Talk:Creation myth

Australian Aborigines

I'm perplexed by the various classifications of creation myths found in the article, on several grounds:

• they are quite contradictory to each other, with their component categories having little in common;
• they are not noticeably evidence-based - or if they are, the article does not offer supporting evidence for them;
• not one of them seems to contain a category that usefully describes salient characteristics of the creation myths of the Australian Aborigines.

Within this latter, large group of creation myths, most serve to explicate:

1. the major topographical features of the lands occupied and cared for by an Aboriginal nation, and
2. distinctive features of important animals or plants.
   

They do so by referring to:

1. journeys undertaken by totemic animals, spirits and other ancestors through a pre-existing (and usually undifferentiated) landscape, and
2. particular actions taken by protagonists in a story of conflict, usually involving competition for resources (chiefly food or wives).

I doubt that the scholarly accounts are quite as remiss as this article makes them seem, but unfortunately, I don't know enough about the relevant works, or even the scholars. Now without me (or anyone) indulging in Original Research, I'd hope that some editor can remedy the faults I first listed?

yoyo (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't go into any detail about specific creation myths. What talkpage are you actually looking for? --King Öomie 19:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't go into specific detail of individual creation myths, but the article does need further development with more examples. I try to chip away at it little by little, but I'm no mighty-mo. More help is welcome here. (Note to those willing to help: It's important to key in on reliable sources of an academic nature instead of the do-it-yourself or popular content. ) Professor marginalia (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Big bang?

Shouldn't the big bang be mentioned here, I mean it fits perfectly into the chaos myth/theory? From chaos into creation, that's literally what it describes.... --Nabo0o (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong here. The Big Bang is a cosmogony, but it is not a cosmogonical myth, it's a cosmogonical "theory". Myths and theories are very different in their academic and real life (in most cases) contexts. The authoritative sources on both cultural myths and scientific theories are essentially agreed on this. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

erm, biased much? saying the big bang is fact not myth? actually the idea of creation from nothing is fact, not myth. the article should be renamed to exclude the word myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.6.229 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

here we go... 94.192.87.218 (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "saying the big bang is fact not myth", above, in case nobody has bothered to look at the Big Bang article yet, its lead sentence reads, "The Big Bang model or theory is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe.", Citing

• Wollack, Edward J. (10 December 2010). "Cosmology: The Study of the Universe". Universe 101: Big Bang Theory. NASA. Retrieved 27 April 2011.

as a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's make this simple. Creation is a myth because there is no evidence. The Big Bang Theory is a theory (in science, a fact) because there is overwhelming evidence supporting it. There we go. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"[I]n science, a fact" ... do you mean in the sense that evolution is considered a "fact," because it is a "theory for which there is overwhelming evidence?" It is entirely irrelevant to a mythological narrative whether or not there is scientific evidence propping it up. In the academic sense, myth is not defined by its lack of scientific evidence, but by its thematic content and its social and psychological functions. As a point of fact, I will note that to a vast majority of us there is actually no overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. That is to say most of who believe the Big Bang is the most likely explanation, do so because we trust scientific authorities and not because we understand or are even cognizant of the relevant scientific evidence. As such the Big Bang may actually fulfill many of the same social or psychological functions as a creation myth, while clearly covering some of the same thematic ground. I'm not arguing for inclusion here, simply pointing out that the dichotomy between "myth" and "scientific theory/fact" being presented above is a false dichotomy--unless of course what is meant by "myth" is "fiction," but that isn't scholarly nor, as far as I can tell, how we use myth here on Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I get seriously bored with academic philosophical discussions. Simply put, a scientific theory is essentially a fact. The rest of your post-modernist commentary....could care less to be honest. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Academic philosophical? Post-modernist?" Sorry, but this is very mainstream, very boring, and very pre "post-anything." Oh and it's not "philosophical" it is for the most part "social scientific." For instance, for the view that myth is defined by its social or psychological function see Structural functionalism. Why are you making points about what is or is not considered "fact" in the scientific community on the talk page of an entry about myth, a topic that is not defined by the status of scientific theories/facts? Apples and oranges. That's my point. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are talking to me about this? I'm not the OP, some IP author is. I know precisely what is a theory, and what is a myth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that there is a mass of people in the world that do not believe the creation is not a "myth". Instead of stating everything as "fact", no matter how much one believes that they are right, respect the views of others and their beliefs. One may not agree with someone else, but this debate, and that is all this is, will be ongoing until the Earth is destroyed, whether by a natural disaster or by religious prophecy. There is always going to be someone out there trying to discredit religion and someone else the science. What is the point? Why can't we all get along and respect each other and their beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

