Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Scholarly consensus and other POVs

Frankly, after all the above chatter and subsequent edits to find consensus, the result as I read it has been a loss of perspicuity and cogency. The lede is too long and detailed as it stands. It needs to set out a straightforward and clear overview of the topic which reflects the scholarly consensus of the topic. Further nuance that currently invades the lead should be left for the body. In my view, the earlier version that simply set out how scholars understand the construction and origins of genesis was much better. Finally, I might observe that overly long leads that start to lose themselves in this kind of detail, scream edit war and turn off readers interested in basic information about the topic. So in the ened, editors fight amongst themselves whilst sending readers scurrying elsewhere. Eusebeus (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how NPOV works Gorlitz. NPOV means that we do, by definition, bias ourselves toward the scholarly consensus.Farsight001 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above), the current revision paraphrasing the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is fine. No objections. BTW, I did like whoever had the essay of religious writings in their userspace - but my personal sympathies, if they don't align with academic consensus, can have no bearing on your, my, or his edits to Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. @Farsight001 "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So that means if only academic sources are represented, then it's POV. That is how how NPOV works.
2. The current note does meet my objections with leaving the phrase bare, although the mechanism of tracing the note may result in problems for some, but that should not be our concern. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Actual question (don't bite): "I am not aware of a scholarly, academic source which suspects that Genesis is a historical account outside of (perhaps) Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology...": this kind of idea (that Genesis is historical in some sense) is present in many, if not most, published sources (as are most influenced by Jewish or Christian theology to some degree, including virtually every ref given in the article), even if they are not by men who are considered the greatest exegetes alive (like Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, Sarna, Brueggemann, Carson, Wenham, etc., etc.): doesn't WP:WEIGHT necessitate including it somewhere in the article (a note seems like a better place than the body of the article to me, but even sections on "Genesis in Theology - Religion X", due to the fact that more than 50% of people alive are adherents of one of those religions? (I'm going to take a random guess and say about 20% of people are literal believers in them, given the polls I've seen over the years where even 22-26% of Brits and Americans held geocentrism to be true.) This must be balanced with the top-echelon scholarly consensus (as is presented properly in the lead, with all major scholarly viewpoints represented proportionately to their prevalence per word) as well, though, so (thinking aloud) I do not believe it is valid to include such (even if widely published, as they are views not held by the top echelon of exegetes) in the body of the article itself; we don't make 25% of the article on the solar system about Ptolemaic system because 25% of people don't know any better. Essentially, how do we determine weight? Is it depending solely on those sources judged to be superior, or depending on all mainstream published sources?

As a note, I do believe Genesis 1 to be history, as do many of these quoted scholars - of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history), which wasn't even a glimmer in the mind of any man until Gibbon wrote The Decline and Fall. For comparison, I'm assuming at least one of you have read Livy: do you think the Roman standard-bearers actually threw the golden eagle in to the ranks of the enemy whenever the tide of battle was turning, so that the legions would be ashamed, rush the enemy to catch up with the standard and rout them, or is it a symbolic motif? The "days of creation" are much like "throwing the standard" in Livy: it's history, but not history in the sense we've used the term since the Enlightenment. If I've expressed myself poorly, I apologize. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Does something like this satisfy those objectors to the current note? (Note, that I do believe the current note to be fully acceptable): "'Creation myth' is used in this article in the academic sense defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica: a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. It implies no judgment on the religious truth-value of what is thus described. See article creation myth for further details."? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It addresses most, if not all, of the concerns raised to date. As such I think it would be acceptable. I would like direct input from Zenkai251 as he (assuming male-ness) started this discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me too. I do doubt that our literalist readers will stop to consider what it means, let alone follow the link, but at least it will be there and we can refer them to it. PiCo (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I very much disagree with including wording which discusses, in any sense, the 'truth' of Genesis. That is not our job, and by saying "this doesn't mean Genesis is false", we directly imply that it may be true, which is entirely unwarranted. As an academic encyclopedia, must be impartial to the topic. John, I read through your comment, and I'm absolutely amazed by some of it; you went so far as to say that the idea Genesis is true appears in "most published sources". That's nonsense. My intention is not to be uncivil or uncollaborative, but to convey the depth of my amazement that other editors are agreeing with that kind of sentiment. We can't be basing content issues on random guesses about the number of people who might believe something, which appears to be one of the prime arguments for this wording. I'd like to stress, again, that controversial articles get these kinds of drive-by complaints all the time. We cannot compromise neutrality by making claims about the historical validity of Genesis just to appease those editors. Providing the definition of creation myth in the note is plain and obvious without associated neutrality/scope concerns. If an editor can't read or understand that note, the correct response is to direct them to the article, and to the ample references we have for the term.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like John's wording. It's much better than the current wording. I say go ahead and make the change. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mann Jess, you misunderstand me: I said (or meant to say, as I apologized in advance for being unclear) that in most published sources, Genesis is held to be true in some sense or to contain history in some sense - it's hardly ever held to be literally true, nor narrative history, but it is held to contain truth, although generally in a symbolic manner (e.g. the many interpretations of the story of the fall, which never include an apple; the statements about Gen 1 being about God's providence or majesty in the lead, and the interpretation of creation as manifesting the author's intention of demonstrating the dependence of everything on God [this one's in every modern exegesis]: it is held to contain this sort of symbolic history/myth/"timeless truth", not literal truth of narrative history:). I said, "of course it's not history in the modern sense (that is, scientific history)", and directly compared it to (fictional) symbolic motifs in Livy (specifically, the recurring throwing of the Eagle standard in to enemy ranks). Many (most) of these sources call it symbolic [and/or metaphorical and/or allegorical] history (Brueggemann, Wenham) or myth (which are essentially the same thing, according to the definition given: "a symbolic account of..."). In that sense, "history" no more implies "certain, narrative truth regarding the past" than does "myth" imply "certain, narrative falsehood regarding the past".

