User talk:Professor marginalia/talk renames2

Dumbing down Wikipedia into a Conservapedia?
Continued quarreling demonstrates lack of consensus for the latest doublespeak move from "Genesis creation myth" to "Genesis creation narrative". There's no empirical evidence to support the condescending supposition that average Wikipedia users won't understand myth's denotations and connotations. The "Creation myths" category currently contains 53 pages, only one of which is fatuously entitled a "creation narrative". Keahapana (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your own comments are sufficiently condescending. Conservapedia probably asserts that Genesis is literally true. This one doesn't. Keeping this article's title neutral is not "dumbing down", it's policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have moved on. The creationist POV pushing is currently for relativising the characterisation of the story as a creation myth by text that suggests there is no academic consensus for doing so. Some editors are already arguing as if the discussion was about purging the word from the lead entirely, based on its being used as a technical term. If they get the space for their nonsensical arguments, then surely there must be space for rebuttals, even if they are not of the highest quality possible. Hans Adler 08:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a false dichotomy to state that the Genesis creation story cannot be at the same time a myth and literally true. Again "myth" correct definition as it applies in the context of this article is a "sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form". There is nothing in this definition that suggest that the myth is not historical/allegorical/the true word from God/true/false or any other interpretation or POV out there. The "myth" definition in itself is not a POV it is a simple definition describing the subject. It is obvious to anyone that the title change is a compromise to appease faith-based sensitivities thus it reflects a preference for political correctness over encyclopedic standards by the editorial body of this article.@Keahapana. So in essence the answer to your question is YES this change is dumbing down Wikipedia.--LexCorp (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is indeed dumbing down how WP looks from a great distance - the distance from where only the article titles can be read. After all, the (now more or less stable) lead clearly states that the Genesis creation "narrative" is indeed a creation myth. This is truly bizarre :-| DVdm (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not bizarre at all. The title is a compromise based on WP:UCN.  In scholarship there are many different names used for this Biblical myth.  The most common by far are "Genesis creation story" and "Biblical creation story".  As you all know "narrative" and "story" are synonyms.  I would prefer "story" but that's why this is a compromise.  Of course if your misunderstandings were true we would look dumb, and unfortunately I can't control the ignorance of others.  I do ask one thing however.  I ask it a lot but I wont stop.  Can we please leave this culture wars rhetoric at the door?  Can we stop making this about a battle with Christians, or comparing Wikipedia to conservapedia, etc. etc.  This is all ridiculously unhelpful.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's bizarre that the current "Genesis creation narrative" nonce title doesn't call a myth a myth. And yes, both "creation story" and "creation narrative" are common Christian euphemisms for "creation myth" in the Bible. However, the present discussion concerns Wikipedia title metastructure. Both creation story and creation narrative redirect to the normative creation myth. I could be wrong, but in the faith-based Conservapedia, it might be acceptable to suggest that one religion has a cosmogonic "narrative" while all others have "myths". In the reality-based Wikipedia, it smacks of cultural bias and religious intolerance. Keahapana (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Common Christian euphemisms"? Can you back that up with some empirical evidence?  What't the phrase ... put up or ... ?  Personal opinions and knee jerk reactions are not of interest to this discussion.  Also, naming conventions like  WP:UCN are mainly based on external real world usage and not taxonomies native to Wikipedia.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems obvious, but here's a quick Google Test. The first 10 ghits for "genesis creation story" comprise 3 secular websites (this WP article, Australia Yahoo Answers, Religious Tolerance twice), 1 mixed category (42 Videos), and these 5 self-described sites: Also, thanks for again citing "Common names", which "Deciding an article title" lists as "Recognizable", the first of five ideal title criteria. I was referring to the fifth: "Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Biologos Forum "a group of Christians"
 * Energion "owned by Henry Neufeld, president of Pacesetters Bible School"
 * Ancient Days "based on the belief that the Bible is God's Word"
 * John Mark Ministries "Thinking Maturely about the Christian Faith"
 * Biblestudies Suite101 "active member of a non-denominational Christian church"


 * Except there are no similar articles with similar names. The similar articles have names like Enûma Eliš and Völuspá.  The articles with "creation myth" in the name are those that are constructed in the following manner -- "name of civilization" + "creation myth".  As I've stated before I would not have opposed something like Judeo-Christian creation myth.  Anyway that argument fails by simply not reflecting reality.  Pasting a couple of anecdotes does not amount to empirical evidence either, especially when its from Google proper.  What percentage of use falls along those lines? You will also find "creation story" used in peer reviewed journals in the fields of history, sociology, etc.  What is the situation within scholarship?  Someone could easily counter your argument with another equally unproductive one -- that "myth" is an anti-theist euphemism for "all religious stories because they are not true".  We are thankfully not guided by either conservative Christian usages of "creation story" or hardcore atheist usages of "myth".  By the way I hope you see the irony in the similarity between your argument and those of the people who claim that we can't use "myth" precisely because of how that latter minority I mentioned above likes to use it.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sixth time you've used these Enûma Eliš and Völuspá examples to argue that most articles in the "Creation myths" category don't have similar "m-word" titles, which is true. After looking them up, I was surprised to learn they both have "creation myth" titled redirects: Babylonian creation myth > Enûma Eliš and Norse creation myth > Völuspá. Curious about similar redirect pages, I tried some WP searches (these are results for "Everything", but you might be able to refine them with "Advanced" settings). "Results 1 - 20 of 4,066 for creation myth" include 16 titles: "Results 1 - 20 of 2,977 for creation narrative" include 4 titles: These two section titles made me wonder how frequently "creation narrative" specifically occurs in Biblical contexts, so I Googled en.wikipedia.org for the respective phrases with/without "Bible" and "Genesis": Again, these are admittedly "anecdotal" preliminary results. I'm not nearly as familiar with this Talk page as you (4th most frequent user according to WikiChecker, congratulations), so I'll leave determining the "empirical" facts up to your expertise. Within the context of WP articles, is "creation narrative" predominantly a Christianity-specific usage? Could this explain why "Genesis creation narrative" remains a nonce title? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 category (Creation myths)
 * 8 articles (Creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth, Evolution and Religious Creation Myths)
 * 6 redirects (Genesis creation myth, Māori creation myth, Babylonian creation myth, Choctaw creation myth, Norse creation myth, Hindu creation myth,)
 * 1 section (Universe)
 * 0 categories
 * 1 article (Genesis creation narrative)
 * 1 redirect (Creation Narrative)
 * 2 sections (Women in the Bible, Women in the Hebrew Bible)
 * "creation myth" 958
 * "creation myth" –bible 630
 * "creation myth" –genesis 584
 * "creation narrative" 144
 * "creation narrative" –bible 46
 * "creation narrative" –genesis 34


 * Creation narrative" is not common on wikipedia and I expect it is very uncommon out there in popular culture. In scholarship, and in reference to this subject matter, it appears about as often as "creation myth".  I highly doubt that it is preferred by Christian sources.  Christian sources prefer simply "creation account" or "account of creation".  As I stated already "creation story" is most common in scholarship and is a synonym of the current title.  The stats you have brought forth regarding naming conventions here at Wikipedia including redirects is interesting but once again, let me beat the dead horse, you are not comparing things of the same kind.  You have also clearly missed some redirects like Judeo-Christian creation myth which also redirects here. Do you notice how all the articles, like this one, that are actually about a specific text have redirects like Babylonian creation myth, but titles that simple refer to narratives without making any direct claims to genre.  If you don't want to recognize the difference then we might as well stop the conversation.  Oh and I fail to understand what you're trying to say regarding my usage statistics and this page.  All the best.Griswaldo (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I note that you've dropped your argument concerning popular usage of "creation story" amongst conservative Christians. You do see how its pretty much identical to other arguments here about how we can't use "myth" at all because some people are using it specifically to mean "false story"?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear ("anecdotal" … "results 1-20") that these data are quick and dirty and not a complete list of anything. They provide evidence supporting the original suggestion that "creation narrative" and "story" usages frequently have Christian subtexts. I wouldn't drop it without some convincing evidence to the contrary. My intention was to make what you call "same kind" comparisons, one "creation narrative" title and many "creation myth" titles. In my understanding, the onomastic difference between articles like Babylonian creation myth and Adam and Eve is general group vs. specific phrase. The former titles need to include a category while the latter do not (but may have "… creation myth" redirects). Can we agree that "creation myth" generally refers to any culture or religion while "creation narrative" disproportionately refers to Christianity? It's OK with me if you want to stop this conversation. Best wishes. Keahapana (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a WP:FRINGE disaster
I came here after seeing the discussion at Jimbo's talk page and I am disgusted. Are we really not only arguing on the obvious fact that the Genesis is a myth, but even renaming the article to hide this fact? Shame. And also, I am appalled at the amateurish way both camps debated about sources.

Let me detail. Slimvirgin shot herself in the foot in asking for "three academics": you can find three reliable academics supporting everything, no matter how crazy. In the fields of hard sciences we have Brian Josephson and Kary Mullis, both Nobel prizes, one believing in telepathy, another believing AIDS does not exist. The fact that we can quote Nobel prizes on these subjects doesn't mean telepathy or AIDS denialism are not WP:FRINGE theories. Because, what is important in depicting such subjects is what scientific consensus agrees. And such consensus is that telepathy doesn't exist and AIDS exists.

The other camp then supported some scholarly sources that explicily deny that the Genesis is a myth. Now, we have two problems with such sources. One is that they are individual authors opinions, and as such they do not define scientific consensus, so we do not solve WP:FRINGE issues. The other problem is that such opinions go mostly around the definition of the word "myth", but they do not solve the issue that seems creeping in the whole discussion, that is that using "myth" underlies somehow, semantically, that it is a false story, and there is a camp which doesn't like that.

Well, the problem is easily solved in my opinion. If we want to know if Genesis is a myth or not in the meaning of it being a true account or not of the origin of the Universe, we do not have to look at bibliologists or theologians. We already know that scientific consensus on the subject is pretty much different from the Genesis account: see big bang theory, history of the Solar System etc. Because to say if the Genesis account is the correct description of the origin of the world is a cosmological question, nothing else, and it has to be solved by cosmological scientific consensus.

Note that this has nothing to do with what is true, but with what we should present. And currently the article massively violates WP:FRINGE. This paragraph:

''Scholars debate how to view and understand these early chapters in Genesis. A non-literal and non-historical reading of Genesis can have negative implications for an understanding of the New Testament, because the New Testament refers to Adam and Eve as literal historical characters (for example in Matthew 19:4).[specify] On the other hand, a literal reading of these chapters remains a primary reason for much of the opposition to the whole idea of evolution.[52]''

is horrendous. 99.999% of cosmologists do not debate on how to view these early chapters. There is complete consensus on them being fictional. To give the impression that the scientific community at large debates on such a subject is a massive violation of WP:FRINGE. Of course, then, there is the issue of how theologians debate that -but the falsehood or not of Genesis is a problem of cosmology, and has to be solved by the consensus in cosmology.

That settled, we can now discuss if "myth" is the less or more correct word (in my opinion it is, also for consistency with other creation myths: but it is entirely possible that the consensus of the literature on the subject disagrees). -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked for three academic sources currently working in mainstream universities who explicitly say this is not a creation myth. I don't think I shot myself in the foot, because so far no one has supplied even one.


 * As for the section you quote, it's not referring to scientists, but to the kinds of scholars who study this (theologians presumably). Some in-text attribution would be helpful, as in "scholars such as A and B." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 14:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyclopedia I don't disagree with any of this except I think perhaps you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. The quoted text would be fine with proper attribution - the debate is a theological one, so yes simply saying "scholars" is not appropriate.  In general these Biblical passages have next to nothing to do with the modern science of cosmology.  No secular scholar actually interested in this myth from a scholarly point of view could care less about whether or not they are cosmologically true.  The point here is that who would assume that "scholars" included cosmologists?  Why on earth would anyone assume that?  Cosmologists don't concern themselves with the Biblical creation story do they?  Other scholars do.Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, whether or not this is a myth has nothing at all to do with "scientific consensus." That has nothing to do with the "debate." The consensus is among mythologists, folklorists and anthropologists who study culture, not astrophysicists looking at the CMB or the Doppler effect. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note how the OP is using "myth" as an equivalent to "fairy tale". That's POV-pushing, and it's the reason "myth" was replaced with a neutral term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes but I note also that the poster acknowledges the difference and makes it clear that he's discussing that meaning of myth. Why one would want to do so in relation to this entry is a mystery (to me and others) but I don't think there is any hidden POV pushing going on here.Griswaldo (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not hidden, it's very much out in the open. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling a spade a spade is POV? Should we rename September 11th Attacks to September 11th Narrative as well? Badger Drink (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Badger, surely you are confused. You don't mean to be comparing something that nobody disagrees on (that Sept. 11 were attacks) to something that all of history until that last hundred years, plus at least a billion people in the world still today agree on, (that Genesis is not a Creation myth).  Surely that isn't what you meant to say? ... Cheers, SAE (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again false dichotomy. The billion people in the world that do presumably believe the GS is not a myth in the sense of a fairy tale will no doubt believe (and will greatly defend) that instead it is a "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form." and thus a myth.--LexCorp (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "All of history until that last hundred years"? Are you for real? Your worldview is ridiculously myopic, to say the least. What is it about Genesis - besides its place in your own heart, that separates it from all these other mythical accounts of creation? Badger Drink (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are countless millions who believe that Genesis is "real" in some sense, and a few scholars who don't. So which group is the "fringe"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is to reflect the views of experts. In that sense the opinion of the billion is not even WP:fringe but more like irrelevant. Pretty much like the Intelligent Design status among the scientific community which consider it to be pseudoscience and a large percentage of the USA population which consider it true or at least at par with evolution. Wikipedia as a reputable encyclopedia reflects the view of the expert majority mentioning, when WP:weight requires it, all other minority views from the rest of the experts and finally mentioning and qualifying WP:fringe views when notable.--LexCorp (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is "to reflect the views of experts"? Can you say "oxymoron"? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The jury is still out as to the viability of the project (but we can all agree that it is a very popular project for now). You can count me in the skeptic side more so when confronted with problems like the one we are arguing about in this very talk page.--LexCorp (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Bugs, you nailed it on the head. "If only the hoi polloi would shove off and go back to letting us tell them what to think." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyclopedia, thank-you for taking the time to give your thoughts, there are many things here for us to think about. However, there are three problem areas that I see with your comment:


 * (1) You over-state your case and use a faulty comparison. You say that (A) just because you can find a reliable source that denies the existence of Aids that constitutes wp:fringe, and (B) you can also find reliable sources that do not call Genesus a myth, therefore, (C) all reliable source that do not see Genesis as a myth must be wp:fringe.  But, this type of faulty reasoning can be used to deny anything -- ie. just replace "(B) Creation Myth," for "(B) Apples are fruit," and your (C) will be that apples are not fruit.  The existence of fringe sources in other, unrelated topics, mean absolutely nothing here.  Each topic with its source needs to be viewed individually.  You example of one Aids denier is a faulty comparison to a belief held to by at least 1 billion people.  It may contradict science, yes, but if it is held by that many people, calling it wp:fringe is far overstating a case.  Let's look:  Fringe = "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view."  Mainstream view =  "generally, the common current of thought of the majority," and "includes all popular culture".  Thus you are incorrect in claiming wp:fringe.  Whatever may be the problem here, an infraction against fringe is not the issue.  This leads to the second major problem with your comment.


 * (2) You misdiagnose the current problem/discussion currently taking place over this article. If wp:fringe is not the main issue, then what is/are?  There are two, closely related.  First, we have a (overall secondary) concern that has created much more squabble than it's worth (although it is important):  the lead sentence.  There are a couple (several?) pov's that want their pov to construct the lead sentence, without recognized other significant pov's .  Second, (even more important, although less talked about than the lead sentence, but related to it) is how are we going to deal with the main pov's in the body of the article?  For example, you quote a sentence from the body of article and conclude that it is "horrendous" and a "massive violation of WP:FRINGE."  That is incorrect.  This sentence is the pov of a significant body of reliable sources, and it needs to have extensive coverage in this article.  There should be no impression given (as you say this article does) that the scientific community debates it's own pov -- and I agree (although again, I believe you have overstated this as being a major problem in this article.)  However, in the religious community, this sentence is valid (maybe we need to make this more clear, who's pov it is.)