While people can hold whatever beliefs they want, beliefs are also either accurate or not, and a belief alone establishes nothing about its own accuracy. ‘The point’ of acknowledging fallacious reasoning when it occurs is to, you know, try to stop doing it. Do you really want to discourage debate? --Saerain (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is a distinction between the Big Bang Theory and creation myths. If not because of the strong scientific evidence in support thereof, then because it has no 'narrative', nor social or psychological function. Or perhaps it is distinct from a creation myth because creation myths are believed to be false by most people. Either way, it clearly has no place in this article.JTansut (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The big bang, although I believe it to be a myth, does not involve creation, so it wouldn't belong here. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No. the Big Bang shouldn't be mentioned here. "The Big Bang theory isn't about the bang itself, but about what happened after the bang."[Bryson, Bill (2004). A short history of nearly everything. Black Swan. p. 32. ISBN 9780552151740.] However (said half in jest, but only half), vacuum genesis might; also quantum genesis.[Ferris, Timothy (1988). Coming of age in the Milky Way. Morrow. pp. 351–356. ISBN 9780688058890.] Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree with the overall direction of this article (mainly as it feels it has a direction) it would be wholly incorrect to discuss the Big Bang in this article. A myth by definition is a story or narrative. Whilst not everyone believes the big band theory to be correct, it is not a myth. Theories are for another page. Jkennedy561 (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not a myth, - clearly not a traditional story, doesn't have the characteristics of a myth, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree, there is a distinction that should be made between the scientific theory and the commonly held beliefs about the creation of the world via "big bang." I'm sure those popular beliefs can be easily compared to other folk traditions, including ancient creation mythology. But the theory itself, no.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a point about the "creation of the world via 'big bang'", but not the theory itself being on here, Griswaldo. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Creation myths are symbolic traditional narratives; the Big Bang is the scientific consensus about the current (and past) expansion of spacetime. It's not even like comparing apples and oranges - it's like listing "happiness" as a type of vegetable. 74.14.121.19 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbolic narrative?

User SudoGhost and I have a disagreement about using the word "symbolic" in the definition of creation myth. I argue that we should remove it because it is unencyclopedic due to the fact that it is both biased and objectively wrong. The word "symbolic" means that the text/narrative/etc either deals with symbols or that it is a symbol. A symbol, by definition, is something which represents something other than what it actually is. As such, defining "creation myth" as a "symbolic narrative" is equivalent to saying that a creation myth is by definition something that contains elements (or something that IS, in its entirety,) representing something other than what it explicitly represents. Now, a definition should include all things which it applies to. It is an objective fact that a large number of people who believe these myths, oftentimes entire cultures, do not take their myths as being symbolic. They believe that their myths represent a literal historical account of events that occurred in the past. As such, a definition including the word "symbolic" is wrong because it excludes many things which are clearly creation myths from being creation myths. Does a creation myth involving flying gods and talking animals suddenly stop being a creation myth simply because the people who believe it believe it literally? Are ALL creation myths objectively symbolic? Must something be, by definition, symbolic in order for it to be a creation myth?

SudoGhost can correct me if I misrepresent his argument in any way shape or form, but I believe this is a fair representation of his argument: He believes that my definition of the word "symbolic" is wrong. I suggest readers should look up for themselves the wiktionary definitions as well as definitions from other dictionaries.

He says: "Wiktionary gives the definiton of Symbolic (in this use) as "Referring to something with an implicit meaning." It then gives implicit as "Having no reservations or doubts; unquestioning or unconditional; usually said of faith or trust." In this meaning, therefore, a symbolic narrative is something that has a meaning that some people believe unconditionally."

later on he says: "if a group of people believe a creation myth without doubt or reservation, that makes it symbolic. Whether they believe the literal meaning or not is immaterial to that. This is what is meant by symbolic narrative. The difference between a creation myth and a work of fiction about the creation of the world is that there are people that believe it without doubt or reservation"

and: "The defining thing about a creation myth is that it is symbolic to some people. Not everyone. This is what separates a creation myth from a work of fiction."

"Nothing is symbolic to everyone. That is the definition of the word symbolic, therefore saying that it is not symbolic to other people is irrelevant."

"I think the issue may also stem from you confusing the word symbol with the meaning given to religious symbolism. That article says that religions view religious texts, rituals, and works of art as symbols of compelling ideas or ideals. This means that creation myths are therefore symbolic, as they are religious texts (written or not) in one form or another."