I believe most other editors are agreeing because they were able to muddle their way through my unclear prose: if they took it the way you have, I would disagree with it myself! I added "religious truth" to my proposed wording to make it clear that it had nothing to do with its historical truth-value one way or the other. As I said, I am content with the note the way it is (or with no note at all), but, echoing PiCo above, spoke in the hope that it will stabilize the first sentence of the article, and will be an acceptable wording to those two or three editors still objecting.

I will hold for at least a bit more discussion before I make the proposed change (including a reply from you to my hopefully-clarified statement) due to your objection. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the random guesses of numbers had nothing to do with the wording - they were a completely separate post, a thinking-aloud sort of musing on, "should there be sections or articles such as 'Genesis in Theology - Religion X'", along with addressing the views of other posters raised about N/POV. (The three comments had, I believe, seven trains of thought between them.) As regards to the other posters, if you read the entirety of the comment, you'll see that I conclude, "no, I don't think it's legitimate to add such in [referencing the poll that has 26% of US citizens as geocentrists], seeing how we don't give 25% of the article on solar system over to Ptolemaic views". I'm not a journalist: the little writing I do is extremely complex prose narrative, and some philosophy and theology (which has to be copy-edited before it's fit for publication, and also gives rise to my incessant need to qualify every statement, which you overlooked): I have to try to keep my length down and intelligibility up when I write, as demonstrated by giving rise to misunderstanding in an obviously intelligent editor.

As Cicero said, and I must on Wikipedia aspire to: “When you wish to speak, be concise; that the minds of men take in quickly what you say, learn it, and retain it correctly. Every word that is superfluous only pours over the side of a brimming mind.” St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As Cicero should have said: "Keep it simple!" PiCo (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stupid! It's ironic that I never noticed that Cicero's rhetoric is the antithesis of what he's preaching in that snippet, and I simplified it significantly by quoting from memory. I'm more like Cicero does (however much less eloquent) and less as Cicero preaches. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This remark above to my comment, Scholarly consensus is simply one POV and we can't be biased to one view over another on this topic is astonishing from someone who wishes to contribute to an encyclopedic treatment of a topic. By this logic, we should go to every single article that makes reference to an event or development more than 6,000 years old and qualify it based on the extant views of some who argue, in published sources, that God created the Heavens and the Earth 6,000 years ago. Like Mastodons. Or Quasars. It is so mind-bogglingly indefensible, so astonishingly wrong, that I cannot even think how to respond other than to suggest the editor seriously consider how he or she thinks an encyclopedia should be written if scholarly consensus is not to be considered authoritative in the construction and dissemination of knowledge. I mean, really? I cannot believe that was actually written down and saved. Maybe you should try Conservapedia, where the view that reality has a well-known liberal bias is warmly endorsed. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, I think Wikipedia already makes far too many concessions to extreme, minority pseudo-scientific views Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your position is so mind-bogglingly indefensible that it astounds me. We're not talking about nut-jobs but "orthodox" authors. The issue is simple: there was a split in scholarship starting around 150 years ago. We are only reflecting one branch.