 * (3) You do not understand the purpose of this article Overall you seem to want to set this article up as a science vs. creationism debate, and have the scientific community trump the religious.  But that is not the purpose of this article -- there are plenty of articles that do that already, and they have their place.  Rather this article's purpose is to examine the text of Genesis 1-2 exegetically.  It deals more with the literary construction of the text, rather than its historicity.  That needs to be the primary focus, or else all we have is an article that duplicates Young Earth creationism and the rest.  Therefore for you to call editors to leave out reliable religious sources, who are the main contributors in the field of literary analysis in Genesis 1-2, would itself lead to the very problem that you begin with, WP:FRINGE. SAE (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can we stop this unhelpful commentary now (and I mean all of it ... and yes I'm a contributer to that too). Lets use the talk page to discuss things actually relevant to improving the entry. OK?Griswaldo (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Genesis is a myth - this is not something which should be debated, it's something true, in the same sense that the theory of evolution is true, and the same sense that it's a fact that HIV causes AIDS. At the moment, this article is suggesting that the "creationist" interpretation and the "metaphorical interpretation" are two equally valid theological interpretations of the narrative. This is obviously nonsense. The "creationist" interpretation of the myth is theologically a fringe theory, and any respectable academic theologian or anthropologist will point out the similarities between Genesis and other creation myths. We need to move all the material concerning creationism into a subsection, in the same way that AIDS denial is in a subsection of the AIDS article, so it is clear that the creationist interpretation is not part of the mainstream interpretation. Regards. Claritas (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Narrative" is true, it's factual, it's neutral-point-of-view. "Myth" is an opinion held by a few so-called scholars who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're just being anti-academic. Your "so-called scholars" include the likes of Claude Lévi-Strauss and other important anthropologists and theologians. The use of the word "myth" points out the fact that the story is symbolic, whereas "narrative" implies nothing of the sort. Wikipedia shouldn't avoid offending people if by doing so it compromises the academic worth of its contents. Claritas (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Asserting that it's symbolic is POV-pushing. "Narrative" is neutral. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is entirely my point - it's not POV to say that Genesis is symbolic. It's true. The dissent among academic circles is so small as to make opposition to the idea that Genesis is symbolic come under WP:FRINGE. If you don't like facts, you can believe things which are wrong, but you can't censor Wikipedia because of it. Claritas (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Being "true" is not wikipedia policy. Being neutral is. And the article is not censored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Claritas, as far as the title goes "Genesis creation myth" fails based purely on WP:UCN. It is not commonly used in scholarship. The current title is about on par in terms of usage, but it has the advantage of at least being a direct synonym of the clear winners based on usage (and my top choices personally) -- Genesis creation story and Biblical creation story. It is not pro-academic to make arguments that do not reflect academic usage. Now please understand this is the title only that I'm referring to, which is supposed to reflect common names (again see WP:UCN). Within the content of the article "creationism" and academic views that treat this as a myth should not be treated as equal. I agree wholeheartedly. Despite the above mentioned common use in naming this narrative it is a fringe view not to consider this a myth. If you want to discuss how we should move forward to ensure that the entry reflects scholarship better I'm all for it. If you want to argue about the title endlessly based on false assumptions I think you should reread my last edit summary. Enough is enough.Griswaldo (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a problem with the title as such, although I wasn't so confident about the validity of the arguments used (certainly "Genesis Creation myth" is used in theological circles a fair bit). My real concern is the section "Question of genre". In my mind, this article currently puts forward the idea that the creationist interpretation of it as a historical text is not a WP:FRINGE theory by discussing it seriously and comparing it to the non-literal reading. This section should not even mention literal readings, because a literal reading of Genesis is essentially theological incorrect (it's like AIDS denialism). The "Question of genre" section should either be completely removed or edited so that it is clear that all standard interpretations understand Genesis as both symbolic and metaphorical. I'm not going to be bold, because it would probably upset certain editors. I don't think any scholars of mythology would even suggest that it was meant to be studied as some sort of historical narrative. Also, treating Genesis as something which could be a historical narrative is going to be problematic, because then we have to point out how incorrect it is as a historical narrative concerning anything. Claritas (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, Claritas, so according to you, the current and historic position of most Christian Churches on their canon finalized at Nicea, is akin to "AIDS denialism" and the other things you compared it to, because that is the point-of-view found in your sources. Your understanding of the concept of "neutrality" is positively utopian. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can anyone see how transparently political this is becoming? According to this hypothesis, several nations that have Christianity or Islam as their state religion are committed to doctrines that are pure myth.  There are other states with no state religion, or even with doctrines explicitly opposed to these, who would just love to have it endorsed by a "neutral" source like wikipedia that these states practice "myth" and "denialism" as their official doctrine. That is why the struggle for FAIR neutrality must and will continue. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Til Eulenspiegel, I challenge you to find me one scholar of mythology who believes that the creationist interpretation is mainstream. You seem not to understand that "myth" is not being used as a derogatory term here, simply as an indication that the story is symbolic, not factual. Neutrality for you seems to mean suppression of the facts for the sake of political correctness. Claritas (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel and Baseball Bugs: The point is very simple. I reinstate it again (I admit my first post was confusing). If you want to know what is the scientific consensus on any history of creation (being it the Genesis, the Popol Vuh or whatever you prefer) you don't have to ask to the billions who believe it. You don't have to ask to theologians. You have to ask to cosmologists. That's because they are the academic community which studies with objective tools this kind of problems. And current cosmology is 99.999% agreeing that what happens in the Genesis or whatever else religious book is, from a literal point of view, false. Again, you can find RS for AIDS denialism, you can find even RS for astrology and creationism if you like. This doesn't mean, again, they're not fringe views. If you don't want Genesis depicted as a myth, you don't have to argue here. You go to physics conferences, publish scientific papers and convince the scientifical community at large that the world has been created just like the Genesis (or Popol Vuh, or Quran, or whatever you prefer) says. Then you can come back with solid arguments. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  18:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyclopedia -- the problem here is the usage of the term "myth". I tried to correct the WP guidelines regarding this term to indicate that it is a symbolic narrative.  Of COURSE it isn't literally true.  But saying what it is not is not to say what it is.  And for that we have the WP guidelines regarding the term "myth" to blame.  It's a simple fix: a myth is a symbolic narrative.  Apollo didn't REALLY ride around in heavenly chariots, but the sun got along just fine anyway.


 * In any case to use "myth" with the meaning of "not literally true" is fine, but incomplete. Did God literally create the world in six days?  You MIGHT find one or perhaps two editors here who hold that point of view, and they should be here along with the rest of us.  But I think you are missing the point of the argument that brought us here.


 * There were two problems. 1) the term "myth" was not properly defined in the guidelines, and 2) even if it had been, the fact that not everyone takes this narrative as a myth makes the term a poor choice for the title.


 * Genesis is alternatively seen by notable sources as "myth" as well as "demythologizing polemic" as well as "false science" as well as "allegory" as well as "morality tale," etc. Genesis creation myth is no more useful a title for this article than would be Genesis creation false science or Genesis creation polemic or Genesis creation allegory or Genesis creation morality tale.


 * The best term is simply a "narrative" -- a term which includes and allows all of these views. And yes, it also allows those sources which have taken it to be literal (either literally true or literally false).  But most sources do NOT take it literally (either true or false), but rather symbolically.


 * Joseph Campbell once said that to fail to see past the symbols is to sit at a fine restaurant and eat the menu. While the menu may LOOK nice, it's not very filling.


 * Yes, Genesis is not LITERALLY TRUE. But that's entirely beside the point.  You're still chewing on the menu.  Let's get on to the main course.EGMichaels (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that menu as in "the dishes available for or served at a meal; also : the meal itself"? Because, if it is, I bet you end up more that full. Every time someone tolerates factual relativism a fairy/cat/child dies. Sorry just joking. I could not resist.--LexCorp (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, EGMicheales. In fact, it's not the title that bothers me more. It's the content, see the paragraph I quoted in my first post. The content makes it appear like all interpretations are equal, while they're obviously not. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then clearly identify a tangible problem with the content and propose a tangible solution to that problem. What bothers me ... and a great number of other editors who are hoping we can go back to actual work ... is all this nonsense discussion of issues that have no direct bearing on the actual entry. Let's talk about the content in entry and how you propose to fix the many things you clearly think are broken.Griswaldo (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I identified it above: To give the impression that the scientific community at large debates on such a subject is a massive violation of WP:FRINGE. . That is what the article does currently, see the example section I quoted. -- Cycl  o  pia  talk  22:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No such impression is given in the article anywhere, whatsoever. When referring to "scholars" in an article about a religious narrative nobody should be assuming that this includes scientists.  And indeed no one would assume so.  I remain perplexed by why you are assuming so.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove POV-tag?
By the way, can we remove the POV-tag from the article? It looks like we have something stable. DVdm (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be one editor supporting the tag and s/he added it in the first place. Til let's discuss the need for this tag here.Griswaldo (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, It looks like we still have one pov-pusher here (Til Eulenspiegel), so perhaps we should leave his POV-tag until he settles down. DVdm (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Til lets discuss the version you like best on the talk page as well. Right now it appears to be only you and Lisa who prefer her version of the lead.  You cannot force this lead down everyone else's throats when there are just two of you.  Lets discuss the matter on the talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Point of order: DVdm, please consider addressing text rather than editors in Article talk space. Problems with conduct of individuals can be handled at User talk space. For every POV action there is an equal and opposite POV censorship. Neutrality renders such conflict unneccesary. Peace. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, OK. Everything looked quiet and peaceful now, but see below. DVdm (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He he, I know what you mean. I could be wrong, but I think people are making more progress than it might seem. Can't make an omlette without breaking eggs they say, but I agree with you, we don't want any broken bones here. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone here interested in a 'compromise way forward'?
Frankly, I am a little perplexed. After yesterday, now I am not sure all parties here are even "interested" in finding a compromise.

Here are some excerpts I have reformatted to show the latest attempt, and the results (or frustrating lack of same).

Scene 1 - from Jimbo Wales' talkpage:


 * Griswaldo: [...] We should not be saying "many scholars ..." when referring to a position that is very rarely challenged by anyone. This gives off a false impression and hurts our credibility. If anything I could see an argument for including the opposing position with the disclaimer, "some Christian theologians ..." or something of that nature. [...] Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimbo: [...] ''he did meet the objection quite persuasively. Can he produce 3 academics who are currently employed as academics who take a particular position? Yes, he can. Not only that, but they didn't just say something ambiguous and in passing but addressed the question head-on.
 * I think your tentative proposal here for a compromise way forward sounds promising. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * [...]


 * Me: After re-reading all the above carefully, I caught that Griswaldo suggested "some Christian theologians" and Jimbo said it looked promising as a tentative compromise way forward. So just being very bold here, I'm going to try that out and see how it goes... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't realize it was edit-protected... "Never mind!" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * DVdm: No problem. You can be bold on the talk page. DVdm (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Scene 2 - DVdm's talkpage:


 * Okay, how about if I propose something like "Apart from some Christian theologians, most current scholars consider it to be a creation myth [See #questions of genre below]" - as a possibly promising compromise ... ? Could you live with that? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Komaan Til, niet hier. Ik bedoelde ginder. DVdm (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You know I don't speak Dutch, right? But I was able to translate your reply with the assistance of Google translate. Just wanted to sound you out about it first, old boy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't know. Thought you were Dutch. I vaguely recall you correcting an edit you made when not logged on, and replacing the (Netherlands based) IP with your name. Could have been someone else. It was a while ago. Sorry. DVdm (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob, but no, never been to the Netherlands yet... So what do you think of the proposed compromise wording? Or would you tweak it? btw nice to see on this page that you like Frank Zappa, I have also been a fan of his... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm really not interested in this over here. Better take it thataway. DVdm (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Til Eulenspiegel (talk • contribs)


 * There's been plenty enough edit warring already. I don't recommend that anyone try to be bold here--hash it out here first.  The edit warring has got to stop. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem in summarizing the whole section 4 of the article into the lead. In fact the lead is meant to do so. But pointing out the Cristian theology interpretation in the sentence that defines the subject is against WP:Weight and WP:Lead. Again that Genesis creation myth is a myth (in the sense of sacred narrative) is not a POV but a simple definition. If Til can admit that then I see no problem because hopefully the summary of section 4 will point out the Cristian theologians position as well as all others for that matter.--LexCorp (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The truth is that it is not a "simple definition", it is a POV that numerous sources in the field do not share, as has been adequately demonstrated. That is precisely what this is all about. If it were a simple definition and not a POV, there would be no disagreement among sources.  It is a POV definition first proposed, quite controversially, by Rudolf Bultman, but it is anything BUT a "simple definition." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Rudolf Bultman's POV was that a priori analysis of the text was necessary to determine the true message of God by evaluating which parts were true and which allegorical. Not that the whole was necessarily allegorical or untrue. Then again he was primarily concerned with the New Testament. Yet all this is irrelevant because he did not invent the word 'Myth' nor was he authority to redefine it. As I have already explained multiple times the Genesis creation myth could be the literary true story, line by line, of the actual events of the creation of Earth and Humanity. True in facts, events, and the correct form of the intended message of God to humanity and still it will be a myth because the myth definition does not pass judgment on the veracity of the myth itself. Til you seem to be unable to disassociate the multiple meanings of the word 'myth' but the facts are that in all languages words have more than one meaning and there must be some work done by the user of the language to infer the correct one for each word in each context. You seem to be incapable of doing so with the 'Myth' word.--LexCorp (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has it been "adequately demonstrated"? The Sarna quote for example. I haven't read it in its full context, but I recognize the basic argument. There has been much written about the "demythologizing" of Genesis 1 (a claim I've never seen made about Genesis 2-it's not "demythologized" by this analysis). It refers to the kind of de-anthropomorphized, spare revision of older Babylonian myth, one which is written as the opening chapter of a patriarchal 'history' whereas the Babylonian was more concerned with its 'political' implications.  The monotheist argument distinguishes it from the Babylonian myths--but not all myths everywhere.  Creation myths don't have to be polytheistic - there are many monotheistic creation myths.  In other words, I'm not sure that every argument like this, that distinguishes Genesis from Enuma Elish, qualifies as a claim Genesis creation is not a "creation myth". Professor marginalia (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not sure, scholars aren't sure, at least the serious ones I've read make it abundantly plain there is major room for doubt. So that's easy enough to reflect in the wording. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "doubt"? There's no "doubt" involved-disagreement maybe, but it's like saying there's "doubt" whether to categorize a painting as "modern" or "contemporary". There is no "real" answer out there as yet to be uncovered.  In just three short, straightforward sentences, list why Genesis creation would not qualify as a "creation myth" to some. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be perfectly apparent to all by now why there is no hope of certain editors ever compromising one iota from their position of endoring the myth hypothesis POV as uncontested, incontrovertible fact proven to everyones satisfaction, since nobody who disagrees counts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, can you list 3 reasons why it would not qualify? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also please address/acknowledge the fact that, under most dictionary definitions of the word "myth", a myth can be literary true and the truth with no reason to doubt its veracity. I repeat myself but me thinks you are unwilling or unable to disassociate the multiple meanings of the word 'myth'.--LexCorp (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The average citizen understands "myth" to mean "something that's not true". If you think otherwise, notice how often expressions like "that's just a myth" are used. Same thing as "that's just a fairy tale." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So? This is an encyclopedia not the average citizen. In fact there is a project that address this very issue. It is called Simple English Wikipedia. My understanding was that this one was the English Wikipedia. Maybe we should start a Technically Precise English Wikipedia Not Safe For The Reader Audience Unwilling To Learn New Concepts Or Terminology.--LexCorp (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * furthermore I do support the use of a note and also a wikilink to the relevant article. I am all for educating average citizens. We can also incorporate a FAQ at the top of this talk page. I mean PC is an invalid argument to censor Wikipedia. There is plenty of technical solutions for something as trivial as this.--LexCorp (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Point of View, which is Wikpedia policy, rules out the use of "myth" here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does not. The encyclopedia has more than adequate resources to contextualize the usage of myth in the content of this entry.  Bugs we are writing an encyclopedia and we're supposed to educate people about things like creation myths.  When someone comes across the notion that this is a creation myth, as they surely will, they should be able to come here and get a better understanding of why that is.  If we were unable to provide them with that very simple and basic educational service we'd have no business writing an encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Point me to the specifics in the WP:NPOV that makes your point. My understanding of the policy is that content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. 'Myth' is a simple dictionary definition not a point of view. Furthermore I haven't seen yet a single reliable source stating that the myth definition does not apply to the Genesis creation myth.--LexCorp (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't been paying very close attention, Lex, because we've got literally tons of reliable sources stating most explicitly that the myth definition does not apply to the Creation story or narrative. The only reason a few editors pretend not a one of these academics and theologians is "reliable", is because these scholars are disputing the point-of-view of these editors, one which they are seemingly afraid to present fairly to wikipedia readers. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you are misrepresenting the RS. I have only seen RS that state the myth definition as fairy tale does not apply. They either implicitly or explicitly indicate that the myth definition as a sacred narrative is correct (as exemplified by John S. Feinberg) or are mute on the issue. Your failure to understand that the word carries more than one meaning is the real problem.--LexCorp (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, my bad... I mentioned "a ton of sources", and forgot to link this collection of them... There you will find all manner of significant perspectives, including more than several who explicitly say the "definition" itself is bogus.  That's actually only a small sample of the available quotes, all saying this.  The real problem is that you don't realize wikipedia's neutrality policy means it caters to ALL significant points of view - not just the intolerant one of a elitist snob scholars who have written otherwise. And I'm here to stay as long as it takes to help you see this.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I understand your position. You DO indeed want to redefine the meaning of the word "Myth". No wonder we have been going around in circles. You do think that there is a significant view among experts that agree with a redefinition of myth that excludes a common dictionary meaning for "myth" as in Merriam-Webster's: 1a : 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. No only that but you think that such redefinition should be the basis for defining presumably all subjects pertaining to "myth" and certainly this one under the auspices of the WP:NPOV and presumably WP:Weight. Well that is not how Wikipedia works. We define subjects on the majority expert view and unless you argue otherwise the majority expert view is that the Genesis creation myth is a myth using the most common meaning (in the academic sense) of the word "myth". After that WP:NPOV and WP:weight requires us to present all significant point of view such as the one you are defending. In summary, unless the view that you defend is the majority view among the expert reliable sources it cannot be used to define the subject. There is really no other valid counter-argument to your pretensions because any other argument will be comparing apples to oranges given that we are arguing about different definitions of myth. My mistake was to think you unable to disassociate the different meaning of "myth" and trying to convince you that there is a legit use of myth that is not pejorative but now I can see that your argument is that a "significant" view among the RS is that one of the meaning of "myth" is not valid when it refers to the Genesis (The ultimate special pleading if I may say so). The structure of the lead should be a concise definition followed by all significant views and then a summary of the article. What you are suggesting is either 2 separate definitions (again presumably under the auspices of WP:NPOV). One for the majority expert view and the other for your "significant" expert view and then continue from there or simply define the subject according to the "significant" expert view alone. This is not how articles are build in Wikipedia. There isn't much to discuss beyond this.--LexCorp (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How's this for a deal. The myth POV is allowed and not censored, and the not myth POV is allowed and not censored. Any takers?
 * Neutrality is giving everyone with a POV a shot at putting their feet in their mouths, and letting the reader laugh at whoever the reader wants to laugh at. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But don't you see, Alastair, that's precisely what they're terrified of... Letting the reader decide anything... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not problem with Alastair Haines suggestion. In fact I already offered such a solution above. I reproduce it fully again for those interested. "I have no problem in summarizing the whole section 4 of the article into the lead. In fact the lead is meant to do so. But pointing out the Cristian theology interpretation in the sentence that defines the subject is against WP:Weight and WP:Lead. Again that Genesis creation myth is a myth (in the sense of sacred narrative) is not a POV but a simple definition. If Til can admit that then I see no problem because hopefully the summary of section 4 will point out the Cristian theologians position as well as all others for that matter."--LexCorp (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering what the list of reasons are to say this is not a creation myth. This isn't about "what most people think myth means" - it's about "what most authorities who understand myth mean".  Encyclopedia's aren't catalogs or affirmations of what the average person thinks. It's a place for people to look up stuff they don't know.  Professor marginalia (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with LexCorp, building off of Alastair, regarding how this could be presented in the lead. That is pretty much what I meant in the above quote.  Also, I think Prof. M is asking a poignant question which I think needs to be addressed by those who oppose the unattributed use of "creation myth" in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this version is quite nice - short, and to the point. There is no question that Genesis nicely fits in with other near-eastern creation myths, and borrows quite heavily from them. Whether it's inspired truth or plagiarized fantasy (or anything in between) has no influence on its genre. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, apart from the (now expired) dispute tag, I don't see a significant difference with the current version. DVdm (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The main difference is the missing synopsis ("...is the biblical story of the beginning of the earth, life, and humanity") in the current version. We cannot assume that everybody knows what Genesis is (even for fluent English speakers, the name is specialized vocabulary - many Germans will only recognize it under the name "The first book of Moses"), and "creation" can be more or less exclusive (universe vs. just one people). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The version works for me. Hans Adler 13:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan, if you look at the diff, you find the phrase "beginning of the earth, life, and humanity" twice on the left, and once on the right, so it's still there. I really don't care where it sits, or even whether it sits, as long as it doesn't sit twice :-) DVdm (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to format and fill the article correctly, then come back and summarize the article into a lead? That's actually what we should be doing. The lead should be roughed in and then tweeked to represent the article, not the other way around. As someone (I believe the Professor) noted, the current article doesn't even get to the actual Genesis Creation myth until the third or fourth paragraph (discussing grammatical construct instead. Really? Grammar?). All due respect but we've got the title dealt with, now we need to construct the article in a much more straight-forward, clear, and concise manner. Then we can come back and summarize the content into a lead paragraph. Arguments about Intelligent Design can be left for other articles. It should go without saying this is a theological article and cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. That does not diminish it's import in the least. I have been labeled a "creationist" (here) and an atheist (not here) neither of which is the point, this subject needs to be presented from a point of view that will annoy everybody. That's the first thing we all have to acknowledge, there are people on here that will never agree about this subject. But that's a good thing, we get all angles. The key is to present those angles, not just sit here on the talk page arguing with each other. So, that said, does anyone have a better first paragraph than the grammatical exercise we currently have? Padillah (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A word or two from a source

 * "It is not the case either pre-Christian Judaism or earliest Hellenistic Christianity simply appropriated current myths about the gods. Pre-Christian Judaism was evidently well enough aware of how their wisdom language was used elsewhere; but they appropriated it not as myth, rather as vigorous imagery and metaphor to describe Yahweh's immanence, Yahweh's revelation in and through the Torah. And it was this imagery and metaphor domesticated to the servie of Jewish monotheism which early Hellenistic Christianity took over as a way of confessing that in Christ they had encountered God, the same divine power that had created and now sustained the cosmos, the same redemptive concern that had chosen Israel and shaped her history, the same revelatory utterance that had spoken through prophet and Torah. The language lent itself to mythical elaboration within the context of the more syncretistic religious speculation of the wider world, that is true; moreover, as we have already seen, the Christian identification of Christ as the Wisdom of God probably provided that wider speculation with a crucial stimulus and component towards the full blown mythology of Gnosticism. But at the initial stage of Wisdom christology it would be misleading to describe this as myth. Indeed it would be unjust to the sophistication of these pre-Christian Jewish and early Christian writers: in their own way they were as concerned with the over-simplifications of mythological thinking as any modern theologian, quite as alive to the dangers of a promiscuous imagery begetting a threat to their monotheism. We do too little justice then to the composers of these early Christian hymns and poems when we label their efforts 'myth'."
 * — James D G Dunn, Christology in the making, (SCM Press, 1980).


 * There are a lot of words there in Dunn's summary of a great deal of historical and literary analysis, and it is not directly about Genesis. My summary of his summary is that Wisdom in Jewish thought is not mythological language but literary language to describe a belief in a God who is actively involved in the everyday world. Dunn was arguing against a view published only a few years before him regarding the myth of Jesus' divinity. He's not interested in affirming Jesus divinity, however, he's interested in establishing where the idea came from, even if it's false. As a mere aside, he gives us this glimpse of how myth is used in a different but related context.
 * Myth in a technical literary sense is a much more sophisticated thing to correctly apply to something than myth in its ordinary sense. Let's all agree Genesis 1 is literally a fiction and so a myth in the ordinary sense, unless we have literary scholars to back us, we still can't call it a literary myth.
 * I believe Genesis 2 is truly mythological (as a student of literature), I believe it is a "true" myth (as a Christian). I also believe Genesis 1 is symbolic but true symbolically, however, I don't know whether it is right to call it a myth in the literary sense. It's not really a religious question, it's a jolly tricky literary question.
 * Please folks, stay gentle with one another on this one. We are using a technical literary word, we need literary sources.
 * Does anyone think the words of Genesis 1 were not selected rather carefully? Nonsense they may be, but rather organised and serious nonsense.
 * Remember the well known logical fallacy of the "duck test": if it looks like a myth, walks like a myth, and quacks like a myth, but it ain't got no wings, well then, you might be close, but you've still not actually got a myth.
 * I don't think scholars are going to speak unanimously on something as specific as a myth, nor something so very restrained as Genesis 1. Sociological context is also relevant and tricky here.
 * Hope that helps some people out there. Feel free to ignore me. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I do think that this should be removed at this point. Otherwise, it is likely to remain for the forseeable future, as this is a debate that will quite likely never be settled. Some have made the case here that "the debate has been settled", and that "the discussion should be over". I have cautioned against this, as I feel those that disagree with us must be permitted to voice their opinions and objections. But I truly think that the POV tag is long overdue to be removed.Mk5384 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay as the article shows a definite tendency toward 'truth' (which is surely a minority view even in religious circles) and away from 'allegory' (surely the vast majority of informed opinion). Abtract (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the neutrality of the article is not a major issue, therefore I think the POV tag should be removed. I don't see where there is an emphasis on "truth," or the veracity of the tale. Nor do I see an emphasis on it as an "allegory." Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is priceless. So we have an article that in its current state is not neutral to one editor because it overemphasizes the "myth" (aka majority in scholarship) perspective and to another because it de-emphasizes this very perspective.  Abtract can you please outline some of the passages that you think are contributing to a "tendency toward truth".  This way we can actually look at the content and move forward.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at "Questions of genre" at the time and, by the way, what on earth does the quote in the following para mean? There is very little mention of science in all this and I get the impression reading the article as a whole that science is of very little account to the editors mainly responsible for writing it recently ... note the change of name. Oh and that's why I added the see alsos that you removed ... they are scientific explantions of creation and a dab page, all very suitable imho. Abtract (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Abtract I left the disambiguation page. This entry has nothing to do with science.  This entry is about a narrative, and the genre this narrative fits into is not scientific theory or scientific modeling.  Do you think that every entry about a creation myth ought to have a see also link to evolution and big bang?  The Creationism article is that-away.  We are working on an entry about an ancient narrative.  Once again, if you have specific examples of problems bring them here and make an argument regarding the problem and even better a proposal of how to solve it.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with having links to science on a page about creation? Seems to me to be an essential; indeed I would have thought a bit more scientific repost in the article itself would be no bad thing. Abtract (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the last time ... this is not "a page about creation". It is about a narrtive, a story, a myth ... and yes this myth deals with creation like all other creation myths do.  Please tell me whether or not you feel that every article on a creation myth should have links to scientific models of creation.  BTW, evolution isn't even about creation so how do you explain that?  It only becomes important in regards to creation when it comes into conflict with ... once more what this page is not about ... creationism.Griswaldo (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be quite a lot about creation ... and the making of humanity ... both topics well covered in a scientific way by Big Bang and Evolution. Readers interested in this allegorical account may well be interested in the science. Yes good idea, let's include them in all creation type articles. Abtract (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. I'm completely opposed to the idea and I'm sure most others are as well. The disambiguation page is appropriate and I applaud you for its addition, but we aren't about to link every other view of creation on every page that deals with the general notion of "creation" in some way.  Even just logistically that is a nightmare, but conceptually it is also misguided.  See for instance this from the Oxford Companion to the Bible:
 * "Since the extended descriptions of creation in the first chapters of Genesis similarly reflect this background (See Myth), they are not to be viewed as providing a scientific account of the origin of the universe. They are religious statements, designed to show God's glory and greatness, the result of theological reflection by which the older mythology was radically transformed to express Israel's distinctive faith."
 * The only people really interested in comparing this narrative to scientific models or theories of creation are 1) creationists and their adversaries 2) atheists who like to pick on creationists. And that explains the other reason why this would be a horrible idea.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Griswaldo here. Scientific theories are at best tangential to the subject and will no doubt be mentioned as critical opposition to the literalistic interpretations in the main body of the text. For example, evolution is already wikilinked in the main text. While my opinion is that the creationism parts should be substantially reduced in size as per WP:weight, no doubt there will always be space to introduce the main scientific counter arguments.--LexCorp (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The lede. Again.
Griswaldo reverted this edit :

The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, describes the beginning of the earth and life, and the creation of humanity in the image of God. It is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook. Its subject is the beginning of the earth and life, and the creation of humanity in the image of God.

And replaced it with this:

The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Jewish and Christian Bible, is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook. Its subject is the beginning of the earth and life, and the creation of humanity in the image of God.

I disagree with this reversion, because it's clear that you describe a thing first, and characterise it second. Also, the phrase "Jewish and Christian Bible" is just silly. Note that I'm leaving "creation myth" there without qualification. Please don't take this as agreement. It is only acquiescence. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake: I see that I left the description in at the end as well. The correct version should be this:


 * "The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, describes the beginning of the earth and life, and the creation of humanity in the image of God. It is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook."


 * I'm a bit uneasy about the "image of God" remark. Given that "Elohim" actually is plural, this is a later religious interpretation. I'd like that not in the lede, but somewhere where we can add sufficient context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I.m.o. the entire phrase "in the image of God" is meaningless, and should removed. What is a "beginning of such and such in the image of someone or something"? Ok, never mind, I got it, I thought the standard expression was "after the image of...". And it was only "humanity in the image of ...", not " {earth and life, and the creation of humanity} in the image of ...". DVdm (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa you are doing it backwards. First you define the subject and then you describe it. Thus:


 * "The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook. It describes the beginning of the earth and life, and the creation of humanity in the image of God."


 * same way we do not say "a hammer consist of a handle and a head. It is a tool." we say "a hammer is a tool featuring a handle and a head."--LexCorp (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Saying that a hammer is a tool is POV. A hammer can be used as a tool, but it is a symbol of Thor. I can bring reliable sources to show that this is a valid position. I suggest the following: "A hammer is an object with a handle and a head. It can be used as a tool." Hans Adler 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes it is a POV. Everything is a point of view. "A hammer is an object" is also a POV. Wikipedia uses the majority expert view to define the subjects. Without this simple premise it will be impossible to create an encyclopedia. Some POVs are descriptions, others are definitions. By the way it is not clear that Mjöllnir is a hammer. There are also other POV on this issue. And yet we start its article with "Mjöllnir is the hammer of Thor" (not an axe or club nor the more general word "weapon"). We go with the majority expert view.--LexCorp (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "A hammer is a tool", "A saw is a tool", "A wrench or spanner is a tool." Moby Dick is a novel", "Romeo and Juliet" is a tragedy", "The Tyger is a poem", "Doonesbury is a comic strip". "The Mona Lisa is a 16th century portrait", "The Washington Monument is an obelisk", "A river is a natural watercourse", "A spoon is a utensil". "The Enûma Eliš is the Babylonian creation myth". Are all these POV too? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to qualify my statement that everything is a POV: True everything is a POV but when dealing with a simple definition or dictionary definition they by necessity represent the broadest consensus among every speaking person as well as the experts. Otherwise simple communication among experts or otherwise will be impossible. At that very point we are questioning the existence of a common language among a large body of people, thus we may as well create, each one of us, our own little fantasy version of Wikipedia (not dissimilar to what Conservapedia does). For this very reason it is absurd to challenge them over any other RS view because it is easy to demonstrate that they represent the widest consensus among everyone including experts. That is why Til's aspirations are so astounding to me. He really does think his "no a myth" position is at par in the sense of significant with the dictionary definition. The concept is so absurd that it does not merit further discussion other than pointing out that such view is not even close to the one held by the majority of experts. And yet I can think of examples where the dictionary definition could be challenged somewhat tentatively and that is with the problem of neologisms. Neologisms by their very nature are not very well defined and this state of affairs could last for decades. As such they sometimes creep into dictionaries even when their use is not so well established especially among the experts. Having said that the word "myth" is as far removed from a neologism as a word can be.--LexCorp (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would even go so far as to flip the order of the location and description - "The Genesis creation narrative is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths. It is found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible..." Padillah (talk)
 * Read WP:Bold. I will say no more. :) --LexCorp (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"It describes the beginning of the earth and life" Actually it describes no such issues. It describes what Jews believe about the beginning of the earth and life. Can that be changed? Because it is so obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.96.70 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we already define it as a creation myth that originates in the bible so it is more or less implied that this is in the context of the Judeo-Cristian mythology or belief system.--LexCorp (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it should be emphasized that what the belief system says is not real. The sentence reads as if the belief system accuartely describes something that is actally so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.96.70 (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be emphasized that what the belief system says is not real (more like contrary to scientific evidence) but not in the lead (unless the literalistic interpretations are also summarized at which point a simple remark that such views are contrary to scientific proven facts will suffice) nor in the sentence describing the subject. There is plenty of space for a criticism section in the main body. This sentence is an expression/statement of belief not an assertion of fact so it does not need to be automatically challenged by the scientific view on facts.--LexCorp (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that the context is so obvious. The sentence does indeed imply that creation is real and that Genesis only describes it. · CUSH · 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, what you describe is a problem of contexts external to the source but internal to various readers like yourself. You, as a reader, will apparently always understand statements like this to mean what you are claiming it means, and I truly believe you are being sincere.  Be that as it may the culture wars context that influences your understanding of sentences like this is not a majority one.  There will always be subcultural contexts out there influencing readers in ways we cannot guard against, and it is pointless to try.  Our language is flexible, and meanings are not fixed.  I think we can all agree on that.  The only thing we can do is hope that we're in tune with how most people understand what we write.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should clarify that my comment about Thor's hammer above was a blatant breach of WP:SARCASM. I am glad that nobody agreed with me. Hans Adler 10:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, fwiw, I found this one of the finest comments ever made on the subject. DVdm (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but the most succinct comment regarding this fiasco made so far came from Prof. M on this page: This isn't an encyclopedia article-it's more like a video game. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sentence for the lead
I'd like to include the following sentence in the lead:

It is accepted as the account of creation by the religions of Judaism and Christianity and is accepted at least in the abstract by Islam and Ba'hai.

Objections?