I have taken out the word "symbolic" from the article's definition because I believe it is clearly erroneous, given the definitions involved. The original discussion can be found at User talk:TheAlphaWolf. --TAW (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the word symbolic is needed. Jesanj (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss semantics all day, but at the end of the day, Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:verifiability, not truth. That a creation myth is a symbolic narrative is reliably sourced by a cultural anthropologist (per reference #2 in the article). - SudoGhost 15:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a threshold for inclusion is verifiability. But just because it is verifiable doesn't mean it is worth including. We can exercize editorial discretion. A cultural anthropologist wrote that. So what? Why should we? Maybe they were writing in anthropological language. We don't necessarily have to. Why is the word symbolic needed? Jesanj (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a cultural anthropologist that specializes in symbolism would use the word symbolic incorrectly, nor would she use the word to describe something unless that was the correct word for it. This reference gives weight to this definition, and makes it worth including. The word symbolic needs to be there, as this is what separates a creation myth from any other story about creation. Creation myths are symbolic. Stories of fiction about creation are not. This is why the word is needed. "So what?" isn't a reason to remove this word. - SudoGhost 16:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on editors to make an argument about why the word is needed. Jesanj (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read what you just linked. It is a reliably sourced meaning, fulfilling WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Aside from that, I have explained why this word is needed. I have fulfilled this burden. - SudoGhost 16:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Singularly, it has nothing to do with weight, in my opinion. That would require assessing many sources. Jesanj (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources are not, and never have been, quantity over quality. If you can find a stronger source than a professor and cultural archeologist that specializes in symbolism, by all means, please provide one. - SudoGhost 16:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If "symbolic" is used by the reliable source, then we are compelled to channel that characterization of creation myths into the article. However, I wonder if we could identify a suitable synonym that might alleviate TheAlphaWolf's concern. I understand why "symbolic narrative" is somewhat problematic. First of all, many people who believe in one of the creation myths believe the myths to be symbolic or allegorical whereas others believe them to be literal. On that same token, a creation myth could be "symbolic" in that, for someone who believes it, it represents something more than just a literal narrative; for example, the Maori legend that the islands of New Zealand were hauled from the ocean like a giant fish by some kind of divine entity, could be taken to mean that, but also have greater implications for their culture or belief system, as an extension rather than a subversion of the meaning of the narrative. Quickly glancing at potential synonyms, I think some of these might be suitable for paraphrasing the reliable source in a way that carries the author's meaning but diminishes the confusion for readers? augural, emblematic, meaningful (these are just a few quick ones I found). Any thoughts? This article's lead admittedly has a tough job to do. It has to characterize creation myths in a way that readers will understand before they venture further down to read endless creation myths that mercilessly differ from one another in their structure, adherence, cultural context, and more. John Shandy` • talk 16:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Here, we're not compelled by one reliable source to do anything, in my opinion. Yes, the key here is that many individuals take their creation myths literally. By using the word symbolic, I think we are likely reflecting a subjective bias that no creation myths have literal truth value. Jesanj (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are. That's what a reliable source is. A creation myth being literal has nothing to do with it. Read further down the lede. It says "a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense" why would the lede say this if creation myths were not taken literally? Symbolic does not by default mean "figurative". - SudoGhost 16:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I assumed we were all competent enough that I didn't need to qualify my statements by noting that we are compelled by a preponderance of reliable sources, rather than one source. That a creation myth is a symbolic narrative doesn't preclude another creation myth from having literal meaning. Indeed, all narratives have a literal interpretation (what is written or spoken), and all narratives are open to readers' own interpretation or perception of symbolism. If it prevails that scholars of creation myths characterize creation myths as symbolic, then it's imperative that we transmit that characterization into the article, but I see no problem in choosing another word (one less likely to be contested) to do the channeling. John Shandy` • talk 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this version? Jesanj (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No complaint about that from me. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, but I don't know whether it will appease the concerns of the other editors. John Shandy` • talk 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much of what has been said. I think adding a "can" to the definition so that it says "Creation myths CAN have symbolic meanings" would be perfect (or even "often have"). I also like the alternative of using a phrase like "meaningful narrative", because AFAIK it's universal and it would be hard to misinterpret what it means. As it is, "symbolic narrative" is (apparently) misleading and unclear. Wikipedia should not be using highly technical terms which would easily mislead the readers into thinking they meant something else. At least not without providing a clear definition of how that term is being used (although I would be willing to bet my house that "symbolic narrative" has no highly technical definition and merely means a narrative that contains symbols or is a symbol itself). --TAW (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to say can. Symbolic narrative is a reliably sourced definition, and if you think it is unclear, expand and elaborate, don't remove the word, as that changes the entire meaning. - SudoGhost 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing it changes is that it broadens the definition to include all creation myths, not just the narrow subset that are meant or interpreted as being symbolic. I CAN'T expand/elaborate, because it's unclear and there is no definition out there that I have been able to find which in any way shape or form supports your claims of what "symbolic" means. If you don't think it's unclear, why don't you "expand and elaborate" it yourself? I will repeat my challenge from before: find ANY dictionary out there that DIRECTLY defines the word "symbolic" as meaning anything even close to what you claim it means: "to have faith in", "to believe unquestioningly", or any variations thereof.

As was previously pointed out, the burden is on you to justify the addition of a misleading term which narrows the definition. The only justification you've given so far is that you want to blindly and unthinkingly follow what one source said--TAW (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Read this "previously pointed out" conversation again, and then read WP:BURDEN. I have fulfilled this "burden". All creation myths are symbolic narratives, whether literal or not. Show me a single reliable source that says otherwise. This is your burden, and anything short of this will not permit you from removing a sourced definition, simply because you erroneously thing it cannot apply to everything. As for your definition rant, you're repeating things that have already been refuted on your talk page multiple times. Stop repeating it. - SudoGhost 01:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I will revert the article back to the test version I pointed out above, as I think there is a rough consensus that it would be an improvement. Jesanj (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you (and everyone else) think about adding "often have" to the "Creation myths have symbolic meanings" sentence? This version of the article ("Creation myths have symbolic meanings") is meaningfully equivalent to saying "Creation myths are symbolic narratives". It just says it in a different place, with a slightly different wording. It is still saying/implying that creation myths must always have symbolic meanings.--TAW (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See above. - SudoGhost 01:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this improves the lede, I think it hurts it instead. A creation myth is not simply a narrative. Otherwise, how is any work of fiction that details creation not a creation myth? Like a creation myth, it is a narrative of a culture. The only difference is that it is not symbolic. It holds no meaning. Something symbolic has meaning, whether literal or not. - SudoGhost 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that the current version does imply all creation myths have symbolic meanings, but that this was OK as it does not preclude the possibility of any one creation myth from being literally true. @TAW, do you know of any RS that says not all creation myths have symbolic meaning? Jesanj (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, per the Manual of Style. WP:BEGINNING says that If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible. Moving symbolic from the first sentence to further down violates this, and doesn't expand the reader's understanding of the subject in any way. I think providing context for symbolic narrative would be better than burying it farther down the lede, perhaps by linking symbolic to Religious symbolism. - SudoGhost 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesanj: If you're asking for a source that specifically says that not all creation myths have symbolic meaning, that's a completely unfair standard. You won't be able to find a single definition of a house that specifically says that it doesn't have to be red, but that doesn't mean that all houses must be red. Not finding a source that says what something doesn't have to be be is meaningless.

Per the manual of style you cited Ghost, removing "symbolic" from the definition IS the best choice. It puts the article in the context of the nonspecialist. And once again, I will point out that even Ghost doesn't seem to be able to justify his definition of "symbolic". He hasn't provided us with a single source that clearly (and directly) defines the word "symbolic" to mean "meaningful", "something that is accepted as truth", or anything similar.--TAW (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. Removing symbolic changes the meaning, one that isn't descriptive enough to accurately define the article's subject. I have provided a source that defines creation myth as "symbolic narrative". You've provided no evidence to the contrary. I'm more apt to rely on a cultural anthropologist than an editor that doesn't understand context. As John_Shandy` said above, "If "symbolic" is used by the reliable source, then we are compelled to channel that characterization of creation myths into the article." Your analogy above is also extremely faulty, as there are not reliable sources that say all houses are red, so that means nothing. - SudoGhost 02:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

TAW, I was following you up until this point, but now I'm lost. You say that Ghost hasn't been able to justify his claim that "symbolic" in this context actually means "meaningful", etc. instead of "non-literal". If that's true, then doesn't that count as a reason to keep the word "symbolic" in the lead? If the sources were using "symbolic" to mean "meaningful" rather than "non-literal", then we would have reason to remove the word "symbolic" and replace it with "meaningful", since the average reader isn't going to understand that "symbolic" means "meaningful" (as opposed to "non-literal"). But if the sources are using "symbolic" in its more common sense of "non-literal" or "allegorical", then the word "symbolic" should stay, because it accurately expresses to an average reader what the sources are saying. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Phatius McBluff: You bring up an interesting point. Personally, I think that unless there is a clear explanation of what the sources meant, the word "symbolic" should be removed. If they meant "symbolic" as is defined by the dictionary (take your pick), then it is wrong or misleading. As this discussion suggests, most readers interpret the word "symbolic" to be a near antonym of "non-literal". As such, it is misleading to use the term "symbolic". In addition, not all cultures believe their creation myths to be representative of something other than what they explicitly relate. As such, a literal interpretation of the word "symbolic" clearly makes the definition wrong (sources can be wrong), since it excludes myths which are taken literally. If they meant "symbolic" in the arbitrary, ad-hoc sense that Ghost wishes them to have meant (which is not used anywhere I've been able to find, and he refuses to provide a source), then you're right- a far less ambiguous and misleading term should be substituted in its place. Whichever scenario though, the bottom line is that it's either wrong or misleading to use the word "symbolic". If possible, an alternate word should be substituted. If not, it should be removed.--TAW (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I seriously hope you're kidding. Half of this discussion has been about a given source, one that you refuse to approach, because you don't like the word symbolic. You haven't provided any evidence that symbolic is not the correct word, other than your opinion. Wikipedia is not based on faulty editor opinions when reliable sources say otherwise. - SudoGhost 03:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sudo: I don't understand what you disagree with and why. I agree with the italicized quote, and I think the current version meets them. Jesanj (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not. You removed a sourced definition from the first sentence, and against the manual of style, moved it further down the lede. "A creation myth or creation story is a narrative that presents an account" is not what the source gives, and is an incorrect definition. If I were to say "Steve created the world and then put people there", by the definition you changed it to, that automatically becomes a creation myth. Despite the fact that this obviously isn't one, it meets this article's current definition. Creation myths have religious symbolism. Stories that are works of fiction do not. Changing the first lede sentence removed this distinction. - SudoGhost 02:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"A creation myth or creation story is a religious narrative that presents an account"... there. Fixed.--TAW (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sudo: I think you're splitting hairs. Jesanj (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to take sides in this dispute ... yet. However, I think both sides of this dispute are missing the real questions to an extent.

The pro-"symbolic" folks suggest that "symbolic" is not really problematic because in this context it simply means "meaningful" or "significant" (rather than "non-literal"). They then resist any effort to remove the word "symbolic", pointing out that reliable sources use it. The problem here is that WP policy does not require us to reproduce the exact wording of reliable sources. (Indeed, if we did so, then every article would be 100% plagiarism!) Yes, reliable sources define creation myths as "symbolic narratives", but that doesn't mean that we have to use the phrase "symbolic narratives". If the reliable sources make it clear that they are using the word "symbolic" to mean "X", then we can say "X" instead of "symbolic". The real question is not whether reliable sources use the word "symbolic" but, rather, whether they clearly imply what they mean by "symbolic". If they do, then we can (and should) replace the word "symbolic" with a word that explains what "symbolic" actually means in the reliable sources.

The anti-"symbolic" folks argue that "symbolic" needs to go because it implies (incorrectly) that no one takes creation myths literally. When the pro-"symbolic" folks point out that "symbolic" might actually mean "meaningful" (or something like that) instead of "non-literal", the anti-"symbolic" folks (or TAW, at any rate) respond by saying that the pro-"symbolic" folks don't have any evidence that "symbolic" means anything other than "non-literal". But wait. If that's true, then doesn't it count as a reason to keep the word "symbolic" in the lead? If the sources were using "symbolic" to mean "meaningful" rather than "non-literal", then we would have reason to remove the word "symbolic" and replace it with "meaningful", since the average reader isn't going to understand that "symbolic" means "meaningful" (as opposed to "non-literal"). But if the sources are using "symbolic" in its more common sense of "non-literal" or "allegorical", then the word "symbolic" should stay, because it accurately expresses to an average reader what the sources are saying.

To sum up:

• Either the reliable sources are using "symbolic" to mean "non-literal" or they aren't.
• If they are using "symbolic" to mean "non-literal", then we should keep "symbolic" in the lead. You may think that the reliable sources are wrong, that not all cultures regard their creation myths as non-literal. But that doesn't matter. On WP, truth doesn't matter; only reliable sources do.
• If the reliable sources are using "symbolic" to mean (for example) "meaningful", and the sources themselves make this clear, then there is no reason for us to confuse readers with the word "symbolic"; we should replace it with the word "meaningful".

Do people agree or disagree? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I think it makes good sense. IMO it's also possible the sources could have meant both non-literal and meaningful. Jesanj (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I do agree, but the reason I think symbolic is the key word is that I've seen multiple sources that define myths (including creation myths) specifically as symbolic narratives. I don't think that many sources would use those two words specifically if they weren't what was meant. - SudoGhost 03:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with a few minor details, but the gist is correct... in isolation. We all (-Ghost) agree that if "symbolic" means "meaningful", "religious", or something similar, we should replace it. Let's assume, then, that it DOESN'T mean that, and that it actually means the dictionary definition. Well, there is a vast number of reliable sources (here's just one) reporting the fact that not all cultures regard their creation myths as non-literal. Unless you are willing to exclude the genesis creation myth, the very one which is the inspiration for the main image in the article, then one (or both, in theory) of the sources must be wrong. We can either take out all reference to the genesis creation myth, or we can simply take out the word "symbolically" from the definition (or say "often have symbolic meanings").--TAW (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see this. Why a symbolic narrative means "cannot possibly be literal by anyone who reads it" doesn't seem clear, and your logic is refuted by multiple reliable sources. If you're going to make the argument that "X means Y, and Y cannot be true, so X cannot be in the article", you need to establish that X actually does mean Y, and not with your opinion, but with reliable sources, especially when your opinion is being contradicted by multiple reliable sources. - SudoGhost 04:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That definition of "symbolic" is so vague and general as to be meaningless. Yes, all narratives are open to readers' own interpretation or perception of symbolism, but that does not make the narrative objectively symbolic. That does not make narratives by definition symbolic. If it did, then EVERYTHING would be symbolic, because EVERYTHING is open to observers' own interpretation or perception of symbolism, and the word "symbolic" would have no meaning.

I have already established that "X actually does mean Y". I've linked to dictionary definitions of both "symbolic" and "symbol" (dealing with symbols for the former, and something that represents something else for the latter). It is not my opinion, it is the explicit dictionary definition. I have also established that Y isn't true. The fact remains that there are cultures out there whose basic tenants include the idea that their creation myths are not symbolic, but are "real, reliable, historical" (quoted from here). They do not believe that the creation story represents something other than it explicitly purports to represent.--TAW (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick search turns up the following sources that describe creation myths as "symbolic":

1. Charles H. Long, "creation myth", Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition: "The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community."
2. David Adams Leeming and Margaret Adams Leeming, A Dictionary of Creation Myths, p. vii: "Like all myths, creation myths are etiological — they use symbolic narrative to explain beginnings..."
3. Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, p. 267: "symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular tradition and community"
4. Ida H. Stamhuis, The Changing Image of the Sciences, p. 149: "The Encyclopaedia Britannica offers the following, useful definition. A 'Creation Myth' (or 'cosmogonic myth') is: 'a symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular tradition and community...'"
5. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, p. 411: "creation myth or cosmogony Symbolic narrative of the creation and organization of the world as understood in a particular tradition."

However, this source seems to restrict the term "symbolical" to only certain cultures' interpretations of their creation myths: David Leeming, "Creation", The Oxford Companion to World Mythology: "Many of the father god people—perhaps because of their commitment to the ideal of power—have, over the centuries, tended to insist on a literal rather than symbolical understanding of their myths." (Oddly, this is the same David Leeming who co-authored A Dictionary of Creation Myths above!) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading this (and I welcome others to double-check), it seems to suggest that yes, symbolic narratives are often taken literally. However, that does not mean that there is not a symbolic meaning behind these narratives. This is what I gathered from this source. From this I would say that symbolic narratives are often taken literally, but this does that mean that the symbolism behind the literal is not present, nor does it mean that a literal interpretation of a creation myth negates the fact that it is still symbolic narrative. - SudoGhost 05:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Could the issue here be that whether something is a creation myth or not is relative? Narrative X is a creation myth to people Y, but it is NOT a creation myth to people Z? Because as I said earlier, if something is objectively a creation myth or not, and the first few definitions apply, then the genesis narrative (as well as many others, but I'm most familiar with this one) cannot be a creation myth, since it isn't currently symbolic to a large portion of christians. In addition, it most certainly was not symbolic to nearly all christians before Darwin came along with The Origin. It seems silly to say that the genesis narrative was NOT a creation myth and then gradually became one, even though the narrative itself did not change one iota.

Anyway, my point is that IF the term "creation myth" is relative, we would be forced to a) find sources to confirm this fact, and b) basically have to completely rewrite the article to make this clear

as for Ghost's point, how can an encyclopedia say whether something is objectively and by definition symbolic? I think it's legitimate to say that X CAN be symbolic to some people, but to make the positive statement that something IS symbolic is to make a claim about objective reality.--TAW (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're unsure, then the best route is to follow what reliable sources say. Reliable sources overwhelmingly say that creation myths are symbolic narratives. Creation myths can be taken literally and allegorically at the same time, that some people take the creation myth literally does not automatically strip any symbolism from the narrative. - SudoGhost 05:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

lol... from the article cited: "An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a symbolic, rather than literal, reading of the biblical Book of Genesis.". And yet, from allegory: "Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation." Yay, more articles that should be corrected.--TAW (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's another quote from that article: "Some Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description"... really, the only thing this goes to show is that the word "symbolic" is seen by most people to be an antonym of "literal" or "historical description". Just goes to show that we should specify what the word "symbolic" means, otherwise it is just plain misleading.--TAW (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So you would be fine with "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative..." as long as we clarified that meaning? - SudoGhost 05:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can justify using that clarified meaning with reputable sources. If "symbolic" means "meaningful" or any of the things you say they mean in anthropological circles, then fine. I have nothing against using the correct technical term. But you have to prove that it is indeed the correct technical term for "meaningful"/etc. Otherwise there is no justification for "clarifying" the meaning.--TAW (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already proven that it belongs in the article. It is reliably sourced, and there are many strong reliable sources that verify this further. Your opinion is that creation myths are not symbolic narratives. Anthropologists overwhelmingly disagree with you. It's up to you to show (not opine) why "symbolic" doesn't belong. I have provided a source above that details how a creation myth can be taken literally by people and still be defined as a symbolic narrative. - SudoGhost 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. We were talking about the MEANING of the word "symbolic", not whether any sources use that word. Read your and my previous posts again. Your last post is a complete non-sequitur--TAW (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to expand on the meaning of the word, that is open to discussion. However, the definition is reliably sourced, and belongs in the lede sentence of the article. Do you disagree, and if so, what can you provide that disputes this? Being a symbolic narrative does not preclude a literal interpretation, that has been shown in the source above, and I believe that was the objection. - SudoGhost 05:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think that you two are arguing past each other to an extent. Before Ghost returned to the issue of sourcing, his point was that a story can have literal and symbolic layers of meaning simultaneously. TAW seems to have taken him to mean that the word "symbolic" isn't opposed to the word "literal". Well, of course the words are opposed in a certain sense: a symbolic meaning is, on most ordinary definitions, a non-literal meaning. But that doesn't mean that a community cannot simultaneously attribute both literal and symbolic meanings to one and the same text. Indeed, during the Middle Ages, it was considered a truism that scripture had four different layers of meaning, only one of which was literal (see Allegory in the Middle Ages).

Wouldn't one solution be to appeal to take the "attribution" escape route? When there's disagreement about a certain claim in a WP article, it's common to add "According to source A" or "According to a number of sources" to beginning of the claim. This qualifies the claim, but in a way that does no violence to its content. Ghost objected to rewording "Creation myths are symbolic narratives..." as "Creation myths often have symbolic meanings" because the sources do not say "often". But if we say, "A number of sources define creation myths as symbolic narratives...", then we are qualifying the claim without misrepresenting the sources. Here is my idea for what we should say somewhere in the lead:

Definitions of creation myths vary. A number of sources define a creation myth as a "symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood" by a particular "tradition" or "community".[A] Other sources define a creation myth as "a cosmogony", a "narrative" or "story" "that describes the original ordering", or "the origins", "of the universe".[B]

For [A], we could provide the following citations:

1. Charles H. Long, "creation myth", Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition: "The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community."
2. Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, p. 267: "symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular tradition and community"
3. Ida H. Stamhuis, The Changing Image of the Sciences, p. 149: "The Encyclopaedia Britannica offers the following, useful definition. A 'Creation Myth' (or 'cosmogonic myth') is: 'a symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular tradition and community...'"
4. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, p. 411: "creation myth or cosmogony Symbolic narrative of the creation and organization of the world as understood in a particular tradition."

For [B], we could provide the following citations:

1. David Adams Leeming and Margaret Adams Leeming, A Dictionary of Creation Myths, p. vii: "A creation myth is a cosmogony, a narrative that describes the original ordering of the universe".
2. David Adams Leeming, Margaret Adams Leeming, Encyclopedia of Creation Myths: "A creation myth is a cosmogony, a narrative that describes the original ordering of the universe."
3. David Adams Leeming, A Dictionary of Asian Mythology, p. 47: "A creation myth is a cosmogony, a story that describes the origin of the universe."

What do people think? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That revision would be true, so I think it works. I don't have time to elaborate, but while I still think it is wrong and misleading to say creation myths are objectively symbolic, it is fair to acknowledge the fact that some sources do define creation myths that way.--TAW (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not like the attribution solution. Not in the lead of an article about something this basic. The sources almost exclusively call it a symbolic narrative. There is no problem with both using "symbolic" as a descriptor and pointing out that some communities have also read the narratives as literal. Whatever happens please do not perpetuate the poor writing of one of the sources above which claims it "is understood by a tradition ..." Traditions don't understand things. Understood "within" a tradition would be fine. By a community, within a tradition. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We only really have two different definitions. The ones calling it a symbolic narrative are clearly copying each other's definition, as the wording is far too similar for that to not be the case. The ones calling it a cosmogony (and clearly they should have said "religious cosmogony") are written by the same authors. I don't like the idea that we have to mindlessly parrot something just because sources say it. Sources can be wrong and they can contradict each other. Even you Griswaldo clearly think so, since you're advocating that we not say something which is in a number of sources- that the myths are understood by a tradition.

The oxford dictionary defines "literal" as "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory" (emphasis mine). It defines "allegory" as "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one" "a symbol.". By extension then, a literal interpretation means that something cannot be symbolic. (note that I said "a literal interpretation". The word "literal" has other meanings, such as "representing the exact words of the original text.". Something can be both symbolic AND literal in this sense, but this is is not be the sense in which creationists/fundamentalists mean when they say the bible should be interpreted literally)

The bottom line is that we have conflicting sources. One source says that a creation myth must, by their definition, be symbolic. Other sources say that something being symbolic means that it is not literal (with the caveat I mentioned above), and other sources report the fact that some cultures or traditions interpret their creation myths as being literal.

This conflict is EASILY resolved by simply using the definition from another reliable source, one that doesn't imply that ALL creation myths MUST be symbolic. Alternatively, since we DO have reliable sources which do not consider a symbolic meaning to be absolutely necessary for a creation myth, the word "symbolic" can simply be removed from the definition in the article. I will note that doing so is both a)unbiased b)objective c)verifiable. There is NO good reason why we SHOULD include the word "symbolic" in the definition. Yet there are quite a number of reasons (it's misleading, confusing, biased, and wrong) why we SHOULD remove the word "symbolic. --TAW (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're providing original research, your opinion, not verifiable fact. Reliable sources call creation myths symbolic narratives. All of these anthropologists wouldn't call them symbolic narratives if they didn't mean exactly that. I have already provided a source above that says that symbolic narratives can be taken literally and still be symbolic, thus negating your entire argument. There are no conflicting sources. As for "There is NO good reason why we SHOULD include the word "symbolic" in the definition." How about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT? I'd give those more value than your opinion. Reliably sourced information with significant weight doesn't magically go away because you don't like it, or because your overgeneralized dictionary definition assumes it contradicts something, when a reliable source has already shown that it does not. Reliable sources trump your opinion, especially the overwhelming number of reliable sources contradicting your opinion. - SudoGhost 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the sources are what guide us. TAW, to be clear its one source, as far as I can tell, that uses the incorrect "understood by" but that fact doesn't make a difference anyway as it has no bearing on the "symbolic" issue. The sources say "symbolic" and its clear as day.Griswaldo (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I am not providing original research, just showing that sources contradict each other. I am NOT putting words in the mouths of the sources, they used those words themselves. I am also not changing the meaning of the words, that's what the words MEAN. YOU are the one doing original research in saying that "symbolic" means "something that is believed", "meaningful", etc. The burden of proof is on you to show that what the sources meant was something other than the dictionary definition. That is what you're claiming.

2) How has anything I've said not been verifiable? I linked you to the definitions of "symbolic", "literal", "allegory", etc. I also linked you to research reporting the fact that some traditions interpret the bible literally, and Phatius linked to sources defining "creation myth" in a way that shows that a "symbolic" interpretation is NOT a necessary component of a creation myth.

3) Sorry, could you provide the reliable source saying "that says that symbolic narratives can be taken literally and still be symbolic" again? I must have missed it, because all I see is a link to a wikipedia article (not a reliable source) which a) does not cite reliable sources for the relevant claims, at least as far as I can tell, b) explicitly warns the reader that that article may contain original research, and c) outright implies that the words "symbolic" and "literal" are antonyms and thus mutually exclusive. For example: "An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a symbolic, rather than literal", "Some Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description", and says "Those who read Genesis literally" vs. "Those who favor an allegorical interpretation of the story". Your very source puts "literal" and "symbolic" interpretations in opposing camps.

4)The sources cited above which do not use the word "symbolic" in their definition of "creation myth" ARE WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT. They clearly and unambiguously show that a "symbolic" interpretation is NOT a necessary component of a creation myth. As such, "There is NO good reason why we SHOULD include the word "symbolic" in the definition.". Let me repeat it: There are sources that fit the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT categories which clearly show that the word symbolic is not needed in the definition. There is therefore no good reason to stubbornly demand that our definition must include the word "symbolic" in it.

5)Reliable sources trump your opinion

6)Griswaldo, you're using a double standard. The sources (two of them, #2 and #3 above) say "as understood by a particular tradition" as clear as day. By your own logic, you have no basis for wanting to exclude that phrase from wikipedia's definition. In fact, at the present time, you have far less basis than I do wanting to remove the word "symbolic". You haven't shown that "understood by a particular tradition" is wrong, misleading, biased, etc.

7)This argument is getting old. Do NOT simply repeat what you've been saying before. If you want to argue my points, then show me EXACTLY why the oxford dictionary is not a reliable source, or why it isn't verifiable, or how the definition of "literal" is NOT in opposition to the word "symbolic", or how using the word "symbolic" is not going to mislead many readers, or how the word symbolic is a an absolutely integral part of the term "creation myth". In other words, address my points. Do NOT ignore my points and just repeat the same old canards. Here's a hint: I numbered my points, number yours as well.--TAW (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a strong opinion on this issue either way. But TAW, I think you're misunderstanding what Ghost means when he says you're engaged in OR. We don't have any source that explicitly says, "Not all creation myths are symbolic narratives". In arguing against the word "symbolic", you appeal to (1) sources that say that "symbolic" means "non-literal" and (2) a source that says that some people interpret Genesis literally; you then combine these sources to yield the conclusion that not all creation myths are symbolic. That is, of course, original research.

Now, I'm not saying that TAW's original research shouldn't influence us as editors. Of course, as OR, it shouldn't be inserted as article content; but as TAW rightly points out, WP editors do have the right to exercise editorial discretion. Editorial discretion may involve refraining from adding certain phrases even though they could be sourced. Nonetheless, TAW, since you must synthesize various sources in order to reach the conclusion that not all creation myths are symbolic, that conclusion counts as "original research" in a perfectly straightforward, non-judgmental sense of the term. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We should definitely not be using any dictionary to explain how specific reliable sources in specific situations are using a word. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

TAW, "understood by a tradition" is simply poor writing. It means that a tradition can understand something which isn't correct because only people or groups of people "understand" things. Understanding requires consciousness, something that a tradition does not have. Major publications make these minor errors at times, but we need not repeat them. On the other hand this issue, once again, has nothing to do with the use of "symbolic". I can repeat that to you until I'm blue in the face but what needs to happen is for you to listen. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Braziller 1963

This work is cited in several places but is not listed in the References section. The References section does contain a work listed as

• Long, Charles H. (1963). Alpha: The Myths of Creation. New York: George Braziller. ISBN 0891306048. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

However, Google books lists that ISBN as

• Long, Charles H. (1963). Alpha: the myths of creation. Scholars Press. ISBN 978-0-89130-604-7.

I'm guessing that the Braziller cites should probably name Long as the author, but that's just a guess -- they might be referring to another book. I don't have access to the Long book and can't check it out. Could someone who has access please straighten this out? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to the text, but as far as ISBNs go, Amazon is very stringent about not displaying books that do not have proper ISBNs (it will attempt to notify the publisher and sort things out to retrieve an appropriate ISBN from the publisher). On Amazon I see that the ISBN ending in numbers 47 is correct. However, one thing I have noticed about ISBNs over the years, is that different versions or prints of books can sometimes contain different ISBNs. For example, I have some textbooks in ebook format and on the copyright notice page, they list an ISBN for the hardcopy, an ISBN for the electronic copy, and sometimes I have seen an ISBN for the paperback copy (though I think it's rare, I think hardcopy/paperback usually share the same ISBN, but I could be wrong). So, I think the cites are correct and do mean to cite Charles Long. Unfortunately, I don't have the text. Perhaps check your local library and see if you can obtain it via interlibrary loan? Best wishes, John Shandy` • talk 04:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Braziller is supposed to be the publisher, not the author, and according to google books that edition doesn't have an ISBN. It's my screw-up, I'm sure-I templated numerous references here en masse. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)