Just a side point, since "scholarship" places the writing of Genesis to 600 BC, not sure how you got your number of 6000 years ago. Even if we take it to be Moses, the earliest dates place it around 1200 BC. Only if you consider it to be an oral tradition could you give it such an early date. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right, Görlitz, my apologies. I was labouring under the delusional belief that you had written "scholarly consensus", i.e. what the scholarship agrees upon, is simply - simply, nice - one POV. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sarcasm. How quaint and perfectly dismissive. You continue to labour under the assumption that Wikipedia is based on scholarly consensus when it fact it is based on reliable sources of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." Please notice the emphasis on "significant minority views". There are many other things that Wikipedia is not but I'll let you discover those things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief: "...reliable sources of which scholarly consensus makes up only a small portion...." You are actually doubling down on your remark? The sheer inanity of declaring that scholarly consensus represents simply one POV and a small portion of what should be considered reliably sourced information beggars belief and would have devastating consequences for any exercise that is about the promotion of knowledge. Is it really your view that encyclopedic treatment of a topic should consider scholarly consensus as simply a small portion of the overall "reliable" material that should be provided? If so, I fear the legitimacy and integrity of your participation in what is after all an exercise about disseminating knowledge can and should be rightfully called into serious doubt. Eusebeus (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

−

Are you able to elaborate on what the "significant minority views" are and provide reliable sources for them, just so we all know what we might be discussing? Thank you.Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Eusebeus - Please drop your attitude. The inanity of your assumption that only scholarly consensus should be considered is the reason for my statement. Perhaps small portion is hyperbole and it should simply read "portion". I would even recast it a large portion of the discussion, but it's not the only opinion that should be discussed.

@ Theroadislong - You realize, of course, that that phrase is from WP:RS. I'll leave it up to discussion, and some has been offered. However, to exclude anything that doesn't agree with scholarly consensus simply because it doesn't agree with it is WP:POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" It would be helpful to us all if you did otherwise we don't know what we are discussing? Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible to spin these last comments off in to a new section so Mann Jess doesn't get lost, confused, or just completely disregard due to information overload and inanity my request for her input above, about the consensus for the change of wording in the note? Please refer to WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:WIKILAWYER in their entirety. The last half score comments have been the same thing, reworded, and the same objection, reworded. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The inglorious spectacle of two long-time Wikipedians having their little talk page tantrum throwing around elementary links and engaging in high-minded posturing would normally be grounds for nesting the exchange. but in this case, as Theroadislong has asked a pertinent question, then it might as well stay up to the mutual embarrassment no doubt of at least one, and maybe two editors who should have learned (along with what constitutes reliable sources and undue weight) better in 6 years. To answer your question, the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay, but not in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the fanatical, inane, extremist POV positions of editors like Eusebeus and Theroadislong that causes so much problems on WP. SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We are ruining Wikipedia! Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Eusebeus, if you feel you are ruing Wikipedia, and if you care about it, you should stop editing it. However, when you push one POV, you are ruining it. I'm not asking for any one opinion any more weight than it's due, but to simply exclude it because it doesn't meet the "scholarly" criterion is not appropriate. I'm sorry you don't see that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@John, things are already heated enough, and it seems we both agree that postulating on the number of Christians in the world and the number of refs they may have influenced doesn't help develop the article, or this note in particular. Let's just disagree on those points and concentrate on the note directly. It seems to me that everyone agrees that including a note using the def from creation myth is acceptable. A few editors seem to prefer adding additional wording to spell it out further - "this doesn't mean Genesis is false" - but that's garnered some objections. A few others, including me, prefer removing the note entirely, but that's garnered some objections. It seems that the note with the current wording (or a variation thereof) is the most agreeable solution to everyone. How about we keep that, and see how it fares? BTW, I agree with Eusebeus that the lead-in "...as used in Britannica..." is a bit much. Are we aware of any other definition for "creation myth"? If not, then simply defining it should be sufficient. I'd support trimming that, and maybe including a direct ref to Britannica instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if we have too many objections to this now, or in the future, an RfC for outside opinions might be helpful. It seems we have a broadly agreeable solution, so I think we can just stick with that and avoid one for now. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a simple, polite request for user:Walter Görlitz to "elaborate on what the significant minority views are and provide reliable sources for them so we could all know what we might be discussing" and I have been attacked as being "fanatical, inane and extremist POV" I'm sorry but I really don't understand why? Can anyone explain please?Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you really think every scholarly POV should be included, may I remind you that Dawkins and others call the story in Genesis insane and for the feeble-mind morons or some such? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins isn't exactly a reliable or scholarly source when it comes to anything outside of biology, let alone philosophy and even more so Biblical exegesis: he has no qualifications in the field nor has he written anything beyond polemic (in keeping with the style of the so-called "New Atheists", all fluff and soundbytes for an age of soundbytes, unlike the Good Old Atheists like Bertrand Russell and Antony Flew, back in the 1960s at least). However, thank you for a colorful example that hopefully will break the cycle of back-and-forth here. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note is redundant, how about "Genesis creation narrative is a [[creation myth|creation myth or story]]"