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it is clearly not accepted by most (even religious) people, I do object. Starting, "It is accepted as an allegorical acount ... " would be better. And don't forget that religions do not accept anything, only people do. Abtract (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you object to the word "accepted" because some most people don't believe in it literally? But surely, that goes to a deeper question of whether or not the word "accept" implies "empirical acceptance". Are you contending that the reader will be misled if we simply write that these religions accept this account? Because, as far as I can see, every Christian and Jewish religious group that comments on the subject affirms that the account as the one most relevant to their mythological traditions surrounding creation. So, how is it exactly "not accepted" by religious people? Do you have any cite on this? Because, I could cite the official positions of the religious organizations who have commented on Genesis from those faiths and show you to be flatly without basis. Unless they are not really religious, I suppose. WP:ASTONISH certainly applies for your last point about religions not being able to "accept" anything. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Accepted as the account of creation" has fairly strong implications of literal acceptance, especially as you immediatelty contrast it with "accepted at least in the abstract" (i.e. the acceptance of by Judaism and Christianity is not "in the abstract"). You'd have to find a neat way of phrasing it that makes it clear that the vastly overwhelming majority of theologians and followers of those religions accept it only as an allegory, whilst a small rump of nutbars think it's the literal truth.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Literalist interpretation vs. allegorical (or mythical, etc.) is a slightly more complicated issue. The truth is that most religious people in the West accept both scientific theories of creation and religious stories about creation (perhaps as allegory, or myth, etc.).  For these people there is no contradiction because these accounts of creation are compartmentalized.  Because you use the definite article you imply that the Genesis account is the only account of creation accepted by the named religions, and de facto by the people who identify with them.  Abtract's other quibble is something I agree with as well.  Your current phrasing also implies that religions are beings with agency who can accept or dismiss something.  Only people can do that.Griswaldo (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unintended interpretations are not what I'm going for, but certainly you can understand at least what my sentence is trying to illustrate. I'm all for rewording as I do not want the reader to think that every member of these religions literally accepts the account in Genesis. How about:

As the primary creation mythology of the Bible, it is of importance to Jews and Christians and there is also some reverence for the story on the part of Muslims and adherents of the Ba'hai faith.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Intention has nothing to do with how meaning is actually conveyed in practice. But I see that you are willing to understand that others did not get your intent initially and have come up with another suggestion.Griswaldo (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you help with wording? I think the idea deserves mentioning. If not for those faiths, this article might not exist, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Abtract has a good point below regarding your new suggestion because how do we determine that it is "of importance" to certain religious groups, and especially when we are putting two groups side by side that may have very different generalized attitudes towards these passages. Here I might actually suggest something that Til keeps harping on, and that is canonicity.  It would suffice to point out that this is part of the religious canons of these two traditions.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So maybe something like this - It is considered part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity.
 * I would hesitate to mention Islam and Ba'hai unless the relationship between those traditions and this scripture is fleshed out in the main entry.Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems amenable to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the first two sentences are great just the way they are. They need no change. SAE (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice. However, this section is about adding a new sentence. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, Genesis is of very little importance to most Jews and the whole of the Old Testament is of very little importance to most Christians. Abtract (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we write something based on your experience? Is this a way for you to ask for a source or multiple sources? Because that can be done. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm seriously against this proposal, because the percentage of Christians and Jews who literally believe in Genesis is very small, and belief in Genesis as an allegorical or symbolic account is implied by the fact that it is a creation myth. Claritas (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we say whose creation myth it is? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which "whose" do you mean? Creation myth of whose authorship or creation myth of whose adoption? · CUSH · 19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Adoption. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The percentage of Christians who literally believe in Genesis is in fact relatively large. In fact, one poll suggests that nearly two out of every three American evangelicals express the view that the Bible is literally true, and another poll suggests that more than half of those who attend church weekly believe this. It is far from a fringe view, except among secular academia. HokieRNB 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who cares what American evangelicals say? How many American evangelicals are there? 50 million? That is hardly representative in a planetary population of over 6 billion. This is a global encyclopedia, and we report global overviews. American evangelicalism is fringe. · CUSH · 00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the user pronounces yet another viewpoint he doesn't care for as "heretical"...! Reminds me of The Fisherman and His Wife who wanted to be Pope...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 50 million represent a fringe view? How is that possible? By some counts it's actually nearly double that.  And that's just in the U.S.  Adherents.com reports more than 300 million (compared to less than 250 million atheists) worldwide. There are more than 6,000 evangelical churches totaling more than 6 million members in Nigeria alone. The largest evangelical church in the world is probably in Korea. By that reckoning, Cush is pushing a fringe view by insisting on a non-supernatural bias. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * American-centric views are irrelevant to WP articles. And you must not confuse membership in a religious group with actual belief. BTW Adherents.com assigns a number 1.1 billion to non-believers. Oh, and non-supernatural bias is the only bias based on evidence and rational thinking. This article exists to render objective information about the creation myth contained in Genesis, and it is no different than any other ANE creation myth (and it has especially no greater credibility than any other, they are all equally at zero credibility). The fact that all the religious editors are unable or unwilling to render an objective assessment does not mean I have to bow before religion and its intellectual dishonesty. · CUSH · 09:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got a problem using this article to establish what "most" Christians (or "most" anyone) believes. This article isn't about the people that believe this account it's about the account itself. The stories on Sherlock Holmes don't spend several paragraphs discussing whether people believed he was real (and some did), they simply state who the character is and what the stories were. That's what this article should be. A simple and stark statement of the presentation and study of the story regardless of any one persons belief. As Professor M says above - what do the sources say? Padillah (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Padillah, ScienceApologist has agreed the something like this is amenable:
 * It is considered part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity. (Griswaldo)
 * Something similar actually appears in a source I quoted for other reasons on this page (Oxford Companion to World Mythology:
 * "Although it is canonical for both Christians and Jews, and in part for followers of Islam, different emphases are placed on the story by the three religions." (Oxford Companion)
 * What do you think about that?Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that much better. "Cannon" is a falsifiable state of being... It doesn't depend on the population of the religion... The religions no longer "believe" but rather "emphasize" which is physically possible... I like this a lot better. The only issue I might have is grammatical - wouldn't it be "Although it is canon in both..." but I'm no English major so I'm just asking. Padillah (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just clarified this. I am no grammarian but just to be clear that's the quote from the source.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let's get it in. Padillah (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.Griswaldo (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bravo, I agree with Padillah and Griswaldo that this change reflects a very reasonable consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, all. Thanks for working together. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth
I take issue to the page being called "narrative" as opposed to "myth." I understand there was a monster discussion recently resulting in a move, just a quick count of !votes shows about a 68% support, which doesn't seem very high. The big thing it seems as if we're giving this myth special consideration over the many many other creation myths. Example: Mesoamerican creation myths, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth. Theres also a ton of * mythology pages for various belief systems, and other * creation myth pages that redirect to other belief structures. None of which blatantly replace "myth" with "narrative". The naming of this page is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. — raeky ( talk 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be moved back to Genesis creation myth, for the same reasons you've outlined that I had mentioned in the last vote/discussion. I'm not sure that this discussion should be revived so soon after the last discussion, however. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I think it should, it's an egregious infraction of WP:NPOV, the discussion to change this page shouldn't of been limited to just this page, but all creation mythology pages. To treat this myth differently is POV pushing. Since the move discussion wasn't for all creation myth pages, then it should be considered invalid. —  raeky  ( talk 22:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Raeky, the argument you have made is a legit one superficially. however you if you look in "Category:Creation myths". "Anceint cultures" use that naming scheme. However no "Sacred Texts" of Modern Religions are singled out as creation myths. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So your saying this myth is better then other myths? It's still clearly under the academic use of "myth" and "mythology." To label this myth separate, or special, from other religions is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Either rename them all to avoid the word "myth" or rename this one back. — raeky ( talk 22:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it needs to be a mass move of every other living religion's creation myth. As it is then POV to Favor them as myth. Wikipieda is written for "Average Joe" not Anthropologist, Religous Studies Proffesors and such. I agree this is a Creation myth but average Joe comes here and freaks becuase it an attack on their Religion. We have no idea what Anicient Sumerians Called thier Creation Myth thus we Call it Sumerian creation myth. but this is Living religions a sacred text thus we don't pass judgement on whether it is more or less true than the mormon one. The last move discussion was an overwhelming support for this tittle after Two massive Stalemates with no consensusWeaponbb7 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What average joe you talking about? A Judeo-Christian average joe? What about those Hindi average joes? or Atheist average joes? they not matter? Wikipedia always takes the academic approach to writing articles in this matter, and in academia it's a myth. I mean if we're talking about United States average joes, probably around 30% of them doesn't even know what the word "narrative" means, since the functional literacy rate is pretty horrid among adults. Should we just convert the English Wikipedia into the Simple English Wikipedia for those "average joes?" — raeky ( talk 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To add, your "overwhelming consensus" was about 68%, or 17.5 supports to 8 opposes. Doesn't seem overwhelming to me, clearly not a WP:SNOW case. — raeky ( talk 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I encourage you too look through the archive link i provided below at the beginin of this discussion. As it appears You have your mind set on the current "injustice of POV." I doubt I can change your stance. I just warn you that this type of page move brings out the worst in people. The "narrative" term is actually more commonly user then the phrase "Genesis Creation myth" and Narrative was the Big Compromise. I can't stop you sense you made up you mind already. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly after such a hugely long drawn out fight and stale mates, that being able to ram through a "huge compromise" change makes it justified right? After any such huge discussion like that the people who are not the die-hard POV pushers would of long given up making it far easier to ram threw a decision. I can't imagine how someone looking objectively at this can't see how this is not a neutral point of view with the other creation myths. Only someone who firmly believes this myth is 100% true, the word of God and the like, can justify that. By renaming this belief system to a non-myth page name is... wrong. — raeky ( talk 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You already seem to be acting WP:BATTLEGROUND mode I advise you to calm down I am not an Enemy. I am an anthropologist, I beleive in Evolution (as its a Quarter of my displine) and get pissy with Bible thumpers. I am no Fundementalist as you seem to be implying. Niether was it "rammed through" it was typical "7 Day Discussion" for page move.  Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose by all the Christianity stuff on your user page and how you're referring to Genesis as "Sacred Texts" would of lead me to belief your likely biased. If that is an incorrect assumption, I apologize. By "rammed through" I mean after months of discussion and 6 page move proposals, wearing down the opposition enough that enough has given up would be "ramming" through a nomination. You'd think after 6 failed attempts that would of said enough that there wasn't consensus to rename, but if you keep WP:TE enough I suppose you can accomplish your goal? I don't think a nomination after such a protracted discussion and so many failed attempts is valid, but thats just me. — raeky ( talk 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Review the arguments made here becuase there gonna come up again Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that 68% support is sufficient consensus for a major issue of NPOV such as this, and I also doubt that it should be decided by consensus. I think there will be a clear right on this issue.  It's my impression that "creation myth" is the most proper way to describe it.  While the words "creation narrative" are more often used, "creation myth" is used in academia.  The sources should be checked to determine if I'm right here.  Wikipedia determines what is the most correct way of labeling something according to the most reliable sources and names articles accordingly.  Thus what we need to determine is not which name is most popular,   but which appears most in the most reliable sources.  I think this is what WP:TITLE says, and it should be simple to follow. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * we had two Stale mate of No consensus and i think 6 page move proposals (SINCE JANUARY 2010) totall this is the way consensus has swung. I am not opposed to a page move maybe mediation or something like that. Lets not jump on the Pagemove wagon again Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your second search wasn't in quotes, "creation myth" in quotes nets About 307,000 results and "creation narrative" nets About 98,200 results, so by those highly-unscientific numbers myth is 3x more popular. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I just yanked this out of Archive 10, I highly encourage you to look at all the arguements in previous discussions

Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here is neutrality with other creation myths, if we search scholar.google.com for "creation myth" we get about 10,800 and "creation narrative" we get about 2,270. We can play with numbers all day, but in academia your going to find the word myth used the most. Look at all the pages of past archives on creation myths for this being explained a zillion times. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the definition of the word myth. The term has come to mean something that is false, which explains why people oppose its use, although that is not the original meaning.  Also, I suspect that when the term first entered the English language it was used to describe Greek mythology not the Old Testament.  Is there any reason why we cannot use the term "story" instead, which refers to an account that may or may not be true?  TFD (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We discussed that too. Some felt story was little better than myth since it implies some on made it up .again Encourage people to look in the archive 10 Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the lead of Mythology sums it up quite succinctly, with referecnes, "the academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on its truth or falsity." — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have to have a foot note to explain "how it is neutral" then its not neutral. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If people think it's not neutral, it doesn't mean it isn't. NPOV is not the average of laymen's opinions. A lot of people believe in astrology but the only NPOV position on astrology is that it is falsehood, because that's what academic consensus says on the topic. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  23:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTACADEMIA - Wikipedia is not: Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is relevant to a style issue (and one I agree with), not one of content. If we can use "myth" and explain why it is better to the average reader, then we are ok. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have to go at exteneded lenghth to say to reader "your so ignorant. Look it is neutral due as we use it" its no neutral Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be as patronizing as you suggest: people come to an encyclopedia to learn after all, and -guess what?- they could also learn that "myth" means something different in other contexts. And even if it was: why would it be not neutral? -- Cycl o  pia  talk  00:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, scientific consensus of all of physics, paleontology, genetics, cosmology etc. is pretty obviously stating that it is, indeed, false. So what is the problem? -- Cycl o  pia  talk  23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipeida is agnostic on all religous topics. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're agnostic then how can you justify one religions views being labeled "narrative" while all the others are labeled "myth"? Your contradicting your argument here... — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment WP:NPOV applies within individual entries and not to entry titles as they compare to each other. Please see WP:NAME for entry naming conventions. This was all discussed at length. "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis creation myth" are on par in usage. Genesis creation story is far and away the most commonly used, however, and "story" and "narrative" are synonyms. BTW, most other creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the name. Please review the category and see Voluspa, Enuma Elish, etc. No one is going around adding "creation myth" to their titles.Griswaldo (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe your wrong in saying NPOV is irrelevant for article naming. And just because there was a protracted discussion with 6 failed attempts in a row to rename the article then a successful 7th attempt was made means we can't discuss it anymore. If anything it just is showing a pattern of WP:TE that finally wore down the opposers till they go their way. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also please understand that the entry had a very bad title for quite some time -- Creation according to Genesis. That tile, and not "genesis creation myth" was the long stable one.  This title is far superior to both.  The last thing I want to say is that this page is unfortunately hampered by a great number of extremists ... of two varieties ... who have little concern for academic usage and real scholarship.  On one side are individuals who want all reference to "myth" gone because this account is to some degree factual or otherwise meaningful to them.  On the other side we have people who only show up here because they follow the afore mentioned religious editors to this entry from others that deal with the culture wars arenas surrounding "evolution" and "creationism."  This entry is about an ancient story.  If you have nothing to add here other than culture wars nonsense please do us all a favor and don't.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How about we head to WP:MEDCABAL with this? any objections? i think mediation with a Neutral Third party not involved in this discussion would help. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think after an hour and a half of discussion would qualify it for MEDCABAL... give it a few days, let more people weigh in, not everyone who watches this page that could comment has even been given the opportunity too.. I'm not oppose to mediation, just think it's a bit premature at the moment. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 00:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree. I didn't participate in the original discussion only because I wasn't aware it was taking place. There needs to be uniformity across all religious articles to adhere to WP:NPOV. If consensus dictates that they should be narrative, then fine, but singling out one to be different is an egregious violation. This discussion needs to take place again, and it needs to be listed (if a change to narrative is warranted) across the board in all other Category:Creation myth articles too. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 00:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a red herring of whale sized proportions. Name one entry that includes content about a creation narrative that is part of a living religion or belief system that has "creation myth" in the title.  That's right there are none.Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that no one still believes in the Chinese creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths or Ancient Egyptian creation myths, you haven't researched this nearly enough. I've personally met people who believed in all 3, and to be quite honest, my life experiences are fairly limited. Also, please scale down your tone. This is quickly leading into personal attack and assuming bad faith territory. If you must, please respond below (at the end of the thread) so I can keep up with the replies. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 04:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you'll need more than your personal experiences to satisfy our standards. While there are Neo-pagans (and various new-agers) who have "revitalized", "resurrected" and/or "reconstructed" most well known ancient belief systems those are not comparable because those very belief systems survived in scholarship and not in living traditions.  You know as well as I do what I meant and you're just playing games. I will scale down my tone when you all scale down the disruption.  We have too much of it already from both directions.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This last reply is unambiguously WP:ABF territory. You need to work constructively with other editors or there's no point in continuing this discussion with you. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 04:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course why would you - WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I'm glad that I've given you a convenient excuse for it.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what your agreeing to there is uniformity. Living Religions are not called myths, and anceint Religions that no one adhere to we name "Culture Creation Myth" and even then if there is a source text we still dont name it myth. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that "We can play with numbers all day, but in academia your going to find the word myth used the most." If the WP:RS are from academia, Wikipedia should reflect that terminology.  We write for the common man, but we reflect the most reliable sources; we do not reflect common wisdom unless it is in accord with RS.  Again, people here are arguing popularity; they are also acting like this is a vote.  Those are false standards, and should be dropped.  The popularity that matters is within academia.  Could someone confirm for me whether I'm right about it?  Sorry, not a scholar on this subject :P BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect about the most common name in scholarship. It is not "Genesis creation myth."Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. Well if you say so. Seriously, how does this contribute to the discussion? We have statistics with links posted above. Do you have anything to support this assertion? <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @Weaponbb I didn't agree there is uniformity. I agreed this change breaks necessary uniformity. Even if we accept your argument, then the creation myths of all religions which currently have adherents would need to have their articles renamed to "narrative". I've seen absolutely no argument which indicates why this article should be changed without others, so either 1) this was a change intended to be made across the board, in which case having the discussion on this article was wildly inappropriate, or 2) the change was only intended for this article, which is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 02:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there an WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT convention taking place here? What else do you need to know? Please stop making assumptions about what happened when this name was decided upon without understanding 1) the recent history of this debate, 2) the category of entries similar to this one and 3) even more importantly the relevant scholarly usage of the various terms being debated. Are there two identifiable myths in the narrative covered by this entry?  YES THERE ARE, which is why we don't shy away from using the term "myth" in the entry itself and we resist the recurring calls to remove the term from the entry.  However, we also follow WP:UCN and reliable sources tell us that "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common label for this narrative so we find a more suitable alternative.  Personally I'd vote for "Genesis creation story" but at least narrative is a synonym, unlike "myth".Griswaldo (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The long standing name of the entry was not "Genesis creation myth", but Creation according to Genesis.  The change to "Genesis creation myth" was recent and was controversial ever since it happened.
 * 2) Most other entries about creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the name.  See Enûma Eliš, Mashya and Mashyana, Völuspá, etc.  If you look at the creation myth category you will find less than a handful with "creation myth" in the name and all are from ancient or otherwise non-living civilizations which also contain the name of the civilization in the title.
 * 3) "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common name used in dispassionate (non-religious) scholarship about these passages.  Genesis creation story is.  ("Genesis creation account" is even more common but once very old sources and avowedly Christian sources are removed it is probably not).


 * First of all, please respond at the end of the thread... inline replies are just hard to deal with.
 * Second of all, that there are less than a handful of articles named "myth" in the category says nothing. There are only a handful of articles in the category to begin with. Those which don't include "myth" have very specific names. An alternate proposal would be to rename the article "Genesis" in line with that precedent, but to avoid conflict with the disambig page it would have to be categorized as mythology like the other articles, and I imagine you'd probably object to "Genesis (mythology)" as well.
 * Thirdly, please support your assertions with data. Everybody's making assertions here, and yours are no better than anybody else's.
 * Fourthly, (and repeated from above), please scale down your tone. This is quickly leading into personal attack and assuming bad faith territory. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 04:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On your fourth point please understand that we're plagued by disruptive trolling of all kinds here. Make of that comment what you will.  The data is in the last archive, all over the place.  It would be very instructive if you all actually familiarized yourselves with the extensive discussions that took place back then (especially since there have been many inaccurate statements/assumptions about those discussions flung about already).  Several refined scholar and Google books searches were made and they all point to exactly what I claim about "Genesis creation account" and "Genesis creation story" being most prevalent.  If you don't believe me concerning the type of sources that comprise the former option then I guess that's the one you favor?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, per "... and I imagine you'd probably object to 'Genesis (mythology)' as well", you are clearly clueless as to what I would support or object to. The alternative name that I would happily support based on personal preference is "Judeo-Christian creation myth", but that name has never had any traction and, admittedly, is not common in reliable sources either.  But it is one of my personal preferences and I've mentioned that several times in the those pesky past discussions you refuse to look at.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you feel that this discussion is warranted, it is happening now. Statistics and links have been provided above which clearly indicate a higher prevalence of "creation myth" than "creation account". If you have statistics that are relevant, please cite them instead of making assertions that they're out there somewhere. Furthermore, we can make this even simpler; I see no reason to humor your argument that the popularity of a myth should determine its classification. Can you give me a solid reason (other than a blanket assertion) that this article should be handled differently than, say, Mesoamerican creation myths, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth or Tongan creation myth? 04:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)<span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs


 * The statistics above show that "creation account" is more prevalent. I'll reproduce the others since you are hell bent against looking in the archive. For shame.  BTW congratulations listing every single entry about a specific creation myth, or set of such myths, that use the term in the title.Griswaldo (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Past search results
Note in these two that the time frame is limited to the last 20 years. This is why "creation account" lags behind (as I explained above about removing old sources ...)Griswaldo (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(copied from archive) Here are the results I get for 1990-2010 for the following phrases in both Books and Scholar:

Google Books Google Scholar 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)
 * Genesis creation myth - 233
 * Genesis creation account - 624
 * Genesis creation story - 637
 * Genesis creation myth - 55
 * Genesis creation account - 292
 * Genesis creation story - 370

(copied from archive)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 Google Scholar 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)
 * 689 results for Genesis creation account
 * 606 results for Genesis creation myth
 * 743 results for Genesis creation story
 * 925 results for Genesis creation account
 * 177 results for Genesis creation myth
 * 1,500 results for Genesis creation story


 * It's fairly obvious that everyone is trying to skirt the issue and play with numbers. All of those stats have one key thing in it Genesis and they're by nature biased, since all those sources include Christian author's books which by their very nature is going to avoid the word myth. What matters is how it's used in academics and specifically in academia is the Genesis account worded differently then other creation beliefs? Thats the issue we're bringing up. The stats I gave above clearly show that "creation myth" has far more sources, but if you tack on Genesis, your results get skewed by Christian authors who are NOT academics for the most part which is irrelevant for this discussion. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fairly obvious"? Can you back that assertion.  You have clearly not looked at the 1500 Google scholar hits linked to above because I assure you they are publications written by academics in well known journals of sociology, history, etc.  You have to add "Genesis" to actually get the correct content.  Part of the problem here is that this story is important in scholarship outside of the realm of "myth" studies. Adherents who believe in this story -- literally, allegorically, metaphorically, etc. etc. do not necessarily engage it as a "myth" (in the scholarly sense). In scholarship on the various practices of these adherents (even if these practices are purely discursive) treating the story as a "myth" may be misleading and unhelpful.  It has nothing to do with being non-academic Christian writers. When discussing the ancient context it might be most appropriate to call the story a myth, but in context of the more recent history of Judaism and Christianity it may not be.  In the end, once again, we follow the scholarship here.  Once again the scholarship, which is disspasionate and non-religious, favors "creation story" ten times as much as "creation myth" when discussing this content.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to have to side with Griswaldo here. After carefully re-reviewing the past search result information it seems obvious that the most popular term to refer to this myth is as "creation narrative" or "creation story. This isn't the case in popular usage for other, dead creation myths, because there's no politically correct urge to do so in our modern society. Even reliable/secular sources avoid the "myth" term for what I would imagine are PC reasons. So even though the terminology may appear more biased and euphemistic compared to other creation myth article titles, we are following policy here by keeping the current title. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 11:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We're also not supposed to be using google results to determine things like this for us in the first place. This Christian says myth is the proper and scholarly term, even for those who believe it is literal history.Farsight001 (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly backwards. We look to common usage WP:UCN and to determine common usage in academia we use tools like google scholar.  What we are not supposed to use are our own opinions and feelings about these things.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not. I'll have to dig a bit to find the policy, but I remember very clearly reading one that states that we are not to be using google searches like this for any real decisions in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's this. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Please take note that this is not a "Google search" but a "Google Scholar search". Google scholar is far from perfect but it provides a rough idea of how common a certain term is in scholarly publications.  Its always good to actually take a look at the results as well, but I've done that, and like I said we're talking about respectable peer reviewed journals and books put out by academic publishers.  How would you suggest measuring common usage?  It clearly has nothing to do with what you "believe as a Christian", as you stated.Griswaldo (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:GOOGLE specifically mentions Google Scholar and Google Books as being more reliable than Web searches and encourages their use. "Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept." --agr (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is bias, no other creation myth is called a narative, why therfore should the christian one be so described?Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What other creation myth are you comparing this one to, and why on earth are you referring to the creation myth of the Hebrew bible as simply "Christian"? Please see agrs last comment in the section below this one.Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(for the record, and since I was aked to give a "statement" -- in light of this discussion, the page has been tagged with POV-title. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC))


 * This one Creation myth in general, Thge same page has links to  a number of pages that describe the religion narativbes of various religions as myths. No secificaly creation myths, but that just meanss that hte myth of the Judeo-Christan creation myth has recvied more attnetion on wikpedia. If your bleives are not mtyhs then niether are the Hoppi indians. Also we have this Chinese creation mythl.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please use normal sized fonts so we can read your statement. I've questioned the tagging below.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a difference here between "scholarship" and "reliable source." Griswaldo says "Once again the scholarship, which is disspasionate and non-religious, favors "creation story" ten times as much as "creation myth" when discussing this content." If this is true of reliable sources, then he's right. If it's merely true of "scholars" (however ""dispassionate"" or non-religious they may be) then it might not be. I doubt Google scholar is a good tool for determining which sources are actually reliable. However, looking at the sources which are fit for use on this article might be a better idea. If the sources used for this article are reliable, and they use "creation narrative" most, then that is the title we should use. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Creation myth article. "Creation narrative" redirects there. It seems to be a longstanding convention on Wikipedia to call these stories "myths," but they are also sometimes called narratives. Very often they are called "myths" in living traditions as well, just make a search of "myth" in the article. The field of Comparative mythology is called what it is, leading me to believe that "mythology" is the scholarly term for these narratives. The Religion and mythology article makes clear that the term mythology is used for living traditions, even though that has been changed to "narrative" at some points in the Mythology article. Using the term "narrative" seems to be politically correct, but not scholarly, from this brief perusal I've done. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This bears quoting here:

"The relationship between religion and myth depends on what definition of "myth" one uses. By Robert Graves's definition, a religion's traditional stories are "myths" if and only if one does not belong to the religion in question. By Segal's definition, all religious stories are myths—but simply because nearly all stories are myths. By the folklorists' definition, all myths are religious (or "sacred") stories, but not all religious stories are myths: religious stories that involve the creation of the world (e.g., the stories in Genesis) are myths; however, religious stories that don't explain how things came to be in their present form (e.g., hagiographies of famous saints) are not myths.

It should be noted that most definitions of "myth" limit myths to stories. Thus, non-narrative elements of religion, such as ritual, are not myths." BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 17:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to "Myth"
My questions above haven't been answered, although I hope they are well founded. I'm basically asking whether the WP:RS for this article preponderantly say "creation myth," "creation narrative," or use some other term. I believe that under Wikipedia rules we are obligated to base our decision on the article title on this information, or similarly reliable and agreed-upon data, not the votes of editors or the popularity of the term in popular culture or Google scholar results. I also believe (see my posts above) that the current data favors "myth." That seems to be the scholarly term for creation stories. So I would like to jump start this discussion and see what foundation there is for objections to renaming the article to "Genesis creation myth." BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * B-critical this is clearly not how it works. You do not get to demand evidence when you have produced none for your own position and simply reject out of hand the evidence produced for the position you do not agree with asking for other evidence instead.  Google scholar simply compiles references that use one term or another.  The fact that "creation story" and variants thereof come up 10 times as much as "creation myth" and variants there of in reference to the content of this entry is significant.  If, it can be shown that these hits are deceptive then we can discount them but you have to do that work and clearly you are unwilling to do so.  Did you look at the actual hits?   Go back to the links provided above and click through and tell me which of the first 20 (or 50, or 100) references are not reliable sources.  You'll find that they mostly are from reliable sources like the journals Sociology of Religion and Journal of the History of Ideas.  You cannot claim that evidence has not been provided that this is the most used term in reliable sources because it has.  Do the work and stop asking for other people to do it for you.  Also, keep your eye on the ball because this article is not Creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if this is true, then you have proved your point. However, others seem to disagree.  And no, I don't have to be a scholar on this subject to add something to the conversation.  I only have to ask the right questions.  You've given a good answer, and if what you say is correct -and I rely on other editors who know the subject area to check that- then you're right.  To recap, if the sources you have are reliable, just as reliable as the ones used in the article, and if they use the terms as you say, then there is no reason to rename the article.  I certainly was taught at university to call the Genesis account a myth, but perhaps that is not the most common scholarly term.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In a class on comparative mythology it would most certainly be called a myth. In any number of other courses from sociology to history this would most likely not be called a myth.  The particular academic context matters quite a bit.  This creation story comes up in a variety of scholarly contexts and many of them have no interest in how it compares to other such stories cross-culturally or historically.  Myth as a category is not particularly meaningful in these contexts.  Now, these same contexts do not often, if ever, engage other Mesopotamian creation stories.  Those stories are much more squarely fixed to academic contexts that do find the category of "myth" useful.  The discrepancy is due to  drastically different histories of cultural practice.  But that doesn't even matter to us.  What matters is that this story is not referred to as "the genesis creation myth" in most of the reliable sources that discuss it.  Do these sources agree, for the most part, that in the ancient context in which it was crafted calling it a myth makes sense.  Absolutely, but that context is only one of many historical contexts for this story since its part of a very rich living tradition.  If you cannot wrap your head around this then please, as you suggest, do leave this to people who have some knowledge of the relevant fields.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be much obliged if you moderated your tone. I did not come here as your enemy, and I am quite happy to give your position my support if it is correct.  I came here responding to concerns on WP:NPOV/N.  If you really want to make editors your enemies, and thus sabotage your ability to be heard, then rock on.  Otherwise, try and find allies where you can.  I came here not to push a particular point, though I did have a initial opinion, but to formulate a method for decision making based on Wikipedia convention.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "part of a very rich living tradition" -- I see. So everybody else is dead. If you keep insulting other traditions by inferring that they are "not rich" and "not living", you can easily lose all credibility here. But I guess this whole discourse proves the point. Some people resist the term "myth" because they insist on making Genesis look better than everybody else's stories, e.g. rich and living. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. Where did I say that "everybody else is dead"?  I would never deny, and have never denied that there are not many "rich living traditions" -- take your pick of any living religion.  Thanks for the straw man of me as a religious bigot.   There are of course some religions that were dead for hundreds of years and are now being "reconstructed" by contemporary practitioners (and I suppose this includes ancient Mesopotamian religions).  These religions may be "alive" now, if you accept that they are linked to the older traditions they are claiming to revitalize, but they've missed a good thousand plus years of historical development and that's simply a fact.   As you point out, some people resist the term myth, even in contexts where it is appropriately applied to Genesis, because they are driven by a self-interested religious polemic.  I don't deny this at all and have been consistently arguing against these people on this very talk page.  See for instance the religiously motivated definition of myth as always "polytheistic" to de facto exclude all the stories from the Bible.  Such arguments are polemical and do not belong here.  However there are other academic contexts in which "myth" is a meaningless or misleading category to apply to this story, because these contexts are not interested in the literary structure of Genesis and/or how it compares to other similar stories.  In sociological scholarship on Christians who believe in a literal Genesis creation "creation myth" has no meaningful place in the discussion.  In historical scholarship of intellectual history that touches, for instance, on theological developements vis-a-vis the Genesis narrative, "creation myth" once again is not a category worth invoking.  All of this is reflected in sources from these fields, and all of this is what contributes to the 10:1 ratio of usage between creation story and creation myth.  Please refrain from, in so many words, calling me a religious bigot.  Please also understand that I'm not religious, and if someone had a gun to my head and I had to chose my favorite tradition it would probably not be one of the big three monotheisms.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right about the tone, but please understand that there's a context here which you may not be aware of. The title of this article was initially Creation according to Genesis.  The article was quickly renamed to Genesis creation myth with a "consensus" of 3-4 editors and it was done before anyone noticed.  This resulted in a months-long and extremely acrimonious fight over the title.  The compromise title was Genesis creation narrative, because narrative, or story, can be seen as supportive or not to either side of the controversy.  There are many, many reliable sources which do not use the term myth, and the common user of Wikipedia is more likely to look under creation story or creation narrative.  Wikipedia naming policy (WP:UCN) says that we don't use technically correct titles for articles when the common usage differs.


 * As part of the compromise, the first two chapters of Genesis are still called a "myth" in the article's lede, because that is a technical term in use, even if not everyone uses it. Griswaldo was here during the melee, and having someone suggest going back to Genesis creation myth set him off.  It almost set me off as well.  Despite WP:AGF, and I am assuming good faith on your part, because I see no evidence to the contrary, it's a touchy issue.  The whole fight took place earlier this year, so the subject is fresh.  I hope that explains why he kind of lost it, and I hope that he will chill now, because it's clear that you weren't around during it and didn't realize what the context was.  But can we please let this go?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lisa for the history rundown. I think if others will let it drop I am willing to do so.  I do think that the method I proposed, if followed, would have lead to a more stable decision on the article title, based on sources rather than editor compromises.  Compromises are always unstable.  Sound arguments on sources are much more stable, and can be argued in mediation much more easily.  So yes, if no one else continues to object I'll let it drop, but just so you won't have to go through it again, you might want to formulate this argument with full statistics (I mean the argument that "narrative" is used more by WP:RS).  Then next time you can trot it out. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that was done before. It's somewhere in the volumes of archived discussions here.  I'd hate to have to rummage through that, but you may be right that it'd be useful.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure it would be, it could have prevented all this. If you want my advice, dig it up and copy it to a userpage (BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The current title is not based on editor compromise its based on common usage in reliable sources. I'm getting seriously sick of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.  Many good faith attempts have been made to explain this to you and others over the past couple of days.  There are 10 times as many sources using "genesis creation story" than there are "genesis creation myth".  I've told you they are reliable sources and asked that if  you do not believe me please go through them and show me which ones are unreliable.  If you do not then there is no discussion to be had here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what you claim, since you say that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS. Such statistics haven't been done, so far as I know, on the actual sources for this article.  And you are right, that if people more expert on the subject than I am do not wish to pursue this, then there is no discussion to be had.  I came here to pose that question, you have answered it for your part.  As long as no one contradicts you, then you've got it (: BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to "Myth"
My questions above haven't been answered, although I hope they are well founded. I'm basically asking whether the WP:RS for this article preponderantly say "creation myth," "creation narrative," or use some other term. I believe that under Wikipedia rules we are obligated to base our decision on the article title on this information, or similarly reliable and agreed-upon data, not the votes of editors or the popularity of the term in popular culture or Google scholar results. I also believe (see my posts above) that the current data favors "myth." That seems to be the scholarly term for creation stories. So I would like to jump start this discussion and see what foundation there is for objections to renaming the article to "Genesis creation myth." BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * B-critical this is clearly not how it works. You do not get to demand evidence when you have produced none for your own position and simply reject out of hand the evidence produced for the position you do not agree with asking for other evidence instead.  Google scholar simply compiles references that use one term or another.  The fact that "creation story" and variants thereof come up 10 times as much as "creation myth" and variants there of in reference to the content of this entry is significant.  If, it can be shown that these hits are deceptive then we can discount them but you have to do that work and clearly you are unwilling to do so.  Did you look at the actual hits?   Go back to the links provided above and click through and tell me which of the first 20 (or 50, or 100) references are not reliable sources.  You'll find that they mostly are from reliable sources like the journals Sociology of Religion and Journal of the History of Ideas.  You cannot claim that evidence has not been provided that this is the most used term in reliable sources because it has.  Do the work and stop asking for other people to do it for you.  Also, keep your eye on the ball because this article is not Creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if this is true, then you have proved your point. However, others seem to disagree.  And no, I don't have to be a scholar on this subject to add something to the conversation.  I only have to ask the right questions.  You've given a good answer, and if what you say is correct -and I rely on other editors who know the subject area to check that- then you're right.  To recap, if the sources you have are reliable, just as reliable as the ones used in the article, and if they use the terms as you say, then there is no reason to rename the article.  I certainly was taught at university to call the Genesis account a myth, but perhaps that is not the most common scholarly term.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In a class on comparative mythology it would most certainly be called a myth. In any number of other courses from sociology to history this would most likely not be called a myth.  The particular academic context matters quite a bit.  This creation story comes up in a variety of scholarly contexts and many of them have no interest in how it compares to other such stories cross-culturally or historically.  Myth as a category is not particularly meaningful in these contexts.  Now, these same contexts do not often, if ever, engage other Mesopotamian creation stories.  Those stories are much more squarely fixed to academic contexts that do find the category of "myth" useful.  The discrepancy is due to  drastically different histories of cultural practice.  But that doesn't even matter to us.  What matters is that this story is not referred to as "the genesis creation myth" in most of the reliable sources that discuss it.  Do these sources agree, for the most part, that in the ancient context in which it was crafted calling it a myth makes sense.  Absolutely, but that context is only one of many historical contexts for this story since its part of a very rich living tradition.  If you cannot wrap your head around this then please, as you suggest, do leave this to people who have some knowledge of the relevant fields.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be much obliged if you moderated your tone. I did not come here as your enemy, and I am quite happy to give your position my support if it is correct.  I came here responding to concerns on WP:NPOV/N.  If you really want to make editors your enemies, and thus sabotage your ability to be heard, then rock on.  Otherwise, try and find allies where you can.  I came here not to push a particular point, though I did have a initial opinion, but to formulate a method for decision making based on Wikipedia convention.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "part of a very rich living tradition" -- I see. So everybody else is dead. If you keep insulting other traditions by inferring that they are "not rich" and "not living", you can easily lose all credibility here. But I guess this whole discourse proves the point. Some people resist the term "myth" because they insist on making Genesis look better than everybody else's stories, e.g. rich and living. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. Where did I say that "everybody else is dead"?  I would never deny, and have never denied that there are not many "rich living traditions" -- take your pick of any living religion.  Thanks for the straw man of me as a religious bigot.   There are of course some religions that were dead for hundreds of years and are now being "reconstructed" by contemporary practitioners (and I suppose this includes ancient Mesopotamian religions).  These religions may be "alive" now, if you accept that they are linked to the older traditions they are claiming to revitalize, but they've missed a good thousand plus years of historical development and that's simply a fact.   As you point out, some people resist the term myth, even in contexts where it is appropriately applied to Genesis, because they are driven by a self-interested religious polemic.  I don't deny this at all and have been consistently arguing against these people on this very talk page.  See for instance the religiously motivated definition of myth as always "polytheistic" to de facto exclude all the stories from the Bible.  Such arguments are polemical and do not belong here.  However there are other academic contexts in which "myth" is a meaningless or misleading category to apply to this story, because these contexts are not interested in the literary structure of Genesis and/or how it compares to other similar stories.  In sociological scholarship on Christians who believe in a literal Genesis creation "creation myth" has no meaningful place in the discussion.  In historical scholarship of intellectual history that touches, for instance, on theological developements vis-a-vis the Genesis narrative, "creation myth" once again is not a category worth invoking.  All of this is reflected in sources from these fields, and all of this is what contributes to the 10:1 ratio of usage between creation story and creation myth.  Please refrain from, in so many words, calling me a religious bigot.  Please also understand that I'm not religious, and if someone had a gun to my head and I had to chose my favorite tradition it would probably not be one of the big three monotheisms.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right about the tone, but please understand that there's a context here which you may not be aware of. The title of this article was initially Creation according to Genesis.  The article was quickly renamed to Genesis creation myth with a "consensus" of 3-4 editors and it was done before anyone noticed.  This resulted in a months-long and extremely acrimonious fight over the title.  The compromise title was Genesis creation narrative, because narrative, or story, can be seen as supportive or not to either side of the controversy.  There are many, many reliable sources which do not use the term myth, and the common user of Wikipedia is more likely to look under creation story or creation narrative.  Wikipedia naming policy (WP:UCN) says that we don't use technically correct titles for articles when the common usage differs.


 * As part of the compromise, the first two chapters of Genesis are still called a "myth" in the article's lede, because that is a technical term in use, even if not everyone uses it. Griswaldo was here during the melee, and having someone suggest going back to Genesis creation myth set him off.  It almost set me off as well.  Despite WP:AGF, and I am assuming good faith on your part, because I see no evidence to the contrary, it's a touchy issue.  The whole fight took place earlier this year, so the subject is fresh.  I hope that explains why he kind of lost it, and I hope that he will chill now, because it's clear that you weren't around during it and didn't realize what the context was.  But can we please let this go?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lisa for the history rundown. I think if others will let it drop I am willing to do so.  I do think that the method I proposed, if followed, would have lead to a more stable decision on the article title, based on sources rather than editor compromises.  Compromises are always unstable.  Sound arguments on sources are much more stable, and can be argued in mediation much more easily.  So yes, if no one else continues to object I'll let it drop, but just so you won't have to go through it again, you might want to formulate this argument with full statistics (I mean the argument that "narrative" is used more by WP:RS).  Then next time you can trot it out. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that was done before. It's somewhere in the volumes of archived discussions here.  I'd hate to have to rummage through that, but you may be right that it'd be useful.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure it would be, it could have prevented all this. If you want my advice, dig it up and copy it to a userpage (BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The current title is not based on editor compromise its based on common usage in reliable sources. I'm getting seriously sick of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.  Many good faith attempts have been made to explain this to you and others over the past couple of days.  There are 10 times as many sources using "genesis creation story" than there are "genesis creation myth".  I've told you they are reliable sources and asked that if  you do not believe me please go through them and show me which ones are unreliable.  If you do not then there is no discussion to be had here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what you claim, since you say that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS. Such statistics haven't been done, so far as I know, on the actual sources for this article.  And you are right, that if people more expert on the subject than I am do not wish to pursue this, then there is no discussion to be had.  I came here to pose that question, you have answered it for your part.  As long as no one contradicts you, then you've got it (: BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Argument
I'd like to clear up the NPOV argument against the current title because it seems contradictory on its face. Two arguments are made by the same crowd and they are as follows How could number 2 be even remotely possible as long as there is nothing negative about the term myth? This is a complete contradiction. Either there is something inferior about "myth" or there is no neutrality issue between different Wikipedia articles because the use or non-use of the term.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Myth" is a standard academic term that does not bare the popular meaning of "false" and therefore is not a violation of NPOV when it is used in reference to a "sacred story".  Yet ...
 * 2) This article title is a violation of NPOV because other belief systems have stories that are labelled myth when this one is not.


 * The answer to that question is that, while calling other creation stories "myths" is not a violation of NPOV because there is nothing negative about the term myth in scholarly circles, calling this article something else is a violation of NPOV because it singles it out for special treatment relative to popular culture. Relative to the popular culture concept that "myth" means "less true," this article is singled out.  It is also less than scholarly, since myth is the academic term.  Thus, the violation of NPOV is in singling out this article to seem more "true" relative to other creation myths in the eyes of the non-academic world (by not calling it myth). BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Genesis creation myth", is not the academic term and it wont be otherwise just because you constantly repeat yourself. I'm sorry but this is, once again, a prima facia contradiction.  You cannot claim academic usage as it suits you and popular usage as it suits you as well.  You cannot have it both ways.  If you are making an argument based on neutrality you have to start from either premise or the other: 1) Myth has a negative connotation or 2) "myth" does not have a negative connotation.  You cannot claim that it does not and then base an argument on the idea that it does.  Your above response is completely nonsensical.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not "myth" is the academic term in the WP:RS, I leave to other editors for confirmation or denial.
 * I in fact do claim both: myth does and does not have a negative connotation, depending on whether you are taking the perspective of scholarly or popular culture. For the purposes of Wikipedia, if "myth" is the scholarly term, it does not matter if it has negative connotations in popular culture.  And if "myth" is the academic term, renaming this article to "narrative" to avoid popular negative connotations is against NPOV.  These arguments are well established, but I do see some merit in clearly restating them here. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well... actually, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it does matter if it has negative connotations. It matters if it's not in common use.  Did you take a look at WP:UCN?  Wikipedia does strive for clarity, and does not attempt to use technically correct terms when they will so clearly be misunderstood by most readers.  Since the creation story in Genesis does not need to be called a myth, even by those who consider it to fall into that category, and since it will be seen as pejorative by most readers, there's no reason to use it, and ample reason not to.


 * In terms of comparing this to other articles, there's precedent for breaking from a template when cause exists. For example, recently, someone decided unilaterally to change "Category:Fooian Jews" to "Category:Jews of Fooian descent" based on the same argument you're making.  I think there were 24 separate categories that were affected .  The change was overturned, despite the fact that there are categories such as "Category:American actors of Armenian descent" and "Category:American actors of Russian descent".  I think it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  Wikipedia doesn't need to be obsessive-compulsive when it gets in the way of being a useful tool for the average reader.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was reading the naming conventions. They say "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article...Common usage in reliable sources" which was the basis for my whole argument that we should go with whatever the RS of the article used most.  It's a matter of RS, not of popularity.  If you look at their examples I think they are all what RS would call the subjects.  It goes on "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words...True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental."  Myth is not neutral in common usage, but if the RS were to favor it then we would use it.  You're talking about WP being useful for readers, but if a reader is reader is redirected from their original search to something more scholarly, that is in itself useful.  Anyway, unless anyone else has objections I see no reason to pursue it further.  I simply wanted to make this argument for how we decide the thing. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current title was not chosen because of WP:NPOV -- it was not chosen because of the popular usage of the term myth. It was chosen because of WP:NAME. Per WP:UCN, "Genesis creation story" would be preferable but "narrative" is a synonym of story. Any argument that claims that we ought to determine the title of this page based on the popular usage of the term "myth" is on its face inapplicable. The current use of that rationale isn't just inapplicable but its completely contradictory as I've already stated. If "myth" bares a negative popular usage and we are worried about this, then the argument to name this entry "myth" because there are a handful of others that also use the term is completely against the whole point of WP:NPOV. If you are worried about the negative use of "myth" you ought to be arguing for removing it from all entries, not for adding it to another entry. The WP:NPOV argument is completely and entirely nonsensical.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What Griswaldo said. Please, people. It is one thing to keep discussing a title issue for months on end, it is quite another to keep discussing it while consistently ignoring the actual rationale for the title and the WP:NAME guidelines. This isn't usenet, and we don't have discussins just for the hell of it. Try to either present an intelligent and coherent case aware of the issues involved or else leave it be. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should just note here that, putting all misunderstandings such as the above aside, my original request for statistics showing that "narrative" is used most in the WP:RS for this article has not been met with actual statistics. It is claimed, if I recall right, that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS, and that they use the term more.  Lisa said such statistics exist, but they would be hard to find.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I live to serve:


 * Give me a moment and I'll add current numbers. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa that's not what he's looking for. These numbers were already produced by me above.  Be critical claims that numbers from google scholar are useless and demands some other form of "data".Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Google Books:
 * 230 Genesis creation myth
 * 254 Creation myth in Genesis
 * 334 Genesis creation narrative
 * 409 Creation according to Genesis
 * 453 Creation story in Genesis
 * 458 Creation narrative in Genesis
 * 474 Biblical creation
 * 479 Genesis creation account
 * 497 Genesis creation story
 * 497 Creation account in Genesis


 * Google Scholar:
 * 87 Genesis creation myth
 * 98 Creation myth in Genesis
 * 130 Genesis creation narrative
 * 137 Creation according to Genesis
 * 198 Creation narrative in Genesis
 * 405 Genesis creation account
 * 508 Genesis creation story
 * 695 Creation account in Genesis
 * 1,080 Creation story in Genesis
 * 2,950 Biblical creation


 * So if we're going by these statistics, "Genesis creation myth" comes up as the least common in both Google Books and Google Scholar. The words "account" and "story" are the most common modifiers, other than "Biblical", but "Biblical creation" would create a scope much wider than merely the first two chapters of Genesis.


 * Genesis creation narrative, admittedly, is in the middle of the pack. But like I said, it was a compromise.  I don't personally have a problem with "story", but I know there are those who consider it to imply that it's "just a story".  I don't personally have a problem with "account", but I know that there are those who consider it to imply that it's an account of something that actually happened.  Narrative avoids both of those problems, because no one denies that it's a narrative.


 * I don't know what kind of stats he wants if these are indicative enough for him. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Google searches are like... an easy button. They're imprecise in that Google indexes darn near everything, even Google Scholar isn't very discerning of what kind of quality it indexes. We have quite a few references used on this page, what do they say? How many of them use myth or some other word? Do we even need a polarizing word like "story" "myth" "narrative" in the title, why not neutral like "Creation according to Genesis" or some other neutral title. My whole concern here was neutrality with the other myths, and the word narrative is not very neutral with how we title other myths in this category. Either they're blatantly labeled a myth or they're given a neutral title without a descriptive word. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, Lisa and Griswaldo are right unless the sources which are actually RS for Wikipedia use something other than the Google searches. I don't know enough to make that determination. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Raeky about Google searched, even Google scholar includes some of the most unreliable sources I've ever seen on some subjects. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doug it takes no time to actually go to Google scholar and examine the first few hits to see where they are coming from. This is how we are meant to use Google Scholar in these types of discussions in the first place.  I have looked, and the sources appear very legitimate in this case. Google scholar needs to be used with caution, but what is the alternative tool for figuring out common use in scholarship?Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm wondering about. I think the determination needs to be based on sources considered reliable for this article. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it would settle the debate, let's everyone start working through the list to find what these sources used call the story and get on with life. (I'm betting editors will continue to find a reason to change it to something else, but why not do it anyway?  The arguments over google hits are getting stale.) Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been demonstrated over and over that there are a number of different terms used by large numbers of reliable sources. We aren't going to count noses here, because then we're going to start fighting about what counts as a reliable source, and it's going to be like lawyers trying to keep out jurors they think will be prejudicial to their case.

Fact is, narrative and story and myth and account all have pluses and minuses for different people. The most egregious, in my opinion, is myth, because it clearly has a common connotation of being fictional. I could just barely understand why anyone would consider "account" to be prejudicial, but to claim that "narrative" implies that it's true is pushing the good faith assumption close to a breaking point. Works of fiction contain narratives. There's absolutely nothing, anywhere, that even suggests that a narrative is a true account of anything.

If you want to change it to Creation in the Book of Genesis, go ahead and propose it. Creation in Genesis was one of the suggestions that'd been made during the last round of this ridiculous fight, but feel free. Genesis creation narrative is 100% neutral, but then, so is Creation in the Book of Genesis, and so is Creation in Genesis. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement "The most egregious, in my opinion, is myth" is an illustration of bias here, This is clearly a mythology, it's in the category creation myth, it uses the word myth heavily. It's unquestionable that in the academic community it's treated as a mythology. Your opinion in changing it to "Genesis Creation Mythology" ? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa, if it's reliable enough that no one objected to having it in the article as a source for fact statements on the general understanding of the subject, I think it would count. And personally I'm not concerned with neutral, I'm concerned with WP naming conventions, which are about RS, not neutrality.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Raeky it is not "treated as a mythology" throughout "the academic community". It is treated as mythology in academic contexts within which it makes sense to treat it as mythology.  The story maybe contains two myths, but in some contexts it makes absolutely no sense to discuss them as  myths.  I'm sick and tired of repeating myself on this.  The academic contexts which involve this story are much broader than comparative mythology.  Please try to understand this.  We might be able to discount Christian theology itself but we cannot discount secular historical and social scientific scholarship about Christians (and Jews) and their belief systems.  The latter forms of scholarship rarely have use for the category "myth" because it does not help explain why and how these religious practitioners are engaging the Genesis story.  None of these scholars are going to deny that this narrative contains two myths yet that does not mean that they will call it the "Genesis creation myth".  Instead they opt for a more general moniker like "Genesis creation story" -- remember that all myths are stories after all. In doing so there is no denial of "myth" (that's only done by religious polemicists).  Our current entry is exactly in line with this reality.  We do not use the term creation myth in the title but we make no bones about discussing the ancient story as a myth.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only way this would not be taught as a myth is if your teaching it from a faith based point of view where you assume it's true or based on truths. That is NOT a neutral point of view. Any respectable university is going to teach this as MYTH along the same lines as all the other myths in this category. There is no reliable sources that will backup the assertion that this is true and not fairy tail, so it's treated as a myth academically. Show me where it's not? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Academically a "myth" is not something that is "untrue and a fairy tale". You seem to think that scholars and teachers take a position about the truth value of the story when they research or teach about it. Why would they?  Myths are not interesting to scholars and teachers because they are "untrue" but because of how they are structured, how they may function psychologically and sociologically, how they compare to other similar stories cross-culturally, etc. etc.  Once again, I think we all understand rather clearly that within a belief system this story might be taught as "true" but within scholarship the truth value is irrelevant, and that's what you seem to fail to understand almost entirely.  What makes it of interest to invoke the "myth" category in one academic setting and not another has nothing to do with truth value, and everything to do what "myth" as a category implies about the story and those who are engaging it.  Once again, in some contexts that category is informative and in others it is not.Griswaldo (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Key aspect of a myth is a supernatural element, and academically I doubt you'll find any reputable universities supporting supernaturalism as anything but false. Belief in a mythology or supernaturalism is accompanied by faith, which is outside the realm of academics. The reason the word myth is used heavily throughout this article is because it is, a myth. There is a huge biased push to keep that out of the title, I suspect one reason is how it's linked on other articles, really doesn't look good to link to the creation myth on a Christian article, but to the creation narrative, thats acceptable right, even though it's a myth? I don't see you disagreeing that this is a myth and part of a mythology? So why would labeling it as such in the article title be a bad thing? — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT -- for the last time I support the current tile (but would prefer "Genesis creation story") because of WP:UCN. Raeky there are clearly religious editors here who do not want "creation myth" in the title for reasons of their own faith, but our determination should have nothing to do with this, and indeed it doesn't. These same editors want "myth" removed from the entry content, and has that happened? NO it hasn't.  Why not do you think?  Have you stopped to think for one second how someone could both support the current title while supporting the use of "myth" in the entry?  The appropriate application of policy in both instances is why.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) @Lisa, if some editors claim that the terminology used by the sources used are more reliable than google hit counts, I think it's better to go see what they say than simply guess about it. But I'm guessing that with so many editors so extremely sensitive even about straightforward words like "story", "account" and "narrative", that whatever the results are will be again challenged as "implying" something and be challenged as not NPOV.  Professor marginalia (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but looking at the sources is a really good start to stability. this one supports "myth", I think.  It's the first one I tried. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How does that one support "myth"? It appears to support "account".Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that has more hits, thx BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "Creation myth", "creation myths", "Genesis myth", "Genesis myths" - "No results found".  "Creation account", "creation accounts", "Genesis account", or "Genesis accounts" - on 21 pages.  As I have time, I'll be making notes of the sources I can check out on my user subpage. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We might want to agree on a standard series of search terms to use to standardize the searches? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming we're going for a "common name" here, we want to focus on what it is called apart from how it is categorized, defined, or described. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right... if I understand you correctly. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In my first efforts here I've tried some different tricks to determine what the authors might be calling it when it's first introduced, but it isn't always delivering what we're after because some of the texts assume the reader doesn't need to be introduced. So in some cases I've had to search simply "creation" or "genesis" and see what turns up. For obvious reasons, many of these authors' terminologies won't be useful here--for example some simply call it "Genesis 1 and 2". Anybody is welcome to edit my user subpage to help record what these sources say on it.  Professor marginalia (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Myth
What's all this clarification of what is meant by "myth"? A myth is a myth...it's not literally true, and story, symbolic, allegorical. It strikes me as being pretty obvious what is meant by "myth" in relation to this article. The Eskimo 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Apparently no so obvious to some. I will hence-forth read prior discussions before posting embarrasing questions. The Eskimo 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good question, the embarrassment is all the focus on it [[Image:Tongue.png|16px]] BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think this was good, because it's indicative of how most people reading Wikipedia are going to read the word. Having it in the body of the article, where it can be explained that it's only being used as a technical term, is okay.  Having it in the title, where it clearly gives the wrong impression, is not.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this fracas without involving myself, but I think a fresh voice might help, whether you agree with my points or not. I've been sifting through the arguments and drama, and as someone in college myself (going into senior year as a history major, focusing on Asian history), I hear the term myth far more frequently in casual academic conversing.  Besides being less verbose and having fewer syllables than the alternatives (which itself is an argument for it, as titles should be as compact as possible), it's also not separating Christianity from other religions here.  Unless there's a dicussion to move every single aforementioned article to something like Chinese creation narrative (which isn't even a redirect, don't know what you make of that), the title in and of itself violates WP:UNDUE in relation to our other articles.  It's obvious promotion of Christianity, because the old and current arguments for Genesis creation narrative consisted largely of 1. IDONTLIKEIT arguments against myth, and 2. the argument that "It's a religion, so it shouldn't be dismissed as a myth, which has a pejorative meaning in everyday speech", which is far more toxic than 1.  If I wanted to test the limits of WP:POINT, I'd go over to Chinese creation myth and propose it be moved like this page, and see what kind of response I got.  Probably very few positive repsonses, because relatively few people here on English Wikipedia are attached to the subject matter.  As someone who lives in the United States, I can attest to the hysteria that accompanies every instance where Christians are forced to recognize that they, too, are subject to the 1st Amendment, and cannot force themselves on people, just like other religions (a la Pastafarianism).  That's not quite what's happening here (I'm most certainly not implying people are "forcing themselves" on anyone here), but the basic argument I'm making is the same- people are attached to this subject, and are arguing for different treatment because someone around them (who would share the same viewpoint) wouldn't understand.  In fact, only 1/6 to 1/5 of the world's population practices Christianity, and the world's majority, which isn't attached to it, would use academic terms.  I'm not sure why no one's brought this up, but Google Scholars in English, and English language sources in general, would be inherently biased, because most English-speaking countries have a Christian majority, and those that don't (Liberia comes to mind- 40% animist, 40% Christian, and 20% Muslim) tend to have very limited Internet access and less literature.  I don't really care what pejorative meaning it might have to someone less literate than myself, that's their problem if they don't understand, and they can use a dictionary if they're confused.  And yes, I would be making the exact same type of argument if this article was named something like Genesis creation fallacy, because that's the exact same undue issue- it conflates the Genesis creation myth into something that's undue weight (or lack thereof) in proportion to other articles dealing with creation myths.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I promise all future comments will be much shorter, but as someone who just came to this conversation, I had to deal with several days of conversation in one post.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Christianity"? I'm not a Christian.  And this business of insisting on a rigidly consistent naming pattern, regardless of common use, is bordering on OCD.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blade, to echo Lisa's response consider that this creation myth was around for hundreds of years before Jesus every existed. Why do call it Christian?  It is very telling when someone does consider this a "Christian" myth because it invokes a particular culture wars discourse ... one that very unfortunately blinds people to the realities of WP:UCN. Your argument is not new, in fact it is repeated over and over again by the same people who apparently continue not to hear the bona fide rationale for the current title -- you very clearly did not mention this rationale yourself in your response.  The title is based on WP:NAME and NOT WP:NPOV or aspects of this policy like WP:DUE.  WP:NAME is the relevant policy for naming Wikipedia entries, and it suggests we use common names.  I've tried explaining, to no avail it seems, some of the reasons why this particular story is most often not referred to as a myth when it is named in scholarship, despite the fact that those who might more readily call it something like "Genesis creation story" would still tell you that the story does indeed contain two myths.  There is no contradiction here.  A dog breeder will tell you that a beagle is a hound despite the fact that unlike its relatives the redbone coonhound or the foxhound it does not bare the term in its name.  Please also consider that only five other entries about specific sets of creation myths have the term in their names.  If you can find a better common name for those entries then by all means please change them.  For instance Norse creation myth redirects to Völuspá and Babylonian creation myth redirects to Enûma Eliš.  I believe you have posted in all good faith but I beseech of you if you are going to enter this debate and claim to have read through the prior discussions that you show some evidence of this in your own arguments.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Let me start by saying I'm not accusing anyone here of "forcing themselves on anyone". What I meant by that is, as a resident of the United States, I'm used to hearing Christians insisting on demands that their religion be treated better than everyone elses (read the backstory behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's unfortunately not an isolated event). Anyways, what you have with Norse and Babylonian creation myth is a common Old Norse and Babylonian name, and I'd indeed be happy if we could use the common Arimaic or Hebrew name or something like that here. That's not a joke, calling it by its original name in the original languages it used would be a good idea. If we don't go that route, then we have other options. I get what you're saying with WP:NAME; my issue, upon further reflection, is not with keeping everything the same name, or special treatment. It's more that myth is the more historical term, and that's generally what shows up in texts before the late 19th century. 20th century American Christianity/Judaism is very different from what Judeo-Christianity historically was/still is in certain places, and should not be given undue weight. It's tough, because American Christians and Jews are very vocal, but they really represent a (large) minority among even modern Christians and Jews. I understand that myth has taken on a new meaning in recent years, but I can think of innumerable examples of words that have different meanings, but are still used today in their original meanings to describe certain things (a bachelor's degree comes to mind; not the best example, but you know where I'm going). But honestly, the title where it's at isn't horrible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling it מעשה בראשית, while accurate, would share in the problems that myth has. Which is that it isn't useful for the average reader.  Wikipedia is supposed to be usable by non-scholars.


 * Myth is not the more historical term. And words mean what they mean, not what they meant once upon a time.  In the King James version of the Bible, "Thou shalt not kill" meant "do not murder".  But words change over time.  Both connotively and denotively.  You know very well that the word "myth", right now, in July 2010, outside of academia, means "made up story".  Check any dictionary you like.  Go around to people you know and ask them, context free, how they'd define the word "myth".


 * Unfortunately, I think you've displayed a little chip on your shoulder when it comes to Jews and Christians and their beliefs. Which is a shame.  You're reaching and reaching to find a way to call the biblical creation story a myth, and I think you're quite aware of the connotation that will carry.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While it's true I do have a strong distaste for both religion and atheism (strong agnosticism doesn't cater to either), I am trying to be pragmatic. I can see this as something where two reasonable people can disagree, and indeed have.  I'm trying not to let my personal views, which are quite abrasive, seep into this, although in hindsight writing anything before I had any coffee this morning was probably a bad idea (you have no idea; I'm a zombie in the morning, and I'm still recovering from a Rush concert on the 19th).  Now that it's early afternoon, I'm in a better frame of mind.  I'm not sure why you'd think narrative doesn't have the same connotations- I remember writing narratives when I was a kid in school, which meant we had to create our own fictional story.  If it's a choice between narrative, which (as far as I know) is commonly used as a euphemism for fiction, or myth, which is often used the same way, but has a more standard academic definition for classification purposes, then I personally would go with myth- I think of straight fiction when I hear the word narrative, religious stories when I hear myth.  I've always viewed all religions as such, so I've always (even when I was a Catholic) thought of Genesis as a myth.  It could just be that I'm weird (which is entirely possible, I've proven that on many fronts),but most of the people I speak to at college seem to think the same way.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Myth is definitely not the historical term for Christians. For centuries, to Christians, "myth" was precisely something other than the stories of the bible.  Some religious polemicists still try to define myth in this way today in fact.Griswaldo (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And on Wikipedia, we don't simply let organizations define themselves; that's akin to saying we should definitively say that Fox contains "fair and balanced news" because they say so (I'm one of the only college students in the country who voted for John McCain, mind you), or saying that Jimmy Jones was a true messiah because he led however many hundreds of people to "heaven" in the forests of Guyana. We take what they call themselves into account, but there are other views as well, and they need to be reflected.  Just because past Christians didn't refer to their religion as a myth doesn't mean that their definition is correct.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? I never said anything remotely like that.  You claimed that the traditional word for this story was "myth" and I pointed out that it wasn't for centuries and also made it clear that this was for polemical reasons.  Thankfully, today, we don't consider these polemics legitimate when discussing the genre of these stories.  Also, no one refers to a "religion as a myth".  Myth and religion are quite separate things.  You mean Christians don't refer to stories from their religious cannon as myths?  They didn't, but now many do in fact.  However, none of that changes the very basic fact that scholars do not call this story "Genesis creation myth".  Please understand that WP:NAME is about what something is named and not how it is categorized -- see again Beagle vs. Bloodhound and the category hound.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you say that, I was taking your comment out of context- I know it sounds like a cop-out, but I just reread it, and now I know what you're saying. Greek mythology refers to the religion, so that's not quite true about religions not being myths.  If you want to talk contemporary religions, the word for Shinto stories in Japanese basically translates as lore, which in Japanese is synonymous with myth (I know a little Japanese, and I understand their culture is decidedly different). However, you're correct on other things.  In fact, I always did refer to my religion (when I was religious) as a myth, and other Roman Catholics I know still do, but I can also accept that I'm something of an oddball.  Again, though, what problem does the word narrative solve; maybe this is just my oddness (and feel free to point it out, I don't get offended), but I view narrative as being just pure fiction, and myth as being a definition for religious stories. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in The Blade of the Northern Lights. As Griswaldo says "none of that changes the very basic fact that scholars do not call this story "Genesis creation myth"." That is the basic fact here (and I do believe it is fact).  Go read WP:NAME, and you'll see it's all about WP:RS.  People on Wikipedia are perpetually too willing to get into arguments and not focus on what is really necessary for resolution.  We have a clear guide here as to what to do.  The Blade of the Northern Lights, if you're really so interested maybe you have the time to go through the RS sources and prove what term is used most.  See Prof. M's  page here.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful who you give snark to, thank you. Anyways, your complaint aside, no one has answered this question- how is narrative any less implicit than myth?  Narrative strongly implies fiction; myth implies religious stories.  And as an aside, just because a reliable source says something doesn't mean that they 1. don't have a COI and 2. are right.  It doesn't give you free license to force a POV title in.  I'm not saying that's what's happening here, just a general complaint.  Make of it what you will.  And next time, could you try to avoid being a dick?  I'm new to this particular conversation.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a RS, it doesn't have problems such as you describe for the text it's being used to source. And yes, according to WP:NAME, RS usage does give Wikipedia the right to use a POV title.  And while I do not know what you mean by being a dick, as I have been unfailingly polite here, you have my apology if in fact I was a dick unintentionally. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, sometimes text doesn't reveal people's true intentions. I may have just misread something (I've got PDD-NOS, so it's already very hard for me to read people). But NPOV is a core policy, so if we don't go by that then there has to be very strong consensus. And 68% isn't strong consensus, especially given how many IDONTLIKEIT votes there were (not saying there weren't any reasoned ones, just that there were a lot with major logical flaws). Not only that, reliable sources sometimes misrepresent things; look at the 1986 Hvalur sinkings, which were falsely labeled "terrorism". Don't bring that discussion here, it's just a demonstration that sometimes reliable sources with COIs can, knowingly or otherwise, misrepresent something (in that case, it was very deliberate; here much less so). Don't worry; one thing I've learned is not to hold grudges over the Internet- even though we may disagree here, there'll probably be some other issue where I'm with you 100%The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I have some autistic tendencies too. I think what happened is that I was basically disagreeing with you, but I tried to put something welcoming first, kind of to take the sting out of a first contact.  But it backfired because it seemed sarcastic.  WP:NAME specifically says that a title may be POV: "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words."  That's what I'm going by.  I acknowledge that RS may have bias, but I also think that Wikipedia policy specifically says that WP doesn't correct such bias, and may reflect it.  My own POV here is to call it myth.  I just don't think that's what WP policy says we should do, unless that's what the RS do. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias
If "myth" is to be deprecated in favour of "narrative", we should avoid WP:BIAS against Babylonian and gentile narratives, and so on. I modified the article accordingly. Consistency is appropriate. Since this was reverted, rather than edit war I've changed back just the most blatant example of bias in the lead. . dave souza, talk 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave you should have come to the talk page first. Clearly this is a lot of discussion here about related issues.  The edit you made was very pointy.  I've reverted the lead to how it was for a while ... not sure who changed it recently but it very clearly identified this narrative as one of many Mesopotamian myths.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's very telling, almost all those changes from myth to narrative (only one not is "gentile creation myth") was in references to other religions myths. Seems strange why those are clearly labeled myths in this article when much of the article wiped away the references to the Genesis myth being a myth. Definitely looks a little like WP:BIAS. It's really getting taxing. It's probably time we take this up a level and either go to unofficial mediation or directly to official mediation for the title and how we treat this article compared to the other creation articles. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on. If you think there is a problem suggest a way to fix it.  Dave's edit was very pointy given everything here.  Part of the problem was that someone altered the lead.  The lead had, and now again does, explicitly state that this is one of many Mesopotamian myths.  Does the rest of the entry call it a narrative only?  Lets look and discuss, but enough with the politics already.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So basically you are going to argue against WP:NAME, saying that in spite of what the RS call it, we should call it something different to make it NPOV? Or are you disputing the argument that the RS generally don't call it a myth?  Just want to have things clear from the beginning here.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm arguing against basing just what we can find sources to call it, those are afterall mostly Christan and English sources, globally is it called story, narrative or account more then myth? Can you make that assertion that it is or isn't? NPOV and BIAS states we shouldn't and it should be treated on equal ground with other myths. By having a descriptive word in the title, and narrative in this use is descriptive, it's putting BAIS on the article. Also, yes, the word narrative is used throughout the article. And I think this needs to go to mediation at this point since there is obviously nothing being accomplished here. — <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> raeky T  18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources generally do not call it "Genesis creation myth" but the two myths discussed are still categorized in that fashion. Talking about the "creation story" in the text would follow common usage most predominantly, but I agree with Dave that the content of the entry might be a bit skewed in how it presents the matter.  I'm starting an actual content discussion below.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Raeky, please see Prof. M's content analysis of this. You should help the effort, but so far it does indeed seem that story and narrative are more common than myth in the sources we use in the entry ... "account" is the most common.Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So Raeky you are saying that we need to do a GLOBAL analysis of reliable sources, sources which would be RS for this article, and can only make a determination based on that? Or, again, are you saying that even if the RS say "narrative" we should use myth for NPOV relative to other articles/myths?  I think answering these questions is in fact accomplishing a great deal. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, as I've always stated since my first post on this, is that this article be treated no differently then the other myths. As for WP:BIAS it does state we should try to treat articles more with a global approach. So yes, how it's treated in other languages and globally is important. But regardless, WP:NPOV would mean we would want to be neutral to other creation beliefs, not give any one specific myth more creditability. WP:NAME assumes a vacuum, and doesn't take into account groupings of articles, or related pages like this, so it's not the end-all-be-all policy that we must follow. — raeky  T  19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NAME - "This page describes Wikipedia's policy on choosing article titles." No policy functions in a vacuum but this is the policy we need to follow.  Policies are also written with other policies in mind.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It also states, "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." — raeky  T  19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So you really mean then that we should change the five other entries with "creation myth" in the title, since narrative is much more non-judgmental than "myth" given its lack of specificity? How could you be passing judgment on a subject that is most often referred to as "story, account and narrative" by choosing one of those more general terms instead of "myth"?  Makes no sense.Griswaldo (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, are you saying we should change the other titles to something that sounds non-judgmental? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's what he's trying to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between changing this title to myth and the others to something other than myth. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Once upon a time I took a few university classes on mythology, ancient near eastern religions, and folkloristics. I think wikipedian's are stressing the terminology more than academics are.  It was perfectly acceptible then to call the Babylonian creation myth the Enuma Elish or the Genesis creation myth the Genesis creation story or the Biblical creation account.  I think there's been a tendency to assume more significance to "myth" in naming convention above and beyond the practice among those actually studying and writing about them.  Flipping randomly through a text I have that's all about creation myths, here's a survey of titles used to refer to them individually (they're grouped in chapters by geography first, then sub-headed in various ways, such as by particular ethnic or religious sects).  I've linked what I found to be the closest fit to an article here.


 * "Rig-Veda X, cxxi: Prajapati (The Golden Embryo)" - Hiranyagarbha
 * "The Enuma Elish" - Enuma Elish
 * "First Creator and Lone Man" - Mandan (no redirect Mandan creation myth)
 * "The Koran, Sura XLI-The Made Plain" - Fussilat (empty stub) with content here Creation myth (no redirect Islamic creation myth or Koran creation myth)
 * "Genesis 1-2:3" - Genesis creation narrative
 * "The Huai-Nan Tzu: The Creation of the Universe" - Huainanzi
 * "The Myth of Io" - Io Matua Kore
 * "The Creation of Man" - Blackfoot (no redirect for Blackfoot creation myth)
 * "From Berossus' Account of the Babylonian Genesis" - Berossus and Berossus
 * "The Kumulipo (A Creation Chant) - Kumulipo
 * "Hesiod: From the Theogony" - Theogony


 * I don't think the mythologists are showing "bias" - they probably just aren't as hung up on uniformity as wikipedians. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I made a couple of redirects (BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a big mistake to think that the Genesis creation article is some odd outlier and that other creation myths are treated more or less uniformly. Not a bit.  The fact that many objecting to he use of the term "myth" have personal biases (this goes for many of the "myth" supporters as well, btw) is just distracting.  There is a creation myth in Genesis, but there's a creation myth in the Theogony.  But we don't refer to Hesiod's as the Theogony creation myth--it feels weird saying it. Few would look it up that way.  Editors offer Chinese creation myth, but notice it's an article contrasting one Chinese creation myth (Pangu) with another (from the Tao Te Ching).  So what about Greek creation myth? In that case we have to look for them in Pelasgian creation myth, Theogony and Nyx.  I don't see any uniformity. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I don't consider my edit to have been pointy, if the article bowdlerises its description of Genesis, it should treat other religious creation beliefs in the same way. The article as it stood very obviously treated one religious belief as "narrative" and other similar beliefs as "myth", suggesting that WP was favouring one religion over others. However, Griswaldo restored phrasing making it clear that "The Genesis creation narrative.... is one of several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths". That looks reasonable to me, and reduces the problem in general. As it happens, I think "myth" implies something deeper and more religious than "narrative", but the common misuse and misunderstanding of "myth" is a factor that can reasonably be taken into consideration. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is "creation narrative" religiocentric?
The ongoing contention over "creation myth" and "creation narrative" made me wonder. Is the usage of "creation narrative" associated with religiocentrism or Eurocentrism? As a preliminary check, compare Google searches for the following phrases, arranged by frequency of "narrative" usage: Besides religions and religious texts, similar usage inconsistencies are found for places. These are quick data, and the apparent Christian "narrative" biases could be misleading. Please feel free to correct or counter them with ghits for "X creation narratives/myths/story/stories", Google Scholar, Google Books, etc. Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Genesis creation narrative/myth" 163,000/412,000
 * "Biblical creation narrative/myth" 50,000/109,000
 * "Christian creation narrative/myth" 11,100/114,000
 * "Bible creation narrative/myth" 4,340/24,100
 * "Shinto creation narrative/myth" 880/1,480
 * "Jewish creation narrative/myth" 124/20,700
 * "Islamic creation narrative/myth" 6/5,120
 * "Hindu creation narrative/myth" 2/50,800
 * "Buddhist creation narrative/myth" 1/6,110
 * "Muslim creation narrative/myth" 1/2,380
 * "Judaic creation narrative/myth" 0/246
 * "Taoist creation narrative/myth" 0/78
 * "Sikh creation narrative/myth" 0/46
 * "Koran creation narrative/myth" 0/5
 * "European creation narrative/myth" 247,000/3,480
 * "Japanese creation narrative/myth" 10/1,880
 * "American creation narrative/myth" 4/113,000
 * "Chinese creation narrative/myth" 1/253,000
 * "Tibetan creation narrative/myth" 1/132
 * "African creation narrative/myth" 0/223,000


 * It is not up to you are I to do our own research and make claims about the biases that exist in academic communities. If there are good reliable sources covering controversies and biases then you should bring them forth, but this is simply your original research and your original conclusions based on that research.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No conclusions, just questions about whether using "creation narrative" is biased. Here's another. How frequently do authors use "creation narrative" for Christians but "creation myth" for non-Christians? I could be wrong, but thought WP:OR applies to articles, not talk pages. WP:GOOGLE's second example of research topics is, "Usage – Identifying how and where a term is commonly being used, and by whom." I'm surprised you would ignore these Google test results because on 15 July, you wrote, "Google scholar is far from perfect but it provides a rough idea of how common a certain term is in scholarly publications. Its always good to actually take a look at the results as well." Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "...culminating in the creation of humanity in the image of God." Actually, it culminates in Day 7, the sanctification of the Sabbath (otherwise why have seven days?) Just thought I'd mention it. As for the vexed question of myth vs. narrative, why not have a look at some leading biblical dictionaries etc? PiCo (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's look at Bible dictionaries, with the caveat that their lexicographers are commonly Christian clerics and theologians. Let's also look at more neutral sources like the Encyclopedia of Creation Myths. Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's really very interesting research, showing Eurocentrism if I'm correct. Very cool. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oxford's calls it a creation myth. It clearly advocates a particular kind of reading of it too, though. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If going by ghits alone, "Genesis creation story" is 631,000. "Story" instead of "narrative/myth" tends to generate the most results... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything is "religiocentric" it is the term "creation myth", because any discussion of a myth necessarily is a discussion of religion. It's a term from religious studies. There is nothing wrong with being "religiocentric" in an article that is in fact about religion.

Can we now slowly consider going back to working on the actual article? Or do you think we need another year talking about the title? There is a bunch of content attached right under the title, too, you know.

What you are doing here is de facto original research into an alleged Eurocentric bias in scholarly literature (why "Eurocentric" when the text under discussion is actually from the Levant, in Asia, I don't know. "Judeocentric"? But of course in the world of political correctness, denouncing Eurocentric bias makes you a hero, while you have nothing to gain from denouncing "Judeocentrism" other than being labeled an antisemite). Publish a book about it, which we can then cite in our Eurocentrism article. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible by WRF Browning describes it as the Bible's creation myth but it is labeled simply "Creation". Claus Westerman's section about Genesis creation in Oxford's Guide to the Bible labels it "the narratives of creation" and describes it as two creation stories, one the creation of the world, the second the creation of people, each type having independent traditions in early religions throughout the world. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We can agree that "Eurocentric" doesn't accurately describe this apparent English usage bias between "creation narration" and "creation myth". I only mentioned it because "religiocentric" is rare. "Judeocentrism" wouldn't explain why "Jewish creation myth" is more commonly used than "Jewish creation narrative". Perhaps something like "Christian-centric" would be more accurate. "Christian-centrism" since Americocentrism redirects to American exceptionalism and Christocentric has a doctrinal meaning.

Of course, this WP:GOOGLE test is "de facto original research", which is common among talk pages. The present page and archives mention "Google" dozens of times. WP:NOR specifically prohibits original research in articles. Where does it mention talk pages?

If "creation myth" is the object of Religious Studies, does that make "religion" the object of Mythology? Creation myths often predate religions that adapted them. In China, texts recorded the Hundun and Pangu myths for centuries before religions were established.

The questions remain. Do "creation myth/narrative/story" usages reveal prejudices? Which term is more neutral? Applies to a specific religion? Generally applies to religions? Which is the most consistently used within WP and without? Keahapana (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Review WP:SOAPBOX as you are treading close Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I reviewed WP:SOAPBOX but didn't see any reference to questioning usage neutrality. Do you think discussing whether "Genesis creation narrative" denotes a POV is soapboxing? Keahapana (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

?? Of course it is religiocentric. Simply because creation is an entirely religious issue, and only religion(s) deal with creation. <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;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keahapana's point is that Europeans (?) are happy to use the word "myth" for everyone else's creation stories, but insist on calling their own a "narrative." Oddly enough this only applies for the prefix "European" - "European creation narrative" is preferred over "European creation myth," vs Japanese, African etc "creation myth". But if you substitute a religion for a geographical term the bias disappears - "Genesis/Biblical/Christian" all go with "creation myth". PiCo (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No. My point is the apparent Christian "creation narrative" inconsistency in English usage, not European languages or religions. I only added geographic examples (like 247,000 "European creation narrative"s vs. 3,480 "European creation myth"s) to provide perspective for the religious ones (like 6,000 "Buddhist creation myth"s vs. one "Buddhist creation narrative"). Here's an example of this bias. "The kernel of truth in the Genesis creation narrative was that God had created the universe and human beings, but its account of how he had done so was an ancient Hebrew myth" (Arthur McCalla, The Creationist Debate: The Encounter Between the Bible and the Historical Mind, 2006:118) Keahapana (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... well, as I pointed out above (which probably got lost in my wall of text; my fault, I know), the English language would be inherently biased towards using a different term for Christianity versus other religions, especially given that, until very recently, almost all English speakers were Christians. I honestly think a lot of the inconsistencies Keahapana points out are just because the world is becoming a lot more diverse, and the English language is in a rather harsh transition period (it includes other terms as well; just look at the word chairman, it's been mangled into all manner of horrible things).  This'll probably resolve itself rather painlessly in a generation or so, when people aren't so hypersensitive; however, we're talking about today, and I'd agree with Keahapana's point that the use of narrative is less consistent than myth.  His examples are pretty poignant, and, if nothing else, I think myth has a more standard general definition in religious scholarship than narrative.  Now, if someone can show me where narrative has a definition specifically fit for Christianity, I'd be more than willing to look over it.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい)  02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Narrative? How about myth?
This may seem trivial here, but why do we call this article the Genesis creation narrative and instead of Genesis creation myth? What right do we have to call the Pangu creation myth a myth in the article but not this a myth? Wikipedia is neutral, and it should stay that way. --Czop10 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We do call this a creation myth, in the second sentence of the introduction no less. I'm unsure what you mean.Griswaldo (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He means the title Griswaldo, don't bite ;) Read the archives Czop, feel free to make your own opinion about the reason for the title, however, it seems unlikely to change in the near future. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought at first but he says "in the article" and compares it to Pangu which does not have myth in the title, so I then figured my initial thought must have been incorrect.Griswaldo (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously Czop10 missed the last 10 months of encyclopedic decline in this article. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia Christianity and affiliated faiths get special treatment. Of course the story is a creation myth, but the title was changed because a small but loud and persistent group of religiously driven editors got everyone else to just give up in the end. <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;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv;  18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhm no. The title was Creation according to Genesis for quite some time.  A very small group of editors managed to get it changed somehow and the new title Genesis creation myth was controversial ever since it was created, which was very recently.  After much debate Genesis creation narrative was settled on, and argued for by several non-religious editors I might add (myself included).  I wont rehash all the arguments but Cush is not even remotely correct in how he has presented the situation.Griswaldo (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to throw in my two cents here; speaking from a secular perspective, I was always a little wary about the word "myth", b/c while the "formal" sense of the word doesn't denote falsity, the far more recognized "informal" sense of the word does. Per WP:RNPOV, making any kind of statements indicating the truth of falsity of any particular religion is wrong.  NickCT (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia almost all religions except the abrahamic religions have been called myth or mythology. Cf. Greek mythology, Inca mythology, many articles have been changed only recently. However, calling the tales of the Torah myth is absolutely acceptable, since they have no basis in reality and are therefore myth. The Torah does not even represent actual history, but a historization (or revised history) according to beliefs held in much later times.
 * "Genesis creation myth" had been the most accurate title so far, but that was swept away due to persistent pressure from religiously motivated 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;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read through everything, and honestly I would've preferred the old title, Creation according to Genesis. That leaves it open as to whether Genesis is "real" or not, not giving a POV either way. But I'm not restarting that whole thing again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the original title was innocuous enough, with no reason to change it. We don't have any other creation "narrative" titles, so this implies that all other such accounts are myths (as they are appropriately titled) while the Genesis account of creation, a narrative not myth (implying the "myths" are more mythical), stands alone über alles. I don't think so. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All myths are narratives Peters. Any title that doesn't have myth in it explicitly implies as much or as little about the classification of the content.  Narrative does not imply that it is not a myth, any more than "Pangu" does.Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they are. But when we title articles inconsistently, and in this case, so pointedly that only Genesis is a "narrative", we send the wrong message. The problem is not the intrinsic meaning of the words, it is the insistence on inconsistency of choice in words. When is a creation myth not called a "myth"? When it's the Book of Genesis. Really, I don't see how you can draw another conclusion. If editors thought the words were completely interchangeable (as you profess—nor do I fundamentally disagree), they wouldn't have insisted on de-"myth"ing Genesis, now would they? P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Peters we've been over this on the page several times already. There is no such consistency in the creation myth area across the wiki.  See Category:Creation myths.  There are currently more entries with "creation myth" than there were during previous discussions because of the recent work by Prof. M to spin them out of the Creation myth entry.  We aren't suggesting to change other entries with common names that don't include "myth" into titles with "myth" in it.  For what its worth I'd like to see this entry changed to Genesis creation story in line with WP:UCN but narrative is at least a synonym of story.Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Creation myths has several listed as using the "Ancient civilization + Creation Myth" Scheme, these are usually reserved for Creation Myths that conventional title other than "that cultures creation myth"  (E.g. Sumerian creation myth, Egyptian creation myth) and the like. Specicific a religious texts  (E.G. Ayvu Rapyta, Aggañña Sutta Völuspá) such as Genesis are not ussually labled with Creation myth. The reason this includes narrative is because its the only word that since we are only covering one aspect of that book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

← If we're going to open this wound up again, are there better avenues to take than thrashing it out (yet again) here? For instance, making a change over at WP:RNPOV that makes this policy clearer on the point of myth (it seems pretty clear to me already; i.e. that we should use the formal "myth"). Or WP:UCN, or wherever. I can't face another prolonged battle of rhetoric with the creationists. --P LUMBAGO 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Plumbago. What remains to discuss is a much larger policy wide discussion about creation myths or mythology in general and naming conventions.Griswaldo (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Narrative" versus a preferred "myth" (per meaning with regard to religion) already appears to be covered in the intent of:
 * "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."
 * at WP:RNPOV. Be that as it may, I'd agree that WP:RNPOV needs some beefing up regarding consistency in usage of terminology. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The majority of the current reliable and notable sources on the topic do not call it "Genesis creation myth" but conversely Genesis creation account and Genesis creation story. That's exactly why I argued for the present title, because of the majority of current reliable sources on the topic.  It is a false assumption that they call this creation myth a "myth" when they name it.  They hardly ever do Peters.  We've also been over this several times on the talk page.  Call it systemic bias if you want, but following the sources means following WP:UCN and what you quoted above from WP:RNPOV and that road does not lead to myth.Griswaldo (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet you forget that your alleged "majority of the current current reliable and notable sources" is not religiously/ideologically neutral. The question whether religiously motivated sources are reliable at all has not been answered around here to begin with. <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;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya'll are missing the point, We are not discussing WP:RNPOV but WP:Impliedbytitle as far as naming conventions go. Whether people like it or not the word myth implies as one one of its definitions falsity or Fairy tale on that thus myth is not used. This Article mentions its a creation myth in the second sentence (IMHO it should be part of the first) so RNPOV is satisfied. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that "myth" brings up strong connotations in layman terms, and wikipedia is meant for laymen. However, I agree with the fact that narrative seems off. Just move it back to Creation according to Genesis or some other title which won't continuously bring this debate up. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You agree with the _FACT_ that narrative "seems" off?? Don't you mean, you agree with the OPINION? Please, let's be just a little more precise with our language. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Til calm down, I understand where he is coming from and in fact agree with him entirely. However considering the months long slow motion editwar we went through to get a neutral title I frankly dont feel like opening that can of worms again. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Myth, narrative, and intellectual honesty
For those editors unfamiliar with the hotly-debated Wikipedia controversy over Genesis having a "creation narrative" while every other religious tradition has a "creation myth", please check the searchable Archives. The current version of the lead paragraph with the "As a creation myth … As a sacred narrative …" parallelism was a consensus compromise over the use of "Genesis creation myth."

For those unfamiliar with the comparative Mesopotamian/Hebrew similarities in creation mythology, the following list is from E. A. Speiser (1964, Genesis, p. 10), based upon Alexander Heidel (1963, The Babylonian Genesis, pp. 128-129). Keahapana (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty good, but I'd prefer something more recent to be sure we're reflecting current thinking.PiCo (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A good way to approach this might be to identify Gen.1-2 as part of the Primeval History, discuss theories of the relationship of the PH to Gen.12-50, and then briefly note the J and P sources as 6th century redactions. The place of Mesopotamian and Greek sources in Gen.1-2 and the PH can be worked into that. PiCo (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a translation of Enûma Eliš . The parallels in the table above don't exactly leap out for the reader.--agr (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If E.A. Speiser says the parallels are there, they're there; if you say they're not there, that's OR. PiCo (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed but suggesting that the existence of this parallelism makes the current title, or current split between two different contexts (sacred narrative and myth) somehow "intellectually dishonest" is also OR. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the thing. Plenty of published scholars have said they're not there, and the so-called parallels are really mostly a cooked-up fraud. You don't normally see scholars striving so hard and so willing to make so many stretches and intellectual leaps to propose there was literary borrowing between two documents where there was more probably none whatsoever. Scholars are normally way, way more careful than that. But this subject matter sadly attracts a different breed of scholar, and then a different breed of wikipedia editors with a vested interest or POV to push, will unite and proclaim those select scholars to have a monopoly, and all other scholars' viewpoints to be inadmissible heresy. Intellectual honesty is precisely what this is about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Published scholars such as who? You need sources.PiCo (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)