'm not sure how interested the opposers are (you excluded), on the other hand, in doing actual work on this article.Griswaldo (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you search for just "Genesis" (alone), it will yield an even greater number of hits! It's the nature of textual search functions that shorter phrases will tend to yield more hits; your results demonstrate nothing except that general mathematical principle in action. The problems with the perceived implications of myth have been articulated repeatedly. Story has similar problems: a perceived implication of fictionality. Now, I've posed this query several times in various forms, and no one has articulated an answer to explain their opposition: What is the problem with narrative? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what is the problem with "narrative"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also suggest actually taking a look at the hits in, lets say google scholar, for "Genesis creation". Here is a link .  Note that "Genesis creation" is an adjectival phrase here ... not a noun.  It modifies nouns like, most commonly (surprise surprise) "story" and "account".  I'm pretty sure we cannot make titles out of adjectives.  Is that correct?  That, once again, leaves Genesis creation story as the clear winner.Griswaldo (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with "Genesis creation narrative." Has anyone articulated an objection to "Genesis creation narrative?" I would prefer "Genesis creation story" because "story" is a simpler word than "narrative." Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Prof. M's objection seems to be that it is barely more common in usage than "Genesis creation myth". It is a fair point.  I would prefer "Genesis creation story" but as far as I can tell it gets even less traction than narrative.  This is why IMO narrative might be better (because it works as a compromise).Griswaldo (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)"Story" is less formal, and it's also worth pointing out that Christian publications titled "Bible Stories" are typically "retellings" of the narratives in language that's easier for kids to understand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @JasonAQuest-A search for just "Genesis (alone)" will give you Fall of Man, Noah's Ark, Cain and Abel, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham/Isaac/Ishmael/Jacob/Joseph etcetera. If you find any other use of the term "Genesis creation" that isn't referring specifically to this very topic of "Genesis 1:2" or "Genesis creation myth" or "Genesis creation story" or "Bible creation story" please share it. There can't be many. I understand both the nature of textual search and the nature of the topic itself. We have a lot of opinions here, like this objection, that aren't borne first from scholarship and those won't help here.
 * The fundamental flaw in your study has nothing to do with the content of the phrase and everything to do with its length: shorter phrases get more hits. You are comparing "apples" and "rotten apples" and the results are statistically meaningless.  Don't be dismissive of an objection just because you don't understand it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Griswaldo-yes, it can act as a modifier, but my searches ruled out "Genesis creation myth", "Genesis creation story", "Genesis creation narrative", etc. If you can think of a more commonly used noun to go with its usage as adjective than "myth" or "story" we can look at it also.  But it is not at all always a modifier.  For example, "in Genesis creation" which is using it as a noun there are over a well over a million hits.
 * @Til Eulenspiegel Narrative isn't best suited policy-wise, common-usage-wise, and I have at least one reference who claims creation myths are "stories" specifically, not just any kind of creation "narrative" but specifically a "story" type narrative.
 * Further note-I've searched and copied from the archives the threads that focused on this very dispute. Those threads alone now fill 320 standard format pages in MS Word. We all can keep on this silliness forever, but it's looking more and more like pure stubbornness, not policy nor "scholarship", is driving most of the debate.  Professor marginalia (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When I looked at the actual results from Google scholar using "Genesis creation" there were only two common outputs -- as a modifier (adjectival phrase) or as no phrase at all. Please see this link again .  Examples of hits that are not using the phrase as a modifier are typically like this: "A Critical Edition of Evrat's Genesis: Creation to the Flood" or "Genesis, creation and early man".  In these examples there is no actual phrase "Genesis creation" to speak of, just the two words happening to come in sequential order even though they are broken up by punctuation.  Google does not account for punctuation properly (or as one would like it to) in these searches I'm afraid.  The example you list above might be found in 0.1% of these hits.  It really helps to actually look at the results themselves.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've labeled all the searches, and each count except "all" excludes the other search strings in the table. The chief complication that pops up would be plurals such as "Genesis creation myths", "Genesis creation accounts", "genesis creation narratives"  (ie "creation narratives" is twice as common as "creation narrative", hence another opening to bicker endlessly over whether 1 or 2 narratives/accounts/stories should be labeled "givens" right at the outset of the article.  There are plenty of examples of "genesis creation" as a referent rather than modifier in there, without intermediary punctuation, although note even the "genesis:creation" usages are almost always using "Genesis" as the modifier, "creation" as the noun. A more exacting count would take more time, but surveying those with text available for quick scan, "are quick to claim that references to a literal Genesis creation are not relegated", "In the play proper Byron dismisses the primacy of the Genesis creation, and has Lucifer", "Genesis creation and worldwide flood, "50,000-square-foot museum promoting a literal Genesis creation about 10,000 years ago", "But even though this statement is somewhat reminiscent of the Genesis creation, does it necessarily mean", "The scop tells of the Genesis creation of the physical universe", etc. No clearer alternative immediately floats to the top with this closer look (genesis creation text or texts show up but not in big numbers).
 * Though I'm loathe to resort to this (dictionary definitions are a very, very weak rationale in these disputes), "creation" is always a noun, and as in "the Creation" a proper noun describing "the original bringing into existence of the universe by god", or "The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence", "God's creation of the world as described in the Book of Genesis". Creation according to the dictionary definitions is always noun, Genesis in this case would be the modifier. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to begin but I'll try to keep the points broken up for clarity. Prof. M I have to say that I'm getting slightly puzzled by your insistence on this term being preferable based on common use. It clearly isn't. Once we wade through the junk that turns up from the Google searches it is rarely used, and when it is it bares this literalist/historical connotation virtually always. It is clearly less common and way less precise if we are trying to label a narrative that is laid out in a few biblical passages.Griswaldo (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Creation" is always a noun, but in terms of this discussion the properties of a noun that modifies another noun that are shared with a true adjective are exactly what is at issue. I apologize for being sloppy with my terminology.  For the same reason that "creation" is not an adjective, "Genesis" is also not an adjective.  The notion that creation is not the modifier, but only "Genesis" is not correct when they are both followed by nouns like "account", "myth", "text", "story", etc..  In these cases they are clearly both modifiers.  Once again though the issue is that when these words or phrases modify nouns like "account" or "story" they are not appropriate for a title because they rely on those nouns for meaning.   Using "genesis creation" as an example of common use in a discussion about its merits as an article title requires examples in which the full string is not a modifier.  Period.
 * When I replicate your "Genesis creation" only search, also subtracting the plurals I almost half your number -- now down to 687. See .  So that's still more than any of the specific options so what's the problem? The problem is that when I click on the results there are still a vast majority that are not of the kind you have exemplified above.  Still more modifying examples exist -- "Genesis creation texts", "Genesis creation stones", "Genesis Creation Museum", "Genesis creation material", etc.  What remains after these are for the most part  examples where punctuation breaks the words apart, and in those cases we are no longer dealing with this term at all -- e.g. "Genesis (creation; the story ...", "What is their Genesis? Creation Research Society Quarterly", "Genesis: creation and the patriarchs", etc.  Of the first 50 hits guess how many are of the kind you describe above? 7 (8 if we include its use as a "key word").  I know this is just dirty guess but 8/50 * 687 = 109.  109 is merely 10% of the number you're touting, and well below the other options which don't suffer the types of problems described here since they are actually full noun phrases in virtually every instant they are found.
 * This brings me to the actual instances, 8 of the first 50, that use the phrase "Genesis creation" on its own. These instances are almost exclusively of one kind -- when "Genesis creation" is being taken as an actual event that occurred in history -- e.g. "literal Genesis creation", "Byron discusses the primacy of the Genesis creation", "A literal Genesis creation", "reminiscent of the Genesis creation", etc.  In these instances "Genesis creation" refers to the act of creation by God, and not the story about that act or otherwise the retelling of that act.  The various authors here do not all necessarily believe in the actuality of this act, but when they don't they are describing real people, or characters in another story, who do believe in this literal act.  In this sense the term is much worse than "Creation according to Genesis" in how much it implies that an actual act of creation by God has actually happened.


 * The idea of "Genesis creation" is silly. It'll be challenged and overturned almost immediately, because it implies that there was a creation, which is disputed by one side of this debate.  If it weren't for WP:AGF, I might suspect that this is the professor's actual intent.  Torpedo the consensus that's been built for something truly NPOV ("Genesis creation narrative") so that it'll wind up as "Genesis creation myth" again.  I can't imagine what useful reason there would be for omitting the completely neutral and descriptive term "narrative".  Those who think it's true agree that it's a narrative.  Those who think it's not agree it's a narrative.  Why are we still quibbling about this?  Let's get on with the name change and get back to squabbling about the actual content.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more than willing to WP:AGF here myself, but I think its going to be hard if the Prof. doesn't recognize that Gensis creation is simply not remotely as common as his table implies. Also what Lisa says about the implication of the phrase is not just an implication of course, but a reality when it comes to actual usage of the phrase.  See my third point above where I show exactly this use in actual examples.  I really hope that particular issue is settled for good.  Prof M, can you please take a look at my post and respond regarding this.  I'm more than willing to believe that you didn't go through all the steps that I did to sort this out, but now that they are in front of you what's the verdict?  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @griswaldo - no, your reasoning is good. Google scholar isn't a good rubric at this level because a) a large proportion in this hit count included citations which will "hit" only on strings in titles b) the counts aren't large to begin with and c) a sizable number of hits don't have anything to do with this subject at all.  But even google books, which is a little better measure due to a/b/c, and google web which which can be a real garbage can of unrelated stuff, are certainly over-counting the usage.  You've produced a good argument. I'm almost done surveying the references used.  And I've also done some google hit reruns to see how things shake out with the plurals, multiple usage, etc.  I'll update soon.


 * @Lisa - "torpedo the consensus"? You be sure and let us know when you've changed the WP:AGF policy to apply only to those who agree with you in the wiki polls, okay? Until then, I'm going to respect the policies we do have. I'm not completely finished, but as it stands now "genesis creation narrative" and "genesis creation myth" are very distant finishers.  If this dispute could be successfully settled with NPOV, "creation according to genesis" would be the end of it.  But NPOV is NOT the dominant factor in article naming...common usage prevails except in special circumstances.  The reason given for the most recent successful article rename was that "genesis creation myth" was more commonly used than "creation according to genesis".  I'm focused on policy issues as I listed several paragraphs above, and otherwise - meh...I don't care about this rename (although I'm annoyed oftentimes to see nicely, aptly phrased pipe changed due to the "oversensitivity" of editors of all stripes with an itch to push and/or vanquish a very narrow POV).  So I'm not backing this one.  It doesn't measure up to the article naming policies, and I'm not wasting any of my time examining article renames some other way.  Professor marginalia (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Prof. M. Don't you think the "Genesis creation" and "Biblical creation" options are a bit dead in the water because of the literalist implications, I mean however we move forward?  I do think that the common use argument regarding "creation narrative" is a fair point.  In use it stacks up pretty much 1:1 with "creation myth". I will say this though, there is much closer semantic relationship between "narrative" and "story" than between either and "myth" (in fact I doubt there is a thesaurus out there that doesn't list "narrative" and "story" as synonyms).  So far, from several different approaches using Google scholar and books, "creation story" seems to be the clear common use winner.  As I've stated several times now that actual phrase is my preference, but I can see an argument for putting "narrative" over the top of "myth" based on this as well.  The two appear about as many times, but "narrative" is also a synonym of "story" and story appears well more times than other alternatives.  The only problem I have with using "narrative" is that it's just more obscure than "story".  The flip side is that narrative is probably an increasingly popular phrase in scholarship on these passages, though I might be wrong about that.  It is certainly more and more common in the humanities generally speaking.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this. "Genesis creation" and "biblical creation" or just plain "the creation" with the Bible/Genesis/OT implied by the context are the most common used. It's by far the most common usage here at wikipedia, it turns out.  Most inline wikilinks to this article (over half) are piped as just plain "creation", "biblical creation", or "the creation", compared with less than 1 in 5 that are left unpiped as "genesis creation myth". But these are usually because the creation event (as opposed to the story we find it in) is what is being written about.  But it's unsuited here, I'm convinced now, because this article is about the story first, the nature of the event in it second.
 * And no two ways about it, narrative is by far the more obscure usage. I've looked at it backwards and forwards.  Narrative, when it is the term used, is used more often when the focus is on the text thru the scope of literary analysis comparing the form, style, voice etc to either the second narrative in Genesis or some other text than in other contexts.  The most common usage even in books and journals is "story".  Even when examined as myth, "story" is used along with more often than not.  After scanning a stack of texts, I think the primary case when "story" fades to the background is when the tone is the  "Genesis 1/Genesis 2" style, addressed exactly by chapter and verse, without much need for "account" or "narrative" etc.  It's also interesting that "myth" is only infrequently the term used in texts that one might view as "disparaging" of Genesis creation.  On the blogs or youtube, you will see it- and here on wikipedia clearly it has been used this way too often.  What's also interesting is the emphasis this "myth" is given in the creationist related articles  which is the area where I see it far less often used in real published books than I do in other areas looking at it, such as in literature, religion, anthropology, ancient history, art.  The creationist texts (and creationism probably most explains these 'battle lines' here over words) are dealing with the religious aspects, not the mythic aspects. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Village pump discussion about WP:RNPOV
Village_pump_(policy)

I've requested that this policy be modified to make it clear that when it comes to article titles, words which carry a common connotation of POV should not be used. Currently, no distinction is made between titles and the articles themselves, and some editors have seized on this as a reason to insist on including the word "myth" in the title of this article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea!Mk5384 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems as though WP:RNPOV has been deleted by consensus over at WP:NPOV. So disregard this.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has long discouraged all but the academic/quoted sense of "cult" and words which similarly label. I had suggested that the term "myth" by explicitly included in the section at WP:WTW, formerly WP:WTA. Perhaps editors here would like to comment there, regarding "myth" being designated a "word that labels". --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I second your sentiment Tam. NickCT (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is potential for abuse concerning a term like "myth." I think that "myth" should not be used unless its sense is obvious or if an explanation accompanies its use. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The comparison between "cult" and "myth" does a serious disservice to the former term where the issue involves communities of living people being associated with things like brainwashing, mass suicide, sexual abuse, etc. The cult label may have serious real world consequences.  Calling someone's cherished beliefs false may not be very nice but it pales in comparison.  Please reconsider going down this road.  In the proper context and with the proper wikilinking the term "myth" does not need the type of attribution suggested for "cult" either.  I agree that without such context there is a strong case to avoid it, which makes sense regarding the title, but with context avoiding it is just pandering to a minority.  Once you start down this road another problem will be differentiating clearly between these things.  Again I think this is a bad idea.Griswaldo (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo — there already exists WP:LABEL. Are you saying not to add "myth" to the words cautioned against there? Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that this term doesn't compare to some of the other words we try to avoid in there, and I see such a comparison being made. The guidelines is great, but I don't think this term needs to go in there.  A sensible guideline would be to caution against or simply forbid the use of "myth" in its colloquial sense of meaning "not true".  If "myth" were added to WP:LABEL I'd make sure it wasn't compared to "cult" but was given its own set of less drastic cautions like: "Avoid using myth as a label if the context is not clear."Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Myth and cult are different words, but they share to some degree the potential for abuse and misunderstanding. I think any word can be used. But it might be good for future reference to have "myth" listed along with words that have the potential to cause misunderstanding. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors may wish to comment at WP:VPM. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead
"The account" has implications of truth which is a very significant pov for the lead. I replaced it with "a story" which still seems better (less definitive) to me but this was reverted. Other views would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Story" gives implications of untruth, so that could be seen as POV too. "Account" is better I think for this reason: Everybody believes the world had a beginning at some time, fact. This is Genesis' account then of that beginning. Since the Bible is the best-selling book of all time, Genesis deserves to be able to stand as giving it's own account. We're not questioning it's truth or untruth in the first sentence.  Just laying out the plain facts as they stand.  SAE (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How does "account" imply truth? Moby Dick is an account of Captain Ahab's vendetta against a whale.  Would it help if it said "An account", rather than "The account"?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Account implies truth just as much as story implies untruth -- both can be used in ways that more explicitly encompass one of those less neutral meanings. However, for the most part, at least in modern usage, neither term implies anything about truth in and of itself, and both rely on context for meaning anyway.  When an "account" or a "story" is attributed to another person, group of persons, or a text any reader understands that its just according to that entity and not some objective reality outside of it.  The real problem here is that you all are going to bicker over these terms because the other group likes the other one better.  That mere fact lends more psychological wieght to the notion that it must mean what you don't want it to mean.  My advice to both sides of this.  Give it up.  It's just counterproductive.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "account," "story," and "narrative" are pretty noncommittal on the question of truth or falseness as concerns the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Usability
As of this timestamp, this page is nearly 400 KB long. It contains multiple related discussions regarding naming and multiple actual proposals for alternative titles, including two three concurrent requested moves. In short, it is virtually impossible for anyone who has not been involved with this article for a long time to follow all that is taking place.

I have two requests, which I believe will improve the situation. First, let's close the two open RMs (nearly 250 KB combined and open for more than 7 days) and archive them; if there is consensus in the RMs to rename to one of the two proposals—Creation according to Genesis or Biblical Creation—then it should be implemented. Second, in the future, please let's consider only one move request at any given time or propose and consider all options at the same time. The current approach of considering multiple options that were proposed at different stages of different discussions is much too chaotic.

Implementing even one of these would be an improvement, in my opinion. Thoughts? -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. Are there any objections to closing "Creation according to Genesis" and "Biblical creation"?  If we continue with other requests can we just table these indefinitely?  My personal suggestion would be to continue with "Genesis creation narrative", and only after closing the request as BlackFalcon suggests move onto another.  My personal preference would be "Genesis creation story", and I'm making that suggestion in part because of a discussion with BlackFalcon regarding Google results hidden somewhere in the above mess. Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend going with "narrative" rather than "story", simply because "story" is more loaded. Yes, it's been claimed to be loaded in both directions (one editor suggested that it implies historicity and another suggested that it implies falsity -- go figure), but still, "narrative" remains the one term that no one has perceived bias in.  Google results don't trump that.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I second GresW's motion. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, can you please separate out your comment about "story"? By grouping it together with your other proposal, it makes it difficult for anyone to post agreement with one and not the other.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "Creation according to Genesis," the long time name of this article, was fine, and is still arguably the best title for this article. We should not be "characterizing" the subject matter in any way. "Myth" most egregiously puts a "spin" on it and tells the reader what to think. But the discussions concerning "story," "account," and "narrative," all seem to concern themselves with what implications these terms carry. The beauty of "Creation according to Genesis" is that it bypasses the issue of characterization of the subject matter in any way. It is a simple explication of what is to follow. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well other people do not agree with you regarding the old title, and I'm one of them. Some have suggested that "Creation according to Genesis" connotes fact ... the fact of a creation.  Personally I don't worry about that, and my own (possibly solitary) view is that "Creation according to Genesis" suggests an authoritative interpretation of the text.  In reality we're always dealing with the genesis creation narrative according to interpretation.  Outside of a word for word copy of the Hebrew text there is no "Creation according to Genesis".  Those who tend to claim that there is ... or otherwise make statements that include phrases like "according to the Bible", or "according to Deuteronomy", etc. make those statements with the intention of conveying that their reading is authoritative.  It isn't according to them, but according to the text itself.  I wrote more about this above, including an explanation of how I believe this also implies that the text is given agency, but that part isn't necessary here.  I actually believe that "according to Genesis" may be the worst alternative here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to "Genesis creation narrative." There seems to be a lot of support for that, and I don't think there have been any objections to "Genesis creation narrative" voiced.


 * Why does this article exist? Shouldn't we be asking ourselves that question? If a serious initiative arose to delete the article, how would you defend its existence? The answer to that should guide your choice of title, I think. Shouldn't it exist because it is a cultural artifact in some circles regarding how the world came into existence? Or would you defend its existence as an article on different grounds? If it is an explication, in certain cultural circles, as to the beginnings of the world, then why shouldn't our title reflect that? To me, "Creation according to Genesis" includes an acknowledgement of something that I think all interpretations arrive at, namely that the narration alludes to the initiation of the world.


 * You imply that there are different interpretations of Genesis chapters one and two. What are they? Are they enormously different from one another? I think they are all in the same ball park. They all put words to events by which the basic substance of the universe, including mankind, acquired existence. Are there interpretations that disagree with that characterization? Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes some of them are enormously different from another. One obvious example is creation "ex nihilo" vs. creation out of chaos.  Which is it?  According to most biblical scholars it is the latter, and according to most Christian theologians it is the former.  I recall a related argument from Alastair regarding these chapters being anti-mythological.  From what I gathered the claim is that the authors of Genesis were critiquing Babylonian creation mythology not copying it.  These are, again, huge differences.  Then there are related differences in the interpretive frames used by scholars and laymen now and historically -- e.g. as a myth, as a literal account, as allegory, etc.  I don't think this point needs belaboring.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to see your point as concerns there being a significant difference between various interpretations. It is not as though we are characterizing science. What is the difference, from the point of view of what article title we choose, whether "creation" takes place against a backdrop of nothingness or against a backdrop of "chaos?" We are just choosing a title that relates to the general idea of "creation," in a non-scientific way. I think the "interpretations" that you allude to fade into insignificance, as the subject at hand is merely a cultural reference. If this were science, it would matter greatly what particles, for instance, existed at the moment of the "beginning." But we need not be overly concerned with such concrete matters here, I don't think. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand how you're addressing my problem with the old title. The point is simply that there is no one uniform "creation" according to Genesis.  Perhaps "Creation according to interpretations of Genesis".  Please address this point or else I'm not sure we're really discussing anything at all here just talking past each other.  Also, please realize that the sociological point I added above explains why it makes me particularly uneasy.  If anything this article does and should address the fact that there is no one authoritative interpretation of this or any other Biblical texts.  We should therefore stay away from language that implies that what we present is "creation according to Genesis".  If you are saying that each community that takes a different approach to the creation narrative each also individually believe that their interpretation is of "creation according to Genesis" then if anything that underscores the absurdity of the title and not the utility of it.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You suggest "Creation according to interpretations of Genesis." That is also an acceptable title. But it suffers from being unnecessarily long. And just like "Genesis creation myth," it contains unnecessary material. I think that it is not necessary to point out at the level of the title that there are "interpretations" (in the plural) of Genesis. Some things can wait until the body of the article. The purpose of a title is to identify an article's subject by minimal references. Some aspects of an article's import require the actual reading of the article. That is what the present title suffers from: too much information. The body of the article is where the many "interpretations" can and should be explored.


 * Furthermore, and forgive me if I am being obtuse, how does the title "Creation according to Genesis" limit the number of interpretations to only one? To my way of thinking, all interpretations (plural) fall under that heading. I don't think it (that title) conveys any strong implication that there is only one interpretation. I think it is perfectly reasonable to explore any number of interpretations within the body of an article with the simple title "Creation according to Genesis."


 * We don't need to know, at the level of the title, other than the bare essentials: Genesis and creation. Maybe that is a title worth considering: "Genesis and creation." Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This really isn't worth arguing. Maybe you're being obtuse, but I don't mean that as an insult because apparently I think I'm one of the only people not being obtuse about this, so really where does that leave me? Like I said above I might be the only person here who has this particular objection.  If you read my exchange above you'll get yet more information regarding my perspective but I'm not sure that will clarify anything.  In the end maybe I'm obtuse, I'm not sure, but either way its not worth arguing about something that wont be resolved.  The other objection I mention is held by more than one person other than myself however.  The point is that the old title is not liked by many ... the whole "myth" crowd as well as some of us who don't like the myth title.  I think, as I said above, that it's dead in the water.Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title "Creation according to Genesis" in no way limits the number of interpretations of the text to only one. On the other hand, "narrative," "myth," and "story" are singular nouns and imply that Genesis only contains one account of creation. Many interpreters maintain there are two distinct accounts while others dispute this. "Creation according to Genesis" neutrally leaves open the question of how many accounts there are.--agr (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The "narrative" may include several source narratives and still be a narrative. There's no need to put plural in there.  Besides, plural can only be plural, while singular could also be plural.


 * Think of the phrase of a tragedy; "their death" instead of "their deaths" is perfectly intelligible.EGMichaels (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I just wrote I will not argue this anymore, but just as a point of fact I wasn't arguing that the title limits the amount of interpretations to one in any practical sense when writing an encyclopedia article. The argument is that implies that there is an authoritative interpretation directly attributable to the text itself..  Put perhaps more clearly it implies that interpretation isn't necessary.  If we have "creation according to Genesis" we don't need to interpret anything.  Again, my reasons for not liking this are less to do with semantics and more to do with social practices.  I am not going to rehash all of this anymore.  You can read the exchange directly above and here but I will not continue this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#Proposals .  In fact I'm sorry I brought it up a second time at all.Griswaldo (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is only a problem when you are dealing with redactive criticism. If you merely focus on the final text, regardless of what Ur texts went into it, it's simpler to just say "narrative" to mean the final text.  Most folks approach the book from that perspective, and THEN dig into the substrata.  So, we can start with a title that is recognizable to most folks and then tell them something they didn't already know.EGMichaels (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No I actually agree with using "narrative" or "story". That is a clear identification of, as you say, a final text.  The problem I have (sorry for breaking my promise) is with the identification of something else, in the text, and authoritatively "according to" the text.  But again I recognize that others do not agree with me, or else that I'm not getting through so no need to continue that.  Just wanted to clarify that I'm all for "narrative" or "story".Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly does seem like we're all circling around something we can live with. I'm amazed at how much interest a little book report (on Genesis) has attracted. ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's right. I look at the history of my own comments here and readily recognize several small shifts of opinion based on arguments and evidence provided by a wide array of editors.  I also think some real progress has been made regarding common use, which I'm beginning to understand is should really sit at the foundation of this discussion but I'm not sure everyone cares or agrees unfortunately.  We'll see, but I think that there is at least one option that handles all challanges -- neutrality, common use, scholarly use, etc.  I wont repeat it but it includes a word that starts with S and ends with Y.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't see the advantage in "Genesis creation soapy."EGMichaels (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm sorry for the confusion.  What I meant was Genesis creation sticky.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We're getting down to the real 'pickies', like singular/plural, etc. story v stories, narrative v narratives. For absolutely no other reason than practicality, I ask for a re-hash of "Creation according to Genesis." Here are some "according to's" that already exist on Wikipedia. Please note that none of them inherently increase their authoritativeness, authenticity, or believability because of the "according to" prepositional phrase. It simply sources the material. The perceived validity or credence is entirely dependent on whatever opinion the reader has about Genesis. No one has yet presented a convincing case for avoiding "according to" because it implies truth in Genesis's report.

As I write this, our area is under a tornado warning! It's nearly 1 a.m. and, of course, pitch dark. The TV announcer just said, "According to the U.S. Weather Bureau, funnel cloud activity is being seen on its Doppler radar at ...." Then, another station just reported, "According to a driver on the Interstate, he describes what he says is 'clearly a funnel cloud' at the intersection of hwy x and the Interstate." Both said "according to" in sourcing their report. Which source has greater credibility to me as a listener? Not being a meteorologist, I'm putting my trust in the Doppler radar source. For those who have no confidence in Genesis, "according to Genesis" will kill it right there. And, the converse also will be true for some.

One more appeal for "Creation according to Genesis." Thanks for your forbearance. Consider these existing titles: According to Jim (an American sitcom television series,) Gospel According to John According To Our Records According to Hoyle According to Marxism-Leninism Gospel According to Matthew Gospel according to the Hebrews preserved only in the writings of the Church Fathers Gospel according to Luke Gospel According to Thomas (non-canonical) According to the United States National Cancer Institute List of America's Favorite Architecture according to the AIA─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are picking battles with the wrong argument. I don't think a single other editor here as expressed any support or backing for my particular objection.  Clearly my solitary view is rather meaningless.  More than one other editor objects to the old title for a wholly different reason.  I would suggest engaging that argument if you do like this title.


 * I will point out, however, that you've given examples of exactly what I've been so stubbornly claiming (to no avail). In all of these examples the implication is precisely that the authoritative view, according to the source, is being presented.  Clearly, outside of the source, there is no inherent or natural authority or objectivity for that matter.  "According to a driver on the interstate", means precisely according to him/her, and another driver may come up with another story altogether.  However within these sources we assume authenticity or else the "according to" is itself false.  So when you say "according to our records" the claim is that definitively our records say such and such.  Here we already see the power of authority because if these records are considered the means by which some claim can be adjudicated, then the statement "according to our records" is a heck of a lot more than just descriptive.  Interpretive haggling within communities that recognize the authority of a given text (or between people within these communities and people outside of them) comes up exactly for these reasons.  I tried to use the U.S. Constitution as an example when this conversation first started way above.  People make claims "according to the Constitution ..." to grant them the Constitution's authority.  In reality there is no according to the Constitution.  If there was we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to constantly reinterpret what that very statement should mean. I would argue that the gospel examples you bring up are not good ones for this conversation because while I could also reduce them to the same argument these phrases also happen to be accepted names in common use.  The "gospel according to Luke" is the name for a given text.  This name could be the "The anti-gospel of great renown in Rhodesia according to all living creatures except for the elephant" and we'd be in the same boat.  The Book of Matthew is arguable better than the Gospel according to Matthew, but the latter is still an acceptable, commonly used name.


 * So no it doesn't become more believable, but that's not the point. The point is exactly that we are not presenting a singular authoritative version of creation "according to Genesis" here.  Anyway I will no longer respond unless miraculously others agree with me because its pointless.  I would never force this issue if it came down to that because I know I stand alone.  Better have beef with an argument that has more traction.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument is unsupportable since -
 * According to the Constitution-redlink
 * Gospel according to Luke-redirect → Gospel of Luke
 * The Book of Matthew and Gospel according to Matthew redirects → Gospel of Matthew
 * According to Jim actual name of television series
 * Gospel According to John redirect → Gospel of John
 * According To Our Records redirect → ATO Records
 * According to Hoyle redirect → Edmond Hoyle
 * According to Marxist-Leninism redlink
 * Gospel According to Matthew redirect → Gospel of Matthew
 * Gospel according to the Hebrews redirect → Gospel of the Hebrews
 * Gospel according to Luke redirect → Gospel of Luke
 * Gospel According to Thomas redirect → Gospel of Thomas
 * According to the United States National Cancer Institute redlink
 * List of America's Favorite Architecture according to the AIA redirect → America's Favorite Architecture
 * Food for thought, given that even creation myth is currently being lobbied for a name change, I'd like to draw attention to the plethora of articles with "Gospel" in their title. The term "gospel" is widely used to mean absolutely true, as in "children accept as gospel what their parents tell them" or "don't take everything you read in the papers as gospel". Obviously it's not NPOV because a lot of people don't accept the Gospel of Luke as gospel. Those titles are offensive to some, widely misunderstood by others, and maybe they should be retitled with new euphemisms too?  Or wouldn't that be totally ... ridiculous. I think it would be, but I wonder what you think, Afaprof1. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice thoughts, but you're not starting with equal terms and you are aware of that. SAE (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They are both "equal"; they are both used to define certain types of texts and they both have alternative definitions in wide use in the broader culture. They both can serve as object lessons of what the NPOV policy is not at all designed for. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am referring to your comparison of the title that some want to give to this article and the title giving to a literary masterpiece that has been around for almost 2000 years. There is no equal ground here to begin the comparison.  "The Gospel of Matthew" is it's name, just like "Coke" is a name, and this is accepted by scholarship worldwide.  "Myth" on the other hand is a category we're are trying to fit the Genesis creation narrative into.  This is neither a title, nor is it universally excepted.  You are implying that if "myth" doesn't belong, than neither does "Gospel", but that is not an equal comparison. SAE (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument was more nuanced but you've apparently missed it. My argument is that what the articles are called have very little to do with whether or not there is universal acceptance the label is accurate.  It's not about whether there is universal acceptance to what the label implies to some or means literally; what matters most is whether it is the most common label in use in the mainstream and references used. I agree that "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common ("Genesis creation narrative" is even less common though.)  The article creation myth, however, is given the most common name as it's used in the real world. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, my mistake. I thought you were comparing the title "Gospel of Matthew" to "Creation Myth," and saying that if some are offended by "myth" (and therefore change the title because of that offense), then there is then precedence to change the title of "Gospel" because some can also be offended by that.  And that you were trying to show the ridiculousness of changing this current title, by comparing it to the ridiculousness of changing the title of something like "Gospel of Matthew."  In that way, there is no equal comparison between people's offense at "myth," and others offense at "Gospel."  But if that's not what you meant, then I apologize for missing your point. Cheers, SAE (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move discussion
Is there a reason why this discussion isn't being promoted on appropriate WikiProject talk pages? Surely we want the widest possible participation? --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We've got a hundred people on it now. This shouldn't be as complicated as it is.  "Myth" is obviously not consensus; "Truth" is clearly not consensus; "[something neutral]" is clearly consensus for everyone but the true-[dis]believers.


 * Put on a blindfold and throw a dart at a board filled with neutral substitutes.


 * Heck, a lot of the mythsters are claiming they are using the term in a "neutral" way. So, assume good faith (i.e. assume they are telling the truth about neutrality), pick a synonym for that "neutral" claim, and call it a day.EGMichaels (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it strange to use both genesis and creation in the article title, they being nearly synonymous terms. The biblical account of 'the beginning' (beginnings are required by 2nd law of thermodynamics, by the way), was and is an historical accounting--regardless of its accuracy. History is pretty much spun to POV of the winners--oh how much historical truth has been lost by the losers. Myth, account or whatever hardly deserves so much indecision. I'm neutral on that choice, but I do believe that the physical has beginnings that are non-physical.Mouselb (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DO you actually know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says? <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 · 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As much as it's going to upset Cush, I'm going to have to agree with him here. Mouselb, this is an encyclopedia; not a tract.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure that would be good on a tract.EGMichaels (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mouse in his assertion that "genesis" and "creation" are nearly synonymous terms and so they shouldn't both be used. I still lobby for the "Judeo–Christian creation myth" title I mentioned above. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'll continue to oppose that, because there's no such thing as "Judeo-Christian". That's a false conflation of two very separate and in most ways mutually exclusive religions.  Furthermore, there is a difference between Genesis and genesis.  The former is a book of the Bible.  The latter is a common noun which has a similar meaning to creation.  Don't confuse the two.  Furthermore, the term "myth" does not belong in the title.  It can be in the body of the article, where it can be explained that the intent is not to the common understanding of the word, but in a title, you don't get the opportunity to explain things.  You think the narrative is a myth, and others think the narrative is the truth.  But calling it "Creation truth" and calling it "Creation myth" -- in the title -- in inappropriate and agenda pushing.  What everyone agrees on is that it's some kind of narrative or other.  So let's go with "Genesis creation narrative".  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a false conflation at all. Christianity is theologically almost indistinguishable from Judaism, and especially the creation myth is the selfsame. And btw there are no serious people who don't think this is a myth. Only the lunatic fringe who reject methodological naturalism, empiricism, and all epistemology still adhere to this backward iron age belief that is just scientifically wrong in every single aspect. This stuff has even less credibility than the King Arthur myth. Oh, and there is no such thing as subjective truth. <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 ·  19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Judeo-Christian" does not imply a conflation of "theology" in the first place. I have a hard time understanding what on earth Cush is talking about.  This is a term that refers quite simply to things shared between the two traditions.  The narrative in question is such a shared thing quite obviously.  This title isn't the best, but it's not inaccurate and it doesn't imply all kinds of theological nonsense.  People here have a real tendency to conflate their own interpretations of what terms mean with the intended meaning of those terms, or their most common meaning in practice.Griswaldo (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But the conflation of theology is what Lisa was referring to and afraid of. We know Lisa, you know. <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 · 19:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed linkspam.Griswaldo (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cush — this is an article Talk page. You are using the Talk page to link to a satirical treatment of creation science. While I find the linked-to video funny, it also should be noted that none of us here have been arguing from a Creation science viewpoint. I don't recall that anyone opposes the present title because of religious sensibility, and it is a bit of a Straw man argument to construe the disagreement as one between science and religion. It is not that at all. The present title is problematic because titles should contain only essential material. A title is supposed to identify an article, and nothing more. It constitutes extraneous material to communicate to the reader that the subject matter contained herein is untrue. Sourced information of this nature belongs in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close the second move discussion above?
Why is the "Biblical creation" discussion still open? Does anyone object to it being closed?Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No objections here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What now?
So after the anti-myth faction is having their way, the work is not finished of course. Per WP:UCN all other articles that carry "creation myth" in their titles must be renamed to create consistency and encyclopedic honesty.


 * Chinese creation myth
 * Sumerian creation myth
 * Ancient Egyptian creation myths
 * Pelasgian creation myth
 * Tongan creation myth
 * Mesoamerican creation myths
 * every other you can find

These are all just narratives now and must no longer signal the supernatural in their titles.

And of course the Judeo-Christian section on the Creation Myth must be removed, now that special treatment has been allowed for the Pentateuch adherents. <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 · 06:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — what is "Judeo-Christian"? Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. The article can treat Judaism's relationship to Genesis, and the article can treat Christianity's relationship to Genesis. Why would any material have to be removed from the article? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to change them, go ahead and change them. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Cush you and I both know that you've listed every one anyone can find already. Please strike the deceptive "every other you can find".  The term is not used consistently in titles here nor, as Prof. Marginalia is trying to point out, is it used consistently in the real world.Griswaldo (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone research topics anymore or is this just another he bellyaches loudest wins website? Because I thought it was aspiring to be an encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point being? Creation myth was erased from the title to appease religious editors and readers, and not because research into the issue would have led to the conclusion that the opening chapters of Genesis do in fact not tell a creation myth (namely the Jewish and subsequently Christian one). <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 · 06:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is many are yelling, but few are researching. I did not support this name change, but there never has been "consistency" on the topic in this or any encyclopedia because "consistency" isn't real life, nor is it part of the policy here.  It was "erased" from the title because the name change request achieved a demonstrable consensus. I don't think any of the various names so far given this article actually came from researching what it was called in real life. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "what it was called in real life" ?? <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 · 10:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that going for a rename of the other articles is a good idea, and I strongly doubt that it will happen. After you will have tried and failed to do so, WIkipedia will de facto be an encyclopedia where the Genesis creation myth is the only creation myth that should not be called a creation myth. DVdm (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that the subject of this article may be referred to in different ways by different people in different places. Choosing an article name cannot possibly be based solely on reflecting actual usage because actual usage varies. In actual use, people are not referring to the title for an article, yet that is our sole aim. We are neither making reference to this subject in common speech nor are we didactically referring to this subject in an academic setting. This isn't a "teaching moment," as some have construed it. This is simply the titling of an article. That entails identifying the subject of the article and nothing more. Furthermore the supposed academic usage is probably not even universal in academic settings, as some editors seemed to point out. And even beyond that, the academic setting probably represents only a minority setting. It is necessary to read the article. The title has the purpose of only facilitating the finding of the article. The title thus has to help all people find the article. Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article is the creation myth that is contained/conveyed in the opening chapters of Genesis. For the sake of the religious editors here this title has been abandoned to set the belief systems that are built on said creation myth apart from all others. And you very well know that. The religionists have won, as simple as that. <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 · 10:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — there are no "religious editors" here. That is the straw man argument, again. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are clearly religious editors here. Bus stop it does not help anyone's credibility to pretend this.  In fact it quite distinctly hurts our credibility to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you are defining "religious editor." To me a religious editor, in this context, would be an editor that wanted to see some kind of promotion of religion in the title. Is any editor suggesting titles suggestive of a religious point of view? I don't think so. Bus stop (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Judaism and Christianity were promoted by changing the title. The removal of "creation myth" establishes an artificial distinction from other creation myths. This is a clear violation of WP:UCN and is based entirely on the religious convictions of editors.  <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 ·  13:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — you say the following: "Judaism and Christianity were promoted by changing the title." How, may I ask, are both Judaism and Christianity promoted? And what is being promoted? Is the article title change promoting the notion that the messiah arrived 2,000 years ago, or is the article title change promoting the notion that the messiah has yet to arrive? Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To make that argument you have to claim that scholars are violating UCN, which as you know is totally nonsensical and defies the very idea of UCN in the first place. Good luck with that.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know who "won". I even doubt that there was anything to win to begin with. But I'm pretty sure that we all have lost something. DVdm (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that whatever title is chosen for these articles (myth, story, narrative, etc), all must have the same. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 10:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's not going to happen. DVdm (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about how this was decided, as there were so many proposals floating around. Does anyone know exactly? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 10:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There was this (now still) open request, and suddenly someone decided to go ahead regardless. DVdm (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked Ucucha if he could explain his reasoning.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 10:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At first I agreed with Sarah's comment above, about all being the same, for the sake of consistency. But now have second-thoughts, because why must everything be consistent? I understand and respect the general rule of thumb for encyclopedias, but their have always been exceptions made. I just don't wish to see another HCM outbreak over this.  --TK-CP (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that calling some a myth and one a narrative implies different treatment, and there's nothing in high-quality reliable sources that would justify different treatment. Personally I don't mind what they're called, but I do feel it needs to be the same in the interests of NPOV. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of you seem to be implying that the title substitute for the article. This is impossible — the article has to be read. The purpose of the title is to enable the reader to find the article. The content of the article can't be contained in the title. Furthermore WP:NPOV can't function in the confines of the space allotted to the title. It is a principle that requires the expansive space of the body of the article. All facets of this subject (except those in violation of WP:FRINGE) deserve representation in the body of the article. The article title is not the place for the representation of any of these facets. Bus stop (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I bow to SlimVirgin, and her Wikipedia expertise, to make the right decision here, and will agree that the others should also be changed from myth to conform with this article. On a personal note, seeing her in this thread brings back many fond old memories of times long gone by, and probably best forgotten! :P --TK-CP (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think each article should be treated independently. It seems artificial to me to think that we can decide what sort of title a whole slew of articles should take on. I think the specifics of each article should determine that. Bus stop (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems artificial to think that we can decide to treat the Genesis creation myth as the only creation myth that should not be called a creation myth. DVdm (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But we are not deciding that, DVdm. We are only providing a title for the article. It is treated in multiple ways, supposedly, in the body of the article. One of those ways I am sure is as a "creation myth." But, why would that warrant a place in the title? Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't kid yourself. Of course we are deciding that. DVdm (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Creation myth is one narrow characterization of what is the ostensible subject matter of this article. Preference shouldn't be given to any biases in the naming of this article. That would be equally applicable to those titles that might represent religious interests. But we haven't seen any titles suggested that would suggest the promotion of religion. Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm ... you mean because of all the other entries like Enûma Eliš creation myth, Völuspá creation myth, and Rangi and Papa creation myth. Oh wait those aren't article titles.  Please can people here do the bare minimum research before commenting.  Look through the category creation myth because most of them do not have the term in the title.  Period. (For the real entries referred to see Enûma Eliš,  Völuspá  and Rangi and Papa).Griswaldo (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- There is a serious misconception going around here that would not be going around if people simply did some research. Prof. M was trying to point this out above. Slim exemplifies the faulty assumption with the following statement -- "there's nothing in high-quality reliable sources that would justify different treatment". Actually Slim there is exactly that. This content does not have a consistent name in scholarship. One thing that those of us who have actually done research on this now know is that "Genesis creation myth" is one of the least utilized terms for this narrative (please see the many presentations of search results on this page). In scholarly use the current title is used just as often as Genesis creation myth, which is one of the reasons why it was not my first choice either. Versions using "story" are by far the most common in scholarship. Of course "narrative" and "story" are synonyms which in my mind gives narrative a leg up on the old title at the very least. The point here is that if we follow common use in scholarship in each individual case we will have inconsistent titles. If some of the ones listed are also not consistent with scholarship then we should do the research necessary to uncover that and change them too. If they are then so be it.Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, how on earth does WP:UCN support using an uncommon name for a title based on the logic of Wikipedians even if that defies common usage differences? I guess we should rename Beagle to Beagle hound to keep it consistent with Blood hound and Redbone Coonhound. After all they are all hounds aren't they?Griswaldo (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to mention those horrid little Corgi's! The belong to the Terriers. No disrespect to the Queen intended. --TK-CP (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, I can't believe this is still going. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC) the rfm was Declined "as resolved. The title 'Genesis creation narrative' seems to have been agreed on" --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per WP:TALK "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic." We've come to a decision as to the page title. It wasn't my first choice, but it is a reasonable compromise. It's time to move on and improve the article, which is what this talk page is for.--agr (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly was the decision reached? It seems that someone just moved the article without a decision. <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 · 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See Requests for mediation/Genesis creation myth:
 * I have looked at that, but that is no answer. That there seems to be agreement is not a valid justification for the article move. Can you please show me when and how exactly the consensus had been reached? <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 ·  15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved admin User:Ucucha determined there was a consensus for the requested move, made it and closed the discussion. See Requesting a move to the consensus title of "Genesis creation narrative", above. For what its worth, I counted 28 supports and 9 opposes. --agr (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency with others
I haven't seen many claims that this article title should be treated according to special rules, and I wouldn't support that. I'd previously suggested alternate nomenclature for creation articles, such as replacing "creation myth" with "cosmogony" or other terms or directly replacing "creation myth" with "creation tradition". While I'm inclined toward consistenct article naming, I'm not sure it's our place to INSIST that articles related to creation must have consistent nomenclature. Of course, if "Chinese", "Sumerian", "Ancient Egyptian", "Pelasgian", "Tongan", "Mesoamerican", et al are in fact narratives, then it seems obvious those articles can be renamed to reflect that. But shouldn't we defer to editors more familiar the subjects of those articles? --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I highly suggest that editors stop and think for a few minutes about WP:UCN before leaping into this discussion. There is no such thing as "special treatment" if common use does not support the supposed consistency that people keep mentioning.  The guideline is after all about common use first and foremost.  Once again consider Beagle, which is a very common example of a hound, and which one could similarly ask to rename Beagle hound based on the notion that a bunch of other hounds have article titles like Blood hound, Foxhound or Bluetick Coonhound.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a flawed analogy.
 * Every other creation myth that does not have its own name (e.g. "Enûma Eliš" for "Babylonian Creation myth") has "creation myth" in the article title. For motives rooted in the urge of religious editors to apply different rules for belief systems that are not their own this article has been renamed to drop the word "myth". It is not justifiable that WP follows these editors in applying different standards in assigning article titles. If we don't name the Judeochristian creation myth a creation myth, then we cannot name other creation myths as that. WP must never convey preference of one belief system over others. <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 · 15:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush — Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Furthermore every article on Wikipedia has its own Talk page. There is also a WP:Village Pump where you can present the argument that you seem to be making that article naming in some cases is linked or related. It is my opinion that each article should be worked on via its own Talk page and involving the taking into consideration of its own internal logic and those considerations that might be unique to that article. But if you disagree I think the place to express that is at the Village Pump. Perhaps Wikipedia has other places for expressing that too. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that scholars may be using different terms when naming various creation myths. In this case it appears they are.  Please don't act like it's a matter of "religious editors" at Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The title "Genesis creation myth" was the perfect title. It conveyed EXACTLY the scope and contents of the article. But it was indeed a matter of religious editors who saw their religion degraded by the term "myth" to a level that they would only want to see applied to other beliefs. I can recognize ulterior motives when I come across them. <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 · 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is one set of rules. No one here is likely to contest changing an article title from "Placeholder creation myth" to "Placeholder creation narrative" (or similar). We just aren't sure if "narrative" (or similar) best titles THAT article. Editors familiar with "Placeholder" can decide that, without or with our input. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's be content with content
Now that we have a title that reflects all POVs, let's keep populating those POVs.EGMichaels (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't reflect all POVs. Narrative is an absurd title, you can't have a narrative when the account is fictional and allegorical. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy — for narrative I find this definition: "a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious." Bus stop (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But for them the account is not fictional or allegorical. So they must and apparently will have a narrative. I think it's a matter of numbers and perseverance. DVdm (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm — who is the "them" that you are referring to? I think that is a version of the straw man argument. You are arguing against a non-specified entity. Bus stop (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it still isn't clear by now who "them" is, then I will specify the entity: them is the group of people around here who are on a mission to make sure that the Genesis creation myth is the only creation myth that should not be called a creation myth. Anyone who fails to find that absurd should consult a dictionary. DVdm (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm — it is "called a creation myth" — in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is called a creation myth in the body of the article, then there can be no valid reason to not call it a creation myth in the title. That is utterly absurd. DVdm (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm — "Creation myth" would be "activist" in the title. Just as we would not want to characterize the subject matter as holy, sacred, or the word of God, so too it would be improper in a title to characterize the subject as a creation myth. Myth is not agnostic any more than sacred is agnostic. Titles should only identify articles and do no more. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm, meaning is dependent on context. In the body of the text we can link to creation myth and provide the necessary context.  In the title this isn't possible.  The main issue with the old title, however, was uncommon usage.  This current one is on par with the old, but other usages are way more common -- "Biblical creation story" and "Genesis creation story" for instance.  Scholars who have no problem with the myth category use these different terms for a reason, and we should follow them in the end.  These supposedly "logical" arguments are not in line with policy as I understand it.  They amount to editors deciding that such and such only makes sense so who cares if this is how experts do it we should do it my way.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "In the title this isn't possible". It has been possible ever since the article was first created in 2004 up until yesterday, when someone finally gave in to a large number of people who apparently (see Til Eulenspiegel, below) feel their "major world religion" is somehow attacked by an article title. I find this pathetic. But hey, don't lose any sleep over what I happen to find pathetic :-) DVdm (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm just looking through the article archives shows that the page titles prior to this one have not been stable and have clearly not all had "creation myth" in them. Not long before "Genesis creation myth" came into effect (which was just months ago I believe) I know it was titled "Creation according to Genesis".  I'm not sure how long that title was around but it appears in the earliest archived talk page discussions in 2004  so it clearly used to be a title at one point even back then, and possibly continually until now.  I know that at least this time around as soon as the "Genesis creation myth" title came into effect (just this February)  a whole lot of editors complained from a whole lot of different perspectives.  So to claim that it has always had the myth name and that it was clearly not a problem before now is not correct at all.Griswaldo (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case I gladly stand corrected. Thanks. Glad I'm not Jimbo ;-) - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy didn't understand what a narrative is. No need to continue this, the definition Bus stop provided shows clearly that a narrative can be a story of any kind.Griswaldo (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy, you may be convinced that Genesis is fictional and allegorical, but do you see why wikipedia cannot be in the business of declaring which texts of which religions are or are not to be interpreted as fictional or allegorical, since everyone disagrees and has their own POV. Christianity and Judaism are major world religions, but even with minor religions, wikipedia cannot even declare Scientology to be a fictional "creation myth" even if you, I, and most of us agree that it is - because it is pushing a POV, the very opposite of the definition of "neutrality".  If it were as simple as declaring something fictional only because you think it is, just try dealing with the Scientologists - you'll find out what nice folks they are about it.  Multiply that by about ten thousand, and that's how easy it will be for you to use wikipedia to attack a MAJOR world religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Multiply that by about ten thousand, and that's how easy it will be for you to use wikipedia to attack a MAJOR world religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc". On the one hand, as I said before, it's a matter of numbers and perseverance. Thanks for making my point. On the other hand, if you think that anyone is "attacking a MAJOR world religion" here, then I'm afraid that you really don't belong here. DVdm (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well don't hold your breath waiting for me to go away, because I wasn't planning to any time soon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: do you think that someone is "attacking a major world religion" here? DVdm (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We should not be "writing" a title; we should be writing an article. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Til: If you are serious about that, then I recommend that you have a careful read (or re-read) of WP:AGF and specially WP:AOBF. Note that many users have gotten into trouble (by getting blocked or selectively banned) for failing to follow this guideline. Try to lighten up. Or be careful. DVdm (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it's cool here for editors to put flags up on their home pages saying things like "All religion should be destroyed" (to let everyone know how neutral they are) and then these same editors can go all over the talk pages and unilaterally declare that the Bible canon is fiction and that the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed are nonsense, and that this is fact not opinion. But I cannot consider this an attack, or I will be blocked for it. I'm so glad you're not Jimbo. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? You are glad I'm not Jimbo? Why is that? What would be different if I were Jimbo? How is this related to the title of this article? DVdm (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarded as a creation myth
A key sentence in the first paragraph says:
 * It is regarded as one of many creation myths, but is unique in introducing the concept of monotheism, the idea of humanity being made in the image of God (tzelem elohim) and, in Christian theology, the activity of the Holy Spirit.

I daresay expert scholarly opinion categorizes this creation narrative as a "creation myth", but I wonder if that is merely the viewpoint of those scholars. Is it so much of a mainstream view that no attribution is necessary?

Or should we say that scholars of religion regard it as one of many creation myths (attributing the viewpoint to scholars of religion in general? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The term "creation myth" has a defined meaning.  It didn't belong in the title because it can be misleading, but in the body of the article, it definitely belongs.


 * Yes, there should probably be a citation there, and I'll go add a request for one, but it shouldn't be at all hard to find. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I replaced the current text with this:


 * The Genesis creation narrative is a narrative account of the creation of the earth, life, and humanity. Found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, it is considered by many scholars to fall into the category of Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from others in this category in its monotheistic outlook. It also introduces the idea of humanity being made in the image of God (tzelem elohim) and, in Christian theology, the activity of the Holy Spirit.
 * The Genesis creation narrative is a narrative account of the creation of the earth, life, and humanity. Found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, it is considered by many scholars to fall into the category of Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from others in this category in its monotheistic outlook. It also introduces the idea of humanity being made in the image of God (tzelem elohim) and, in Christian theology, the activity of the Holy Spirit.


 * No agenda pushing on either side. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course that's agenda pushing. "narrative account of the creation of the earth, life, and humanity." ??? Are you shitting me? This sentence presupposes that creation actually happened. <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 · 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job, Lisa - because of course, while one can appeal to those "theologians" who say it is a myth, one can also point to the theologians who have categorically stated, using various arguments, that it is NOT in that genre: including (but not limited to) Bernhard Anderson, G. Ernest Wright, James I. Packer, James Orr, G. C. Berkouwer, Claus Westermann, Robert Jenson, René Girard, etc. etc... Nobody's theologians have a monopoly on a controversial POV question like the genre of Genesis... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I like Torchiest's version even better. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "many scholars" attribution in the lead, can we name some scholars (by which I mean academics in mainstream universities) who do not regard this as a creation myth? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the lead? That seems like something to go in the body.  Do you object to the "many scholars" thing?  You want to take the creation myth business out of the lead altogether?  I don't think that's going to go over very well.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) No, I meant could someone tell me here, with diffs or citations, the names of a couple of current academics in mainstream universities who do not believe this is a myth, and what they do think it is? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs


 * Also let's not keep raising the standard impossibly high. All of the theologians I just linked are sufficiently known and credentialed as theologians to constitute a significant POV - regardless of whether or not someone wants to debate their status "academics in mainstream universities".
 * This is from Conrad Hyers. He actually thinks Genesis is a creation myth, but note that unlike some here, he has he scholarly integrity to mention the status of academia on this.
 * "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.
 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are not all "theologians". If you mean more generically "scholar of religion" when you say theologian, which is not what a theologian is, then I understand what you're saying but because of this mistaken use of the term you're confusing things.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's odd, because their wikipedia articles identify them as "theologians", and prominent ones at that. And I only listed the ones here I could find articles for, there's plenty more. Are you revoking their theologian membership cards now? LOL Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's odd is that you're incorrect. According to Wikipedia Rene Girard is a "historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science."  G. Ernest Wright "was a leading Old Testament scholar and biblical archaeologist".  People who study religion are not all "theologians".  You seem to misunderstand the difference.Griswaldo (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, Girard is the one possible exception to being a "theologian", and note his article has a whole section devoted to his published and well known views regarding the Bible and myth. G Ernest Wright, if you bother to read his article, "He taught Old Testament History and Theology at McCormick Seminary from 1939-1958." But the bottom line is, a Biblical scholar's views on "myth" should not be a litmus test of being a "theologian" or a Significant scholarly POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Teaching theology doth not a theologian make. On top of this, someone may teach, or even create theology while also' being versed in related fields, like biblical studies.  It is not Wright's qualifications in theology that make him an expert in Biblical Studies. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=4eX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22Ernest%20wright%22%20%2Btheologian&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp


 * So let me get this straight - you, Griswaldo, seriously are revoking their "theologian" membership cards - while at the same time, just to be on the safe side (in case it should turn out that they really are "theologians" after all), declaring that "theologians" are not valid sources for a significant theological POV. You're arguing too many different things here.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read more carefully. I didn't revoke anyone's anything. My original comment was that they are "not all theologians".  Rene Girard is not even remotely a theologian so even if you want to quibble about the rest there is absolutely nothing false about my statement.  No offense Til, but this entry is not mainly about "a significan theological POV" of any kind.  There is a section that covers theology, and clearly this passage is important to Christian and Jewish theology, but the entry is about the passage first.  You clearly fail to grasp some of the rather basic differences here ("theology" vs. religious studies, "theology" vs. biblical scholarship, etc.) so its difficult to pretend to have a conversation with you.  I will stop now.  Go ahead and keep on abusing the term "theology" and its significance to the entry because this isn't worth it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Being magisterial always fails to impress me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good thing I'm not trying to impress you, though it is unfortunate that I have failed to impress anything upon you.Griswaldo (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Source request
In case this question gets lost above, could someone tell me&mdash;with diffs, citations, or brief quotes&mdash;the names of a few academics currently working in mainstream universities who have said unambiguously that this is not a myth, and if possible what they think it is instead? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You want to provide us with the same for those who say it unambiguously is myth? Anyways, how's this for starters? NickCT (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, did you miss what I said just before you asked that question? Here it is again: ...while one can appeal to those "theologians" who say it is a myth, one can also point to the theologians who have categorically stated, using various arguments, that it is NOT in that genre: including (but not limited to) Bernhard Anderson, G. Ernest Wright, James I. Packer, James Orr, G. C. Berkouwer, Claus Westermann, Robert Jenson, René Girard, etc. etc... Nobody's theologians have a monopoly on a controversial POV question like the genre of Genesis... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin Ah-well I've seen some, so they're out there but they generally rely upon a peculiarly theological definition of "myth" (often taken from interpretation of New Testament passages) to specifically refer to the wrong-headed, religious pseudo-truths believed by "others". But no serious study of myth today would overlook or omit the Genesis creation story-I find it now to be one of the most frequently cited examples of creation myth. And there is no unanimity of opinion about any single thing in this or almost any other Biblical topic. Most claims are necessarily going to have to characterize what's certainly the "general", rather than "unanimous" opinion--otherwise anything said here becomes virtually unreadable, buried neck deep in caveats, footnotes, translations and qualifiers.
 * @Til Eulenspiegel at least some of those names you've given I recognize as having argued to advance a new kind of theology derived from a renewed vision/version of the myth- that's something a bit different, isn't it? --Professor marginalia (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No theologian has a monopoly on this, and indeed theologians are not the scholars we should be looking to in the first place since they are coming from within a tradition of faith and necessarily have to wrestle with that tradition when they look at its core texts. This means they are making sense of the Bible in light of non-scriptural sources of religious authority.  We should be looking to the fields of Biblical studies, comparative literature, religious studies, archeology, history, sociology, etc.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting stranger all the time. A couple months ago when Ben, Cush et. al. were claiming that "theologians" unanimously declared Genesis to be a myth, then "theologians" were our best sources. Now that it appears they don't, suddenly theologians aren't our best sources. Why not just come out and say that anyone who calls Genesis a myth fits the litmus test of being our best sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There didn't exist any such unanimity among theologians then or now. There isn't unanimity of opinion among theologians about anything at all, is there? Even the opening words "In the beginning" are disputed. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether or not Ben and Cush understand the difference between Theology and the more general study of religion, but its rather likely given what you say that at the very least they don't appreciate the more exact use of terminology. See -- Theology (note that this distinction is not simply in "some contexts", it is recognized by anyone who studies religion). Ben and Cush also rather distinctly do not speak for me in any way shape or form.  Scholars of ancient literature and more generally of religion are our best sources.  Those who specifically focus on theology are, once again, usually interpreting these texts through various other claims made by their faith traditions, as opposed to the (at least supposedly) more objective lens of secular scholarship.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't speak for me, either. And I say the opinion of these recognized theologians meets every possible wikipedia standard of being a "significant point of view" on the subject.  To argue otherwise is to suggest (as Cush has) that all religion is a priori illegitimate,. and never could be legitimate as a POV worthy of mention, regardless of how widespread or how well sourced it is. Which is not exactly a "mainstream" view, in academia or otherwise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Til I never implied I spoke for you, but you did imply that somehow what I'm now saying should be judged by what Ben and Cush said sometime ago. I find that part of your reply rather odd.  A "theologian" is absolutely not de facto a reliable source on biblical scholarship.  Please ask someone who knows about this like say Alastair, who if I'm not mistaken is professionally immersed in both fields himself.  Some theologians may have virtually no expertise in biblical studies.  Once again the point here is that "theology" in and of itself is not what makes someone qualified in biblical studies.  I have never made the argument you attribute to Cush either.  Religious views are not illegitimate, but they are also not on par with secular scholarship when it comes to comparing the religion in question to those of others.  That is exactly what is required when one starts talking about categories like "myth", for instance.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Religious views are not illegitimate, but they are also not on par with secular scholarship" Says you. All significant points of view are supposed to be considered neutrally.  No matter how you colour it, there's no way "tilting" can ever equal "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey you two! :)) I, for one, admire you both, please keep being as gentle as possible.
 * Yes, Griswaldo, I agree on two important points, that I suspect Til will concede also.
 * Some outstanding theologians will admit that, irrespective of bias issues, they are not experts in Hebrew, Aramaic or Semitic languages in general. Many outstanding scholars of biblical languages and literature admit they are not expert theologians. Both theology and language/literature issues are relevant to this article. Some writers are good at both. Some are absolutely outstanding in one or the other, irrespective of secular or religious commitment.
 * I hope it is fair to say that a theologian can neither be automatically excluded, nor included, by virtue of her being a theologian alone, or a biblical scholar alone.
 * The second point where I agree with Griswaldo is that when a theologian or biblical scholar does have a published confessional position, that is frequently (but not always) relevant. A confessional religious point of view is not grounds for exclusion if the POV is significant, it is grounds for inclusion; however, the secular point of view is exceedingly valuable in many (if not all) cases also.
 * I cannot say just how very much I appreciate biblical scholars who are from religious traditions other than Christianity, or are secular academics. Their expert views very frequently indeed help demonstrate which parties in sectarian disputes are closest to being objective. Sometimes, as in The Myth of God Incarnate, religious writers have a common partisan cause with secular atheist writers. However, there are many other places where secular sources are agnostic, rather than atheist, and actually back the very things religious writers claim the Bible to be saying.
 * Please, please be gentle with one another. The subject of this article has genuinely tricky features that make these debates about neutrality exceedingly sophisticated. We need to bypass the crude issue of neutrality, so we can work out some of the finer points.
 * I think the best thing I can do is testify to the good faith of both Griswaldo and Til, and to the intelligent and informed nature of everything both of them are saying. I'm not trying to hide issues here, I think there are genuine subtleties that the keen minds of both Gris and Til can eat for breakfast, so long as they trust one another. So much is this the case, that I feel free to say nothing here about content, just these words regarding the quality of the editors who are currently struggling to find their way forwards. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Source request again
Okay, I'll ask again. :) Can someone give me, say, three names of current academics (not former, not retired) working at the moment in mainstream universities, along with clear citations where they say this is not a myth? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Very probably, but you seem to be insisting on raising the bar to an impossibly higher standard than wp holds to demonstrate that any other significant and widespread POV honest-to-god exists out there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a high bar at all. Consensus within academic disciplines changes and an encyclopedia that one can edit instantly has no excuse not to be up to date.  Consider that even in the 1970s and 80s most sociologists of religion believed secularization theory and barely 20 years later it has been almost completely abandoned.  In the hard sciences this would be a no-brainer, but unfortunately the humanities and social sciences often pertain to subjects that people have a personal stake in proving one way or another so old scholarship that fits someone's POV is not as easily forgotten.  Anyway if a certain perspective was common we should report it as a piece of relevant history, but only if a perspective is common should we use it argue about how to present our subject matter outright.Griswaldo (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that it's a bar that you just made up, and you're holding this article to a higher standard than any other on wikipedia without the policy to back it up. I'm not saying the bar cannot be met, I'm saying that as soon as it is, the authoritative types here will suddenly insist it be raised a little higher, because nothing would ever ever good enough to prove that the POV really is widespread one when they are trying to "discourage" it.  The whole thing is really pathetic when you look at it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, we've got a situation here where the lead says "many scholars" believe this is a creation myth. That means that some scholars don't believe it. So could you please name some current scholars in universities who don't? Just three names, with citations to where they say it. Or even just one name with one citation to get us started. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So once again, we need sources speaking for the theological POV, but with one caveat, the theological POV is pre-disqualified as illegitimate. So what we are attempting to search for to satisfy you is theological sources that are not theological sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No one said it was illegitimate. If there is a significant view amongst theologians today that this is not a myth then you can source it and we can figure out how best to get it into the entry.  But if it is indeed only theologians then perhaps we need to do so with some attribution, but that's another story.  Also Slimvirgin, who is making this request, has never said anything about theologians, that was just me, so I fail to understand why you are conflating us like that.  Just produce the sources and we can proceed.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't mind whether they're theologians or something else. I ask only that they be current professional academics working for mainstream universities. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well anyone can ask any high standard, but we have wikipedia standards for significant POV too, and they apply across the board to all articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So could you supply a couple of names, please, with citations to where they say it? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 12:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia's standards for establishing that the POV exists have already been abundantly met. Now let's see if it will meet your specially high standard (to which no other topic on wp is held), or if you will claim the authority to raise the bar yet higher still:


 * "Since pagan god-stories concern not history but nature, 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."... J. I. Packer (qv) currently Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia.
 * "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
 *  Note: This entry is not about the "third chapter of Genesis", but what comes before it.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "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
 * "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)
 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this discussion. We were told repeatedly during the lengthy argument about the article's name that the term "creation myth" was a neutral term used by scholars to describe this genre and that it had no pejorative connotation. Now we are arguing about whether scholars "believe" it is a myth? They either use the term or they don't. The Google Scholar searches reported above say many do and many use other terms. That's what our article should reflect.--agr (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your confusion stems from the fact that most of the authors who don't use the specific term Genesis creation myth still recognize that the passages contain a "creation myth".Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If creation myth is a neutral descriptor, there is nothing the "recognize" or "believe". One uses the term or one does not. Biologists don't "recognize" or "believe" that cats are feline.--agr (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The naming issue was about what this passage is commonly called -- not whether or not scholars believe these passages contain a creation myth. If you asked a dog breeder what a Beagle is commonly called they'd say, duh a Beagle -- not for instance a "Beagle hound", even though several other hounds do have the term in their names, see foxhound.  If you also asked that breeder if the beagle is a hound they'd say, yeah a beagle is a hound. There is nothing odd or contradictory about the this.  Similarly scholars may refer to this Biblical narrative by another name, such as "Biblical creation story", "Genesis creation story", but when asked to categorize it will still say, it is a "creation myth".  Again there is nothing odd or contradictory about this.Griswaldo (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I am trying to say. "Creation myth" in a scholarly context is a category, like "hound." No one says Beagles are considered to be hounds or believed to be hounds. Our article should make clear that when scholars use the term "creation myth," they are not making a value judgement, but merely assigning it to a category.--agr (talk)


 * Well then we agree. My point is simply that we should be able to call it a "hound" in the body of the article even if it's not in the name.  So I think we're agreeing.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Victor P. Hamilton is current professor of Bible and theology at Asbury College University, Wilmore, Kentucky, and a well-known source for the mainstream Christian POV, which is obviously significant to this topic. Here, he tells it like it really is:
 * "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.
 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Til, I asked above for sources currently working as academics in mainstream universities. You've offered J. I. Packer, Robert Jenson, and Victor P. Hamilton who are not working in universities.

René Girard is a solid mainstream source. I'm not sure he's saying quite what you're presenting him as saying, but you could be right, so that's one. Are there any others? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 14:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Slim, according to my information, they are all currently working in Universities. But even if they are not, by what policy or by what authority do you insist on holding this article to such an abnormally high standard, or presume to disqualify them on that account?  I still have not got an answer to that question.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Outstanding work Til. Slim's question is indeed raising the bar above WP:NPOV, but that's not a bad thing. Even that request can be met. I don't think many academics who specialise in biblical literature would agree with Darwin's literal reading of Genesis any longer. Many, though, continue to follow Julius Wellhausen however. Darwin and Wellhausen are more relevant to this article than ten-a-penny current academics when they are simply following lines of argument forged by others. I mean no disrespect to current academics by that, it's absolutely wonderful we live in a world that can afford to employ tens of thousands of biblical scholars of all flavours.
 * Slim's question strikes me as an essential question, despite what I might seem to be implying above. Am I wrong to think that sources for this article should include acknowledgement of scholars who first proposed ideas, and a clear survey giving due weight to all views currently held among academics of all flavours. May I suggest someone checks out Reuven Tsur's opinion on Genesis, I'd do it myself, but I'm preoccupied with other business at the moment. Slim? Could you do that, perhaps? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

On the view that only polytheistic, pagan and/or "idolatrous" religions contain myths
You may find this from Michael Fishbane's Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking informative or you may disregard it, but it speaks to the view underwriting many of the quotes Til has produced above. Of course in doing so it clearly also recognizes that these POVs exist:


 * "A striking feature of contemporary attempts to differentiate ancient Israel from myth thus often depends upon constructions that first define myth in terms of polytheistic paganism, and then juxtapose this definition to features of biblical monotheism—concluding thereby that ‘myth’ is absent from the latter. For example, on the argument that an essential variable of ancient Near Eastern paganism is the origin of the gods in a cosmic plenum, from which substance they emerge as differentiated personalities, but upon whose elemental character they are necessarily and inherently dependent, the figure of a singular God with a transcendent will, who is (apparently) distinct from the natural world to which He gave created form, is of a fundamentally different sort.20 Hereby, myth is linked with the nature gods of polytheism and totally dissociated from supernatural monotheism. Accordingly, it is presumed that any hints of myth as recognizable from the ancient Near East (in terms of divine action, imagery, or personality) can only be harmless vestiges of a figurative (or metaphorical) sort—and thus neither true nor living myth.21


 * But this is a self-serving and fallacious line of argument. Whether or not these characterizations of polytheistic paganism or monotheism are in any way accurate, the exclusive identification of a literary phenomenon (myth) with a specific religious or cultural form (natural polytheism) is both tendentious and tautological: the first, because the definition is arbitrary and selective; and the second, because the identification is always self-confirming, and without any means of checking its circular or redundant character. Such argumentation is also based on certain essentialist views regarding polytheism and monotheism, though it generally avoids this stigma through the pretence of comparative historical study, and conceals an old cultural animus against brute ‘myth’ (the heir of Hellas) under the cover of an analytical phenomenology of religion.22 Nevertheless, such intellectual practices reveal just how much the category of myth still serves as a container for all the cultural forms or ideologies that one has purportedly transcended (like irrationality, polytheism, and paganism)—for the sake of others assumed to be superior in kind (like reason, monotheism, or historical inquiry) and with which one identifies.23 The result is a lamentable impoverishment of the notion and nature of myth, and its formulations within biblical monotheism; but it is also a schematization of monotheism that equally impoverishes its inherent and complex features. Indeed, the upshot of much recent writing is to claim differences between monotheism and polytheism that are arguably more polemical than propaedeutic, and that need to be thoroughly reconsidered." (pp. 5-6)

This view is more mainstream, but like I said it also recognizes the other view as well.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Take special note of this statement by Fishbane, from the above text:
 * Nevertheless, such intellectual practices reveal just how much the category of myth still serves as a container for all the cultural forms or ideologies that one has purportedly transcended (like irrationality, polytheism, and paganism)—for the sake of others assumed to be superior in kind (like reason, monotheism, or historical inquiry) and with which one identifies.
 * What is interesting about this statement is that it is exactly the culture warriors who find common ground around the idea that "myth" is something that has been transcended. On the one hand atheists have transcended the irrationality of myth, but conservative monotheists beat them to it a long time ago by transcending the pagan, idolatrous nature of myth.  The inclination is one and the same. It doesn't take a genius to see why some people want to call something related to Judeo-Christian belief a myth and some others are so against it.  These people all share the unfortunate understanding of myth Fishbane is trying to argue against.Griswaldo (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would argue, and can readily supply much evidence, that the "unfortunate" understanding is actually the historically and etymologically correct one -- and that the supposedly "neutral" and "non-pejorative" definition is a complete neologism, that has never found complete acceptance. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the original Greek mythos does not have the meaning you are trumpeting one has to assume that you have arbitrarily decided on another historical usage as containing the "historically and etymologically correct one". You may chose to live in a past historical period if you wish Til but the encyclopedia does not have that luxury.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The word entered the English language meaning "falsehood", and by that time it had already meant "falsehood" in Greek for about 2000 years. This is a matter of record. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And as for living in the past - Yes, Bultman tried to redefine "myth" so as to encompass the Bible - but not without massive resistance that is ongoing and shows no sign of abating. Again, a matter of record. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? So when Aristotle discusses "mythos" he meant what the Greeks had always meant -- falsehood?  That's news to me. Outside of theologians you'll be hard pressed to find scholars who do not consider part of the Bible to be exemplary of myth.  You will most certainly be hard pressed to find scholars who differentiate between Biblical stories and the traditional stories of other civilizations based upon truth value -- in other words if Genesis doesn't contain a creation myth then neither does the Völuspá.  If you are comfortable making the  distinction based on truth value and make an appeal to scholastic authority in doing so then you're living in an era of the past.  BTW, I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore so don't expect any more replies.Griswaldo (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an apt description of Bultmann either-he didn't try to redefine "myth" so as to encompass the Bible; it was more the opposite. He tried to redefine "theology" so as Christian belief wouldn't be entangled with or cornered by the myth he essentially conceded could be found in the Bible. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What an outstanding quote, Gris! :))
 * I don't agree with the source on every point, of course, but my opinion is irrelevant.
 * I do agree with your astute comment that both atheist and religious POVs on Genesis as myth or as polemic-against-myth are little more than re-affirmations of their own basic foundational philosophical position. That excludes neither of their opinions, mind you, since it is quite possible that Genesis does indeed provide evidence for one or other of those positions. The actual arguments, not merely the conclusions need examination.
 * One thing I'm thrilled to see, however, is that even an "enemy source" acknowledges what I've been claiming at this talk page for some time: there is a widespread, not exclusively religious, view that Genesis was an anti-mythological polemic. The Genesis debate in the popular press is a 150 year out-of-date anachronism. The real contemporary scholastic debate features prominently this Genesis as polemic issue.
 * Fwiw, I am personally not convinced that the "polemic-hermeneutic" is the key (or even correct) approach to Genesis 1. I have actually written on that (but not published as yet). Fishbane now confirms my nervousness about that approach. I actually agree with Fishbane that it looks self-serving to claim the polemic reading of Genesis. I don't think Fishbane has disproved that reading, I think it has genuine merits, but although we must document this important scholastic opinion on Genesis, I wouldn't be surprised if scholarship provides much more satisfactory treatment over the course of future decades. Crazy, but I don't think scholars, even believers, have yet finished resolving even some basic questions regarding Genesis 1.
 * Great source! Great editors here! Great topic! Best wishes to all. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't just the ones that agree with your POV.
Time for another great source for your consideration (I got plenty more)

"...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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Til Eulenspiegel  (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 April 2010


 * This only proves one thing. Relativism is destroying academic standards. The above paragraph is meaningless without more context.--LexCorp (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I couldn't reproduce the whole thing, but you're welcome to look it up. The gist of the article "Slippery Words:Myth" is that there has never been and never will be (other than "hooray for our side" pretense) any such thing as "mainstream" in academia on controversies, like which parts of the Bible, if any, fit which definition of "myth", and what this is really supposed to mean anyway.  Most scholars are honest enough to admit when something is controversial, but wikipedia tries to pretend it's all been happily resolved now (without furnishing proof) which reminds me of Old Soviet Scientific Method - prove your point by blackballing anyone who doesn't buy into your hypothesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Genesis creation myth is a myth by definition. No amount of intellectual masturbation will change that. It is that simple.--LexCorp (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By whose definition? Oh yeah, that's right - yours. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * read the fisrt page of your so scholarly and renown source.
 * "A myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form." -- Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth by Aland Dundes, 1984, p. 1 THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE


 * also on the particular essay you use:


 * "Another group of scholars vitally concerned with the nature of myth is theologians. Their approaches differ from those of students of comparative religion generally insofar as they tend to be especially concerned with the Bible. If one accepts that myth are contained in the Bible, particularly in the OT, then it is easy to see why theologians have been compelled to consider the nature of myth."-- J.W. Rogerson, "Slippery Words:Myth" in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth by Aland Dundes, 1984, p. 62 |link
 * Same source stating that only a subset of scholars (theologians) do not a priory consider GS a myth but nevertheless must consider the study of myths as it is blatantly obvious that the GS is a myth.--LexCorp (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum:
 * Q1 Is the Book of Genesis a sacred text?
 * A1 Yes
 * Q2 Does is explain how the world and man came to be in their present form?
 * A2 Yes
 * Conclusion: The Genesis creation myth is a myth by simple definition.--LexCorp (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * LexCorp — The conceptualization of the subject matter of this article deserves treatment in the body of the article. That is where all such conceptualizations should be arrayed alongside and against one another. That is where a neutral point of view can be achieved. But a title is only for identifying an article. That is already accomplished by the inclusion of the two words: Genesis and creation. "Myth" is not necessary in forming a title. Is it? Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a strange argument. "Narrative" is used, thus why not the more precise, scholarly and encyclopedic well sourced "myth" instead. It does look like this is the latest attempt by a group of editors to change Wikipedia contents on PC grounds and not on encyclopedic standards. Myth is the correct term and does not breach any of the core WP policies.--LexCorp (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been said so many times. "Myth" is not more precise, especially as the public generally understands myth to mean false. Changing the title to "myth" was an attempt by a group of editors to change Wikipedia contents, and thankfully, they have been stopped.Mk5384 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Book of Genesis" is a myth and a narrative. "The Fall of the House of Usher" is a narrative but not a myth. Thus which is the more descriptive and precise term? Changing the title to "myth" was an attempt by a group of editors to change Wikipedia contents in order to improve its quality.--LexCorp (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More precisely, the Book of Genesis contains myth, including the Genesis creation accounts, but the argument that the entire book qualifies as myth-I haven't come across that claim much. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, stop. It's a myth according to some, and a narrative according to all.  The only people who want to use myth in the title are those who only agree with the some.  That's called POV.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editorial policy is not dictated by relativism. The genesis creation myth is both a myth and a narrative by simple definition. The title should describe the subject of the page. The title "Genesis creation myth" is a more descriptive title than "Genesis creation narrative". The NPOV policy is irrelevant to this discussion.--LexCorp (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article title does not need the focus that you are calling for. Nor is it advisable. We need not choose a title that narrows the focus of Genesis chapters one and two to the treatment of it as a "creation myth." It is not called that in some quarters. There are ambiguities and dissenting opinions on what Genesis chapters one and two is about. All that is called for in a title is the adequate identifying of an article's subject matter. We don't need to characterize it. If characterizing it (in this case as a "creation myth") is not necessary as far as adequately identifying it, then that finer characterization is counterproductive because it narrows the focus of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

LexCorp, it may be helpful for you to read the information message at the top of this article. Your edit summaries on other pages (for example calling the use of narrative "a farce,") your edit warring on Adam ( 4 reverts in less than 24hours, all trying to hide the title of this article which is censureship), and your offensive language towards me on your talk page (you wrote, "Ok bite me"), all make it hard for me to Assume Good Faith, when I see you starting to stir the pot here. For your information, the message atop reads:

""Please note that restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even  tendentious, unless there is some evidence that consensus has changed or is likely to change."" SAE (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have said, atheist fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as religious fundamentalists. Fortunately, sanity has prevailed here.Mk5384 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to note, that these people must be allowed to say their peace. Whilst we were in the process of getting the title changed, many made that same, "the debate has been settled" argument, as grounds to attempt to force us to stop.Mk5384 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will abide by consensus for now but I would like to point out that this change reduces the quality of Wikipedia for the reasons stated above. This is nothing more than a compromise to appease those (uneducated) that perceive an attack to their faith when there is none. Wikipedia should be an education tool not a safe heaven for the hypersensitive uneducated masses. In the end this edit is nothing more than the preference of cheap political correctness by the page editors over encyclopedic standards.--LexCorp (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * LexCorp if you cherish education and reason so much my suggestion is to educate yourself a bit more about what has been transpiring on this talk page instead of spouting off this knee jerk reaction. While there are certainly a few avowedly religious people who have openly expressed their dislike for "myth" based on claimed "offense" there are plenty of others who have gone to great lengths to explore the title question in terms of actual academic usage, and the old title didn't cut the mustard.  The new one isn't the best option either.  The best options by far, based upon the empirical investigation of academic usage, were "Biblical creation story" and "Genesis creation story".  This appears to be the closest were're going to get to "story", and indeed "narrative" and "story" are synonyms.Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a Yale alum. What, exactly, would qualify me as "educated" to your desired standards?Mk5384 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone who understands the implied definition of myth in this article and recognizes that the definition of the Genesis creation myth as a myth is substantially superior and more descriptive than defining it as a narrative.--LexCorp (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand it. The general public, however, often does not. The people who insisted on "myth" being in this title know this, and as such, are POV pushers to the max.Mk5384 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ABsolute complete utter total irredeemable bullshit. I am a church-going Christian, I am off to spend the weekend singing music to the glory of God by Bach, Schütz and Pachelbel, and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the term "creation myth" because that's what it is, technically and factually. It is part of Christian mythology, a mythology to which, in the main, I subscribe. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy do you have to resort to this kind of language? I'm very happy about your own personal opinion about these passages but if you're arguing for using the "Genesis creation myth" title then your opinion that this the most common way to refer to these passages is not reflected in scholarly use.  "Genesis creation story" and "Biblical creation story" far surpass it.  It grows beyond tiresome to listen to all the opinionated voices here.  Do some research and educate yourself on this topic, especially if you're gonna come by here and use terms like "bullshit" to denigrate those people who have actually spent some time doing that research.  I'm fine with ignorance but belligerent self-rghteous ignorance starts getting offensive.  If you have nothing to say but "you guys are full of horseshit because I'm a Christian and I don't agree with you" then I really wonder what you're adding to this discussion.  I'm not a Christian, nor a Jew, nor a Muslim, but who cares?  And you know this story wasn't originally Christian either ... but apparently that's all people like you seem to care about.  How this title change must only be about appeasing conservative Christians right?  Wake up.  That's not it.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto, that kind of stuff only makes it very evident that you're really just pushing your own pov and do not actually know or care what the scholarly sources have to say. Griswaldo has said it right. SAE (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I, personally have no problem with the term either. What I do have a problem with, is the fact that it is intentionally misleading.Mk5384 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an objective problem here: the obviously real fact that some people think that it is factually intentionally misleading. That is entirely contrary to WP:AGF. DVdm (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the previous title contrived and gratuitous. It is easier to call this "Creation according to Genesis" than it is to call this "Genesis creation myth." There is such a thing as "naturalness" in a title and there is such a thing as a "forced" title. "Genesis creation myth" sounds like someone had constipation but finally got it out. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It may, initially be contrary to AGF, but read some of the things that some of the pro-myth people have said, and you'll see that there isn't a lot of GF going on there. Intentional, or not, "Genesis Creation narrative" makes it much more clear to the average reader.Mk5384 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mk5384 you conceded my point that this is sacrificing encyclopedic standards over political correctness. Point me to the WP policy that says we must do so. My hope is that those average readers, by reading Wikipedia, lift themselves from that status into a more educated one.@Bus stop that is your personal opinion. Not very strong argument me thinks.--LexCorp (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:UCN. Thanks for asking.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That policy clearly states we should follow the reliable sources. The Google search result is an amalgamation of all sources whether reliable, unreliable or irrelevant. A proper survey should only take into account the reliable sources. Where does it states that we must sacrifice encyclopedic standards over political correctness?--LexCorp (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedic standards shouldn't involve using the title as a pulpit. The purpose of the title is to identify the article. It is counterproductive to add qualifiers to a title after it has already accomplished its role as an identifier of the article. Preachiness in the title is not an encyclopedic standard. I feel that titles should cleanly identify articles. Evenhandedness is an encyclopedic standard. That calls for leaving out tendentious and unnecessary information. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your logic is defective. "narrative" is also a qualifier and a less descriptive one too. Wikipedia does not preach. Hopefully it educates. Your assumption that the use of "myth" is tendentious can only be the result of your inability to assign the correct implied meaning of the word when used in conjunction with "Genesis creation".--LexCorp (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read this entire thread and I want my money back. It seems to be completely pointless. The name of this article was changed from Genesis creation myth (the creation myth contained in Genesis) to Genesis creation narrative (less descriptive, but also less likely to enrage American Christians who are not used to their religion being treated on equal terms with others). The term creation myth was effectively moved from the first sentence of the lead to the second. Now what is this discussion about? Are we back to the old attempts to remove the term creation myth from the lead, and then presumably from the article, entirely? Or is this just an abuse of this talk page as a discussion forum? Hans Adler 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there is a little bit of both going on. There is absolutely no reason to remove "creation myth" from the introduction.  In fact I'm still in favor of putting it back into the first sentence myself.  This particular discussion is pretty pointless if you ask me and people should just move on.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that these "American Christians who are not used to their religion being treated on equal terms with others" will not rest before the word is entirely eradicated from this article. You see, they don't have a religion to be treated on such terms - they have a unique religion aka The religion. They have taken the title - then they take the first sentence, after that they take the lead. Finally they will take the article, to be followed by removing every reference to Genesis from the Creation myth article, or at least go for its title. DVdm (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the lead before you posted? did you even know what this article was titled for years before it was switched to a pov?  do you have anything to offer to this article but your thoughts of intolerance of people who are different than you?  how many times do people have to tell you that they are not Christian, and I am certainly not American.  Try looking down somewhere into the body of the article and adding some worthwhile content, that would be helpful.  SAE (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just follow the difs I provided. They speak for themselves. No further comment. DVdm (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * really? that's your answer?  i suggest you follow your own diff and read them.  you are full of contradictions.  plus you called me a name which is inappropriate. putting it in someone elses quotes before you do it is is only hiding SAE (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm, you missed the last thing that SAE did here . I have news for you and Hans.  Most religious people do not consider "their religion" to be equal to or the same as those of others.  That liberal version of "religion" is itself a modern Euro-American notion. I'm also baffled by the continued use of this culture wars type rhetoric when many of the ardent non-mythers here aren't even Christian.  When you are unable to look at this discussion through a lens other than that produced by "American" culture wars tropes, which pit religion against science, conversation becomes hopeless.  Of course it is ironic that you are all slaves to that discourse in the first place.  Perhaps not ironic but sad at the very least.  I'm begging you all to please take your culture war somewhere else.  And if you don't think you're taking part in it consider that there are two tango partners in "us against them".  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I tend to categorize some of the European fundamentalist Christians under what Hans described as "American Christians who are not used to their religion being treated on equal terms with others" - you know, the "EO" and such. But never mind, I think I'll watch from the sideline for a while. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was of course not that they don't consider their religion equal to others. My point was, and this is where their being American comes in (the paradox of some of the most provincial people in the world using a world language and the internet), that they are not used to others treating their religion as equivalent to other religions. They are so much used to preferential treatment for their religion that they are deeply upset when they don't get it. To some extent we must take this into account, but not too much. Hans Adler 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that they are "deeply upset when they don't get preferential treatment", is entirely their problem, and what they really need to overcome this, is education, which they should be able to find in an encyclopedia. Not in this one apparently. DVdm (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for Americans being "some of the most provincial people in the world"? Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are needed for statements in articles - not on talk pages. DVdm (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The reasoning here takes straw man argument to new heights. Virtually no one is arguing from a point of view of "religion" except those preaching about "creation myths." The hallmark of religious zeal, in my opinion, is its inability to put concepts into alternative words. Those smitten with religious passion latch onto buzzwords. Creation myth is a valid concept. But it will be just as valid in paragraph three as paragraph one. And it will be just as valid in paragraph one as in the title. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, there you go DVdm, you got your way. My lead is now reverted.  Creation myth is now out of the lead.  that's what you wanted right?... oh, no wait a minute.  that NOT what you wanted.  you actually wanted my lead.  hmm... so then why were you name calling me?  were you just arguing for the sake of arguing? either way, you get what you asked for, and story is back in the lead.  SAE (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Put "creation myth" back into the first sentence
With all due respect to those who don't like this phrase the creation myth article should be linked immediately here. By what rationale were we not doing so? It is the entry that describes the kind of story that we are dealing with here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "Creation Myth" is too general a term to default to the Judeo-Christian article describing the specific Genesis account. As has been pointed out above, there are several creation myths and we should respect them all. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've cut quite a bit out of the lead -- don't worry, it's all still there, I've just moved it down. I am going to be expanding the lead, bases on the content of the article now. Just edit conflicts were getting in the way, so we only have a short lead right now. I think that should suffice for most of the users here? SAE (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I put "creation myth" back in the first sentence, but I changed your change back. It's more than POV to start with a disclaimer about how the subject of the article is viewed and only at the very end to describe the subject itself.  You say what a thing is, and then you say stuff about it.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "myth" is a description of the subject itself not a POV.--LexCorp (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Creation myth is no longer in the first sentence after your change so your first claim is perplexing. Creation myth is a description of the thing, as LexCorp says.  From the current introduction of that entry -- A creation myth or creation story is a symbolic narrative of a culture, tradition or people that describes their earliest beginnings, how the world they know began and how they first came into it.  Using additional characters to describe the same thing strikes me as simply avoiding saying that term in the first sentence.  If there is a good reason to do so let's hear it but the current argument doesn't make sense to me.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, it's in the second sentence. Even so, both you and LexCorp are mistaken.  "Creation myth" is one term that's used by scholars to describe the contents of Genesis 1-2.  And that should be noted.  It's one of the reasons I changed the text back from "story" to "creation myth".  But... maybe I can give you a semi-useful analogy (my high school math teacher used to say "there's no such thing as a good analogy", but maybe this will suffice).  Consider the article on Switchblade knives.  See how the first paragraph gives a physical description?  Do you think it would be reasonable to start that article "A switchblade knife is a very dangerous weapon.  It is a type of knife with a folding or sliding blade."  No matter how many sources may exist for it being a dangerous weapon, it makes no sense to state that first before even telling people what it is.


 * The Genesis creation narrative is the biblical story of the beginning of the earth, life, and humanity. I mean, forget what people say about it: this is a basic description of it, like an object you'd pick up.  What can we say about it?  It is considered by many scholars to be one of several Ancient Near East creation myths.  It is apparently extremely important to some editors here that this be viewed as tantamount to a physical description.  That it is nothing other than a creation myth.  But that's not the case.  First of all, Judaism has always viewed it as much more than even a description of the creation.  But leaving that aside, creation myth is one way to describe the biblical story of the beginning of the earth, life and humanity.  As such, it's subordinate to the fundamental identity of the thing.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a good analogy. What you're saying now is more akin to this -- A switchblade is a sharp weapon which can be used to injure or kill other people.  According to many people it is a dangerous weapon.  It is redundant to use extra characters to fully describe this as a creation myth and then in the next sentence to restate that it is a creation myth.  Please read the entry creation myth and tell me whether or not your favored description doesn't fit this definition.Griswaldo (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lisa, what I believe Griswaldo is saying is "creation myth" means is "story of the beginning of the earth, life, and humanity" so saying the Genesis Creation myth is the biblical story of the beginning of the earth, life, and humanity is redundant. It's like saying a golf ball is a ball used in golf, it doesn't help and only makes the article more verbose. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Padillah, that is exactly what I was trying to convey.Griswaldo (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare versions
SAE version:
 * The Genesis creation narrative is considered by many scholars to be one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook. Found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, it tells about the beginning of the earth, life, and humanity, and introduces such concepts as the image of God.

Lisa version:
 * The Genesis creation narrative is the biblical story of the beginning of the earth, life, and humanity. Found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, it is considered by many scholars to be one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook. Found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, it tells about the beginning of the earth, life, and humanity, and introduces such concepts as the image of God.

Why do we need to describe what a creation myth is "story of the beginning of the earth, life and humanity" and then link to creation myth when a simple link does the trick right away?Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think the delicate tweaking you've done this morning is heading in the right direction. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like either version: "is considered by many scholars to be" is silly. There is no question that it fits the definition, and there is a scholarly consensus that it is a creation myth. Therefore we just use plain language and say that it is a creation myth. We don't say "Barack Obama is considered by the political establishment to be the current President of the United States. Especially not in the lead. This implies doubt that simply doesn't exist in any reasonable way. Hans Adler 15:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When I reinstalled SAE's version I removed that part. .Griswaldo (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I was 83.43.21.24. Strange as I was logged in when I commented on Lisa's POV assertion above. Anyway I could agree with this version in principle. I still think the article title is not proper and a PC compromise lowering WP quality.--LexCorp (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare reference works
'''D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 239.''' (this one comes at it from a different angle; also mainstream;)
 * The opening chapter of Genesis is a majestic festive overture to the whole Bible. It introduces the reader to the two principal actors in the biblical drama, God and man (i.e. mankind, Heb. ʾadam), and sketches the main elements in their relationship. We meet God, the almighty creator of all that exists, but also the triumphant climax of his work, man, made in the divine image to rule over God’s world on his behalf. We sense God’s concern for man’s well-being as he assigns the plants for his food. This divine concern is even more apparent in Gn. 2, where the Lord God provides a garden for man to dwell in, animals as his companions, and a wife as his perfect counterpart. SAE (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to the Bible
 * The biblical accounts of the creation of the world have their background in ancient Near Eastern mythology, in which creation is often depicted as the deity's victory over the forces of chaos, represented by threatening waters, as a result of which the god is established as a supreme king. A large number of references (e.g., Pss. 74.12–17; 89.9–13) show that this concept was well-known in Israel also. Its immediate source was probably Canaanite mythology, and it was particularly associated with the Jerusalem Temple, where it seems likely that God's victory over primeval chaos and his royal enthronement were celebrated in a great annual festival.Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oxford's A Dictionary of the Bible:
 * The biblical myth of the origin of the universe. There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation by God. Neither deals with the question whether the creation was out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo); the first (Gen. 1: 1–2: 3) which was compiled later, the P source, supposes the pre‐existence of an abyss of infinite and formless waters, a chaos out of which God creates order; in the second, and earlier, story, the J source, God forms Adam from the soil of a damp, barren plain (Gen. 2: 6) but there is nothing about an existing chaos of waters.Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to World Mythology:
 * The creation myth of Genesis in the Torah, the first part of what Christians call the Old Testament section of the Bible, is, in fact, at least two myths influenced by various Middle Eastern traditions and circumstances. The first myth appears in Genesis 1:1–2:4a. Here the world's origins are outlined from the point of view of priestly scholars (the so-called P authors) experiencing exile in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. These scholars portrayed a mighty God, Elohim, who created a perfect world and created humans in his image.Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oxfords's A Dictionary of Creation Myths:
 * For Jews and Christians the Bible is the holy word of God of which Genesis is the first book of five (the Pentateuch or Torah). Genesis contains the creation myth that forms the basis of the Judeo‐Christian tradition. Some have seen Genesis as a continuous, uniform story, with Genesis 1:1–2:4a outlining the scheme of the world's origin and Genesis 2:4b–4 carefully painting a more detailed picture of humanity's creation. It appears, however, that the book contains two distinct stories crafted by different hands, strongly influenced by the historical climate experienced by the authors and reminiscent of other ancient Near Eastern stories of creation (see also Wisdom).Griswaldo (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion:
 * Creation. The question of how the cosmos and its workings [...] came into existence has preoccupied all cultures and given rise to a large number of "creation myths."

DISCUSSION

 * Comment on New Bible Dictionary: Can a source be deem reliable when their stated Purpose is "As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of Life."? It looks to me that this is not scholarly work but rather evangelical hubris (more like propaganda or POS).--LexCorp (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * whew. you have saved this article.  we'd hate to have a religious article sourced in a religious article now wouldn't we, that would be a disaster.  i guess that means we should go through and delete every reference there is in the article too then.  too bad, because so many of them are mainstream and well respected.  but the problem then is, where could we find an author who does not come with their own presuppositions?  Every person has presuppositions, that's common sense. So, that will be hard, with every author having their own pov and all. i think the solution will have to be that we select the mainstream pov's from reliable sources, and use them (our pov's don't count, but a scholar's pov is what we need).  yes, that is the answer.  oh, look, New Bible Dictionary is written by many reliable sources, that's a good one to use.  any others?  SAE (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, that is a little sarcastic. but my point remains the same. SAE (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * New Bible Dictionary is not a reliable source. It is hubris. Maybe if you look for comparative religion scholars instead of evangelical theologians you will find more reliable sources and less hubris.--LexCorp (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not here to argue. WP:IRS will answer all your questions on what is, or what is not, considered to be a reliable source.  I suggest that you consult it. SAE (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lex, you just aren't getting it. Let me state this as clearly as possible:  When 45% of the world's scholars hold to one pov, 35% to another, 15% to another, and 5% to a variety of others, then in an wikipedia article we must included source and content from each of the major scholarly pov's.  Surely you understand this. SAE (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What other POV? See my comment below.--LexCorp (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I see part of the problem here. LexCorp (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't consider the scholarship of religious groups to be reliable sources about themselves.  If, for example, Maimonides says something about Judaism, or Jerome says something about Christianity, it doesn't constitute scholarship.  Only those things which come out of modern academia and/or peer reviewed journals constitute scholarship.  Is that your position, Lexcorp?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not that black and white. But certainly a theologian from a particular faith carries much less weight than someone approaching the subject from a complete impartial side. If at all possible non-faith bases. Thus comparative religious studies conducted by secular academics is preferable than evangelical works from theologians with a vested interest in a particular faith.--LexCorp (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lex, The New Bible Dictionary is NOT reliable as a source for what it is saying to be stated without attributation. But it IS reliable as a source for stating what one significant POV is.  Reliable sources noticeboard will happily explain this policy to you further, if you're having trouble understanding the difference I'm talking about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the The New Bible Dictionary state explicitly that the Genesis creation myth is not a myth? What other significant POV? Omission is not a POV?--LexCorp (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, for crying out loud. Can you find me a reliable source that says the wheel was not invented by Oogoo the caveman?  That was his name, incidentally.  See, I can claim that, and since you can't find a single source that specifically says Oogoo didn't create it, then I can say it's the consensus.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apples and oranges Lisa. Your claim necessarily implies that others would disagree about "creation myth" being the best descriptor. The only way to know if that is true is to see active disagreement.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsensical comment above from Lisa. There is plenty of RS stating the Genesis creation myth is a myth and simple definition does suffice in this case too. Either you dispute that one of the meaning of the word "myth" is "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form." or you dispute that the Book of Genesis is a sacred text or you dispute that it tell how the world and man came to be in their present for. If you do not dispute those then Genesis creation myth is a myth by definition. That there exist another POV from expert reliable sources that dispute this or do not agree with this is a farce.--LexCorp (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Among those who use the term "creation myth", what they refer to is "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form." Not everyone uses that term.  Also, you should look the word "hubris" up in the dictionary.  I'm just saying.  And you should apologize for the "nonsensical" insult.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hubris means extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power. Exactly the meaning I want to use. Arrogance of thinking that the mere fact of being a theologian is sufficient to create scholarly works and not evangelical pieces. More so when your intended purpose is to preach to the choir. Hubris indeed. I happily retreat the nonsensical comment if it gives offense. Having said that your comment above does not form in my mind a logical conclusion given the fact that you omit that there are plenty of RS supporting "myth"--LexCorp (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the term as a descriptor of the otherwise named narrative is different from naming the narrative itself. As a descriptor it fits the much longer phrase you keep reinserting in-front of it.  Please tell me how it doesn't.  Relatedly please provide a justification for the attribution "many scholars".  I see no evidence to necessitate such an attribution at all.  Simply not using the term as a matter of preference does not mean disagreement with it as an accurate descriptor.  That requires affirmative proof.Griswaldo (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't require affirmative proof at all. On the contrary, if you want to use a word that only some sources use, it must be noted as such and sourced.  You're doing neither.


 * It is a description of creation. Some call that a creation myth.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that the "some" you are referring to is the English speaking population of the whole Earth. Do you agree that the Genesis creation story/narrative/text is a myth by simple definition? Because I am beginning to think I speak another English language different from the one you speak. I learned mine in the Scottish border. Maybe that's the problem.--LexCorp (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No Lisa to the contrary. We are absolutely allowed to use synonyms, to paraphrase and to summarize what scholars do.  All scholars do not have to use the exact phrase.  If that were a requirement this encyclopedia would have failed eons ago.  It is reasonable to use synonyms, to paraphrase and to summarize unless there is evidence that this activity is misrepresenting someone or some group of people.  Once again we'd not be able to write an encyclopedia if this were not the case.  You have to provide the evidence that this term is contested by a significant amount of scholars before we start playing fast and loose with language like "many scholars".  This is exactly what Slimvirgin was asking for above.Griswaldo (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're going to insist on using the word "many" in the lead, you'll need to explain exactly what else the Genesis creation narrative is considered other than a creation myth. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What, you mean, like, canon? It's an idea, I suppose... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the link you were looking for. And if you feel the need to describe this subject as religious you are more than welcome to. I believe Griswaldo was looking more for something the other scholars would call this particular story. While, yes I know most scholars would agree it is a book in the Bible, this doesn't quite address how that differs from calling it a creation myth. Padillah (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Padilla, for thousands of years, there have been Jewish sholars, Christian scholars and Muslim scholars, among others. These schools of thought did not just suddenly dissapear from the face of the Earth, either.  Since when exactly (on what calendar date) was the word "scholar" redefined so as to exclude everyone who belongs to a world religion? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, find a significant number that don't believe Genesis is an Ancient Near East creation myth. The argument (from above) is to put the phrase "some scholars believe" as a qualifier for "Genesis to be an Ancient Near East creation myth". To warrent that qualification you'd have to provide that the phrase needs qualification - that there are a significant number of dissenting opinions that we need to qualify the statement. You offered to redefine it as canon but neglected to explain how this alleviates the argument that it is still regarded as an Ancient Near East creation myth by scholars as a general rule. Padillah (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It does make sense to look at the background of sources. E.g. that a book about mythology very prominently mentions the fact that the story in question is a creation myth is much less significant than that two books on the bible do that. Similarly, when a book about the bible doesn't mention it, that has some significance, but much less so if the omission happens in a context of eulogy ("majestic festive overture to the whole Bible", "We sense God’s concern for man’s well-being as he assigns the plants for his food.") rather than scholarly treatment. Hans Adler 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If, as SAE suggests, the New Bible Dictionary is "mainstream" I doubt that it is "mainstream" in the academy.  I don't say this out of specific knowledge of this work, but the language Hans makes reference to does not fit within the community of non-religious scholarship on the Bible. Within what community is this a mainstream text SAE?Griswaldo (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, if this source indeed "serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of Life", then the reliability is entirely irrelevant. This immediately renders the source unsuitable for the meta-context of the lead of this article. DVdm (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm, take that title up with WP:RS/N. I dare you.  I already know what they're going to tell you, and it's the same thing I already told you above.  "The source is reliable for purposes of establishing what a significant POV is." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, but there is nothing to be taken up with WP:RS/N. If this is really the case, then the source will not survive for what you would want it to survive. Trust me :-) DVdm (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * People appear to be talking at cross-purposes here, and some unnecessary friction seems to have been generated.
 * All reliable sources express points of view (or they'd not be worth mentioning). No source can be presumed to be neutral. Reliability and neutrality are different things. Neutrality is allowing every source to speak with due weight, without judging any of them. Neutrality is descriptive not evaluative.
 * Here is my neutral description of discussion above: some people think NBD is reliable, others don't; some people think the Oxford tertiary sources are neutral, others don't.
 * Here is my evaluative point of view: both the NBD and Oxford sources are reliable sources of their respective points of view; neither the NBD nor the Oxford sources are neutral—the NBD assumes (among other things) that God not only exists but "speaks" through the text of Genesis, while some of the Oxford sources assume (among other things) that God does not exist, or at least that he doesn't "speak" through the text of Genesis.
 * The NBD, like many, many other Christian and Jewish reliable academic resources does not use language the Oxford feels free to use, because that language clashes with the confessional POV of Judaism and Christianity. The Oxford sources are happy to adopt a secular POV that excludes religious PsOV. Unfortunately for us, Wikipedia is written from the neutral POV, which does not exclude any significant PsOV, and religious PsOV are trivially seen to be significant in Wiki articles on religion. That means, poor Wiki-editors like us keep on having to rework this same old issue with one-another.
 * The issue is not so very much a problem in this article, because, I would think, most confessing Jewish and Christian scholars actually agree with secular academics that early Genesis includes "symbolic narrative" owing some of it's character to the thought-world of its ANE neighbours. The term "creation myth" is very apt for discussion of the content of this article, even from the POV of religious writers.
 * I do hope people here will keep looking for ways to include all PsOV rather than establish which should be allowed. We are not here to tell readers what early Genesis is, but to tell them what the significant points of view on early Genesis are. Who are we to sit in judgment on reliable sources? Can't we trust the readers to do that? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with this. Except that reliability is not the issue with the NBD, but rather unsuitability through bias. As a propaganda text it is clearly highly reliable, but unsuitable. Also, on the one hand it is 100% obvious --and documented-- that "the NBD assumes (among other things) that God not only exists but speaks through the text of Genesis", but on the other hand it is not at all obvious --and indeed irrelevant-- whether "some of the Oxford sources assume (among other things) that God does not exist". That is the principal difference. There is no symmetry here, not anywhere near. DVdm (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * furthermore, where does this source explicitly states that the Genesis creation myth is not a myth as defined by "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LexCorp (talk • contribs)
 * What I see being put forward is the question "Can we use the NBD as citation for claims in the form of 'Christians believe Eve was created from Adams rib'" as a citation that Christians believe a certain dogma I see no problem but I also see no real use because Christian beliefs are not a part of this article. It is concerned mainly with the account in Genesis and should nave little to do with belief systems. 12.193.46.150 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Full disclosure: this was me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I agree. For that the NBD is highly reliable, but this is irrelevant in the context of this discussion. After all, this is not an article about an organisation promoting a religion. DVdm (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be relevant in this article to shed light, if sourced, on how various groups regard Genesis. That could include groups defined any way, but would mostly break down by religious leaning. That could cover any quality related to Genesis, but one quality would be its truth, falseness or related qualities, such as perhaps as whether it is regarded as an allegory. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the canonical question, does anyone know of any denomination or sect that has explicitly dropped Genesis from what it considers canon? If not, I think we can safely and accurately state that all these aforementioned groups currently agree on its canonicity. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop fooling around
The primary reason the move request to Genesis creation narrative passed was because "myth" is a term that carries connotations of falsehood. Everyone here knows this. The dictionary supports it. Nevertheless, several editors are trying to use "creation myth" as the default description of the Genesis creation story, rather than begin with a simple and understandable description, followed by noting that it's called a "creation myth" by some scholars.

This is POV-pushing. It's also an example of bad faith. There were those who didn't want the word "myth" used at all in this article. There were those who insisted that it had to be in the title. Those of us in the middle found a compromise position where "myth" can -- and should be used -- but not in the title. The current push to position it as the defining characteristic of the account is nothing but an attempt to maneuver around to changing the title back to Genesis creation myth.

If this bad faith editing (WP:AGF means to assume good faith, unless proven otherwise; not to be blind) continues, I'm going to escalate this administratively. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa stop accusing people of bad faith. I supported the name change but not mainly for the reasons you describe.  I agree that the other meaning of myth causes problems in the title where there is way to contextualize and link "creation myth".  However this is not a problem in the main text.  I will also note that several of the name change supporters explicitly stated at various times that they fully support the use of "myth" in the content of the entry, so I'm not sure how accurate your representation is for those other than myself either.  You appear to have reached an impasse in your argument above and are now threating administrative action.  I don't see why that is necessary at all.  Lets continue to reason and to provide evidence for our assertions and this will work itself out.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The standards for NPOV are different for a title than in the article itself: We normally use the common name, even if it is POV. And we avoid descriptive names that express a POV, even if it is the POV of the overwhelming majority. Things are different in the article itself.
 * It's not clear at all that the article was renamed because it was POV. Look at my !vote, for example.
 * We are writing an encyclopedia. Not a children's encyclopedia; if you want something like that you will be more happy at the Simple English Encyclopedia. We are writing the kind of encyclopedia whose articles start as follows:
 * The cat (Felis catus), also known as the domestic cat or housecat to distinguish it from other felines and felids, is a small domesticated carnivorous mammal [...]
 * The dog[...] is a domesticated form of the wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora.
 * A pneumatic torque wrench is a planetary torque multiplier or a gearbox that is mated to a pneumatic air motor.
 * In cricket, other than Test matches, One Day International matches, Twenty20 matches and First class matches, other forms of the sport do exist.
 * Magnetite is a ferrimagnetic mineral with chemical formula Fe3O4, one of several iron oxides and a member of the spinel group.
 * The "hard" words are no problem because in the articles they are linked. I hope this helps. Hans Adler 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to second Lisa's sentiments. There's been a long debate on this, and we decided "narrative" was more NPOV/less fractious.  If we switch back to "myth" it will only cause more consternation and debate.  Let this one lie for at least a month or so before claiming that consensus has changed. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is switching back to anything. We changed the title only and this discussion is not about the title ... but about the effort to push "creation myth" out of the introduction.  When I was digging in the archives of the talk page recently I found this:
 * Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative/Archive_7
 * If people had just listened to the editor who proposed this earlier we'd never have been put through all this nonesense. What that editor, Dab so rightfully points out is that 1) the issue was about the title only and 2) it has nothing to do with POV and ideological battles.  Once again I do not think I'm the only other person to share this opinion.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not the only one. My !vote was explicitly for the situation that currently exists: Title uses "narrative" and the text explains that "The Genesis creation narrative is an Ancient Near East creation myth" in the first sentence. I argued for removal from the title because the title doesn't provide enough context to defend itself from the colloquial use of "myth" whereas the lead and body have enough context to defend the use of the word. Padillah (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again do not invoke the WP:NPOV it has nothing to do with this discussion. There is no mainstream or significant view among the reliable sources arguing that the Genesis creation myth is not a myth. Trying to portrait the RS situation as such is dishonest. The is no policy stating we should choose politically correct terminology over precise well supported terminology because it may give offense to the uneducated masses that fail to assign the correct implied meaning of a word when used in a particular context. Let's educate people not be their nannies.--LexCorp (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo, there is no attempt to "push 'creation myth' out of the introduction". On the contrary, I've restored it to the lede a number of times so far, and I will continue to do so if people keep taking it out. Why are you representing it otherwise. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For those keeping score, this interminable myth/not myth/kind-of-a-myth/some-say-its-a-myth debate is now about 370 pages long. It's grown about 50 pages just in this week, and just in this one article talkpage. Keep up the good work!


 * Meanwhile (I don't know if anyone else cares) but as it is now, the poor reader has to work tremendously hard to figure out what this article is trying to say...it isn't until the fourth section that there is even the merest sketch of the story itself, after forcing the reader through the bewildering riddle which the opening sentence now is, with nothing but titillating clues to be found there if he were but clever enough to know he must click on the three or four wikilinks "helpfully" provided, only upon returning to find further several tricks, traps, and decoys about such things as "temporal subordinate clauses" and Philo and Matthew Henry blocking his path.


 * This isn't an encyclopedia article-it's more like a video game. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Building on the Lead
Bravo Hans, for coming up with the perfect lead sentence,. Masterpieces are born out of much adversity, and I can tell that this one is going to be no exception. Let us now move on to writing the rest of the lead. Good job all for 3/4 of a day of work. SAE (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Hans' version states as a matter of encyclopedic fact that the account is a creation myth.  It's okay to state that it's widely viewed that way, but it's POV to state it uncategorily.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Should we include in the lead that some people take it as the literal truth? <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 19:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lisa. It is by simple definition a creation "myth" and it is not POV to state facts.--LexCorp (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lisa, you say "some view it that way", fine. What do others view it as? Padillah (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DVdm for restoring it back to my original lead. You are confusing to say the least. But I appreciate the vote :) SAE (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromise
It was suggested that we use the following lede:

The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, is distinguished from other Ancient Near East creation myths by its monotheistic outlook.

My problem with this, of course, is the word "other". But if we take it out, we lose any identification of the Genesis story as a creation myth, and that's just as wrong.

So I'm going to suggest the following:

The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis, is considered by many scholars to be one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing primarily in its monotheistic outlook.

This way, you get "creation myth" in the first sentence. I guarantee that those who want to portray "creation myth" as the unanimously accepted term will only keep this incessant battle going indefinitely. The compromise I'm suggesting is not the way I'd prefer the lede to read, but I'm willing to meet you halfway. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are the scholars that don't consider it a creation myth, and what do they consider it to be instead? <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite. That's the question that isn't being answered.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No compromise. There is not Significant view among reliable sources that the Genesis creation myth is not a myth as defined by "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form." There is no POV conflict here. Lets move on.--LexCorp (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Lex, you are so wrong, that you can't even see right or reason. SAE (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * err ok. Quite an insightful remark and reasoned very well and accompanied with plenty of RS supporting your cause.--LexCorp (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * and your own astounding amount of sources has simply overwhelmed me. hmmm... SAE (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like "A myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form." -- Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth by Aland Dundes, 1984, p. 1 but any of the others above will do for me.--LexCorp (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik considered it an account of creation. He never used the term "creation myth", to the best of my knowledge.  Rabbi Soloveitchick is one of the major Jewish theologian/scholars of the 20th century.  Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom  refers to it as a "creation narrative", "The First Creation Story" and "The Second Creation Story".  These are serious scholars of the Bible.


 * LexCorp, you don't own this article. Stop acting as though you do.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me note as well that Rabbi Etshalom is already cited as a reliable source in this article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. You offered a compromise. My answer is no. Does Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik deny that the Genesis creation myth is a myth as defined by "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form."?--LexCorp (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to that question would depend on how one defined "sacred," Lex. There was a secular dimension to Joseph B. Soloveitchik's work (embodied in the concept of Torah Umadda) that might not have allowed for much delving into "sacred" understandings of this, though I don't really know. My guess would be that there would be a fairly rational approach to something like this. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sacred as in worthy of religious veneration (as in the bible is the word of God and thus sacred). Do people here speak some English different from mine?--LexCorp (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LexCorp, casting aspersions on others ability to speak English is not going to help anything (It may, in fact be a second language for some here, we don't know).
 * Bus stop, it's not up to LexCorp to define sacred, it's been pretty well defined for over 400 years. Let's use the one from the dictionary for our purposes. Padillah (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again AGF. For me it is a second language! That's why I ask. Maybe my understanding of "sacred" is wildly wrong.--LexCorp (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't see much difference between the versions in this. The weasel words were removed before. The difference is just one of ordering, and perhaps some redundant elaboration, no? DVdm (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lisa, it seems the problem is with the acceptance of the Genesis story as a myth. But the compromise put forward in the Title rename was that the body of the article had sufficient context to defend itself from the colloquial use of the word. So let's use that rather than continuing to dodge the word altogether. How about

The Genesis creation narrative, is a biblical description of how the world and man came to be in their present form. Found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, is distinguished from other Ancient Near East creation myths by its monotheistic outlook. As with other technical myths there is no consensus on the veracity behind the narrative with several prominent scholars holding to a literal interpretation while others recognize the story as fictional and even an allegory to... Padillah (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "there is no consensus on the veracity behind the narrative with several prominent scholars holding to a literal interpretation" – This is outrageous creationist POV pushing. Hans Adler 21:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to the question, "Who are the scholars that don't consider it a creation myth..." For example, John S. Feinberg (chair of the Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), in No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God", p. 575 - "Moreover, in light of contemporary attitudes that link myth with fairy tales and the imaginary, we should demur on labeling Genesis 1-2 myth." In response to the question, "...and what do they consider it to be instead?" they consider it to be historical narrative. For example, Steven W. Boyd (specialist in biblical Hebrew, Semitic Languages and Old Testament Studies) created a logistic regression model to calculate the probability that a particular Hebrew text is a narrative. He concluded that "For Genesis 1:1–2:3, this probability is between 0.999942 and 0.999987 at a 99.5% confidence level." (in "Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3") In response to the apparent request to ignore reliable sources from evangelical theologians, that is utter nonsense. They are absolutely in a position to comment on the significance and meaning of biblical texts.  They don't stand alone and there should be secular POV as well, but it would be unconscionable not to let evangelicals weigh in. Ἀλήθεια 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Boyd is not a reliable source, and his paper is not published by any reliable publisher - it's self-published YEC nonsense. But quite apart from that, he only distinguishes between narrative text and poetry in his study. Thus, it's only an argument on the form, not on the content. Myths can be either poetic or narrative, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is anyone willing to go dig up the "note" that was attached to the word myth? Would it be an acceptable compromise to keep the unqualified term "creation myth" in the first two sentences, but with the footnote explaining the term? Ἀλήθεια 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is funny that John S. Feinberg acknowledges PC reasons to not refer to the GS as myth. Instead of lecturing his students he chooses to work with their ignorance. Quite a Professor if you ask me. Anyway I digress, I will support bringing back the footnote.--LexCorp (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also funny how your immediate response is a classic logical fallacy. Anyway, I anticipated your scorn for this particular source, and offer in addition Nahum M. Sarna (Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies at Brandeis University), who  contrasts Genesis 1:1–2:3 to the Babylonian creation account, Enuma Elish, and other extra-Biblical versions of creation: "The outstanding peculiarity of the biblical account is the complete absence of mythology in the classic pagan sense of the term." (in Understanding Genesis)  Ἀλήθεια 20:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the note at all--it sits like a distracting wart on the very first line of the article, it's a patronizing "disclaimer" spoon fed to readers, and we have a wl to myth that works perfectly well-in fact, that's exactly what wikilinks are designed for. I don't know why we need to show so little faith in our own readers' reading skills--if Britannica doesn't feel the need to pander, hand-holding its readers and shielding their eyes from perfectly normal words, why do we? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)--(adding: The "note" as featured in earlier versions.) Professor marginalia (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was my hope that my previous comment could be taken as an attack to the PC argument as well as the intellectual integrity of John S. Feinberg. Seem that I failed I further point to all this Talk Page for reasons as to why the PC argument is intellectually wrong unless your stated aim is to redefine "myth". At least his moral integrity is intact as he comes clean with the real reason. Thus no Ad hominem fallacy from me. Nahum M. Sarna is using the special pleading fallacy to try to distance the GS from all other creation stories. This may fool a theist but to me it is crystal clear what he is doing. What is it in the "mythology in the classic pagan sense of the term" that is not in the GS other than polytheism?. Then again he does not explicitly states GS not to be a myth, just that it is a peculiar one precisely because monotheism. A sentence of the lead already mentions this because it is the only relevant distinction.--LexCorp (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, "Dora Golding Professor of..." is a title. Nahum M. Sarna is the scholar, and "Nahum" is a male name, making all of your "she" references confusing. Second, I concede that you did not specifically attack Feinberg, but you acknowledged that you hoped to attack his intellectual integrity. On what basis? Do you deny "contemporary attitudes that link myth with fairy tales and the imaginary"? I'm not suggesting you have to agree with his reasoning, but you have to acknowledge his POV. Ἀλήθεια 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. It is good to learn new things.--LexCorp (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But I do acknowledge "contemporary attitudes that link myth with fairy tales and the imaginary" that is why someone in an education role should strive to correct that from their position of authority in these matters. John S. Feinberg chooses not to do so. To me (and this is a personal opinion no relevant to this discussion) a professor that chooses not to educate his student/reader audience loses intellectual integrity and professionalism (I can even speculate that he does so to sell more books whether by choice or pressure by publishers). The only mitigating factor really is that in my experience this now is common among all subjects and academic levels. That's is why Wikipedia is such an important education toll IMHO.--LexCorp (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)