I think the current note is redundant and brings unnecessary attention to the issue. What the note states is all covered at the creation myth article, which is linked. There's no need for this overkill. I just noticed that the opening sentence at the creation myth article states: "A creation myth or creation story is...", so why not incorporate that here by expanding the link to include the term "story"? Thoughts? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I'm wrong here. My understanding is that the words 'narrative' and 'story' aren't in the first sentence of the lede of Genesis creation narrative, and 'myth' is, is because 'narrative' and 'story' have a more similar meaning than 'narrative' and 'myth'. As 'narrative' is in the title of this article (which has, of course, been discussed), it is not necessary for 'narrative' to be repeated in the first sentence. Using the same reasoning, 'story' has been excluded from the first sentence of the lede. Now, in Creation myth, the word 'myth' is in the title and 'narrative' and 'story' aren't, so it makes sense to include one or the other in that article's lede. Colonel Tom 23:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As the current note states, the "myth" that is used in this article is meant to be the academic definition as defined in Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources, i.e. "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". So in the context of this article at least, "myth" is synonymous with "narrative" and/or "story". — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I understand the point you're making. The discussions above (the discussions which resulted in a consensus to keep 'myth' in the lede) indicate a disagreement with that perspective, however, in that many editors clearly do not consider 'myth' and 'narrative' to be synonymous in the context of this article. Colonel Tom 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC) edit - (BTW, I agree with your first sentence. I also believe that the note is redundant and unnecessary.) Colonel Tom 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FoxCE, you bolded the wrong part. Let me fix it: "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it". But then again this is a long tired argument. Even with the clear consensus of using "myth", those who want "narrative" don't give up.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who is being referenced by "they don't give up", and to clarify that I have no problems with the use creation myth, but do understand how it could be misunderstood by those uninitiated in the academic use of the term. There are academicians who prefer the use narrative, my former OT prof being one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not referring to anyone in particular. Apologies if that sounded combative. And I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary. Apologist even. It just doesn't sit well with me at all how Genesis is being given this special treatment in deference to some of the readers. It's perfectly obvious in past discussions that the real reason why some want this is because it's Christian. You don't see this kind of arguments in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or whatnot. It's a bit like the old practice of demonization, but in reverse.

Don't worry though, I have no desire to jump into the same debate again.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everyone above, the note is unnecessary. I've been saying that from the beginning, but few others spoke up, so I've been focusing on the wording instead. I think there are some pretty solid reasons why the note should be excluded altogether... and based on the number of voices here disagreeing with it, I think it makes sense to 1) remove it until we have consensus it should stay and have decided on wording, 2) if there are dissenting voices who want it in, hold an RfC to gather a broader opinion. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That works for me, and I still support my above "[[creation myth|creation myth or story]]" link change suggestion. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with both Jess and Fox. Fox's suggestion seems to be the most efficient. N^oformation ^Talk 02:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox, I think we don't even need to do that - after reading all this palaver, all of it an attempt by good editors to accommodate just one other editor, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an emotive trigger rather than an academic definition. See my new subthread below. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point, we should probably leave it as-is for the time being. Perhaps my suggestion can be harbored in the event that a significant number of users begin to demand a further compromise of some sort. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much to read through until at least the weekend, I would just note that with respect to "reliable", there are sources which are "reliable" scholarship and are preferred (books by recognized experts, peer reviewed papers, etc.), then there are sources which are equally "reliable" but only as to being acknowledged spokespersons for a particular viewpoint.

Scholarship is scholarship (within which there may be viewpoints), and viewpoints are viewpoints, but the viewpoint twain shall never meet. Apologies for stating the obvious. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@PiCo who wrote "there's really no way to placate those for whom 'myth' is an emotive trigger". I disagree completely. On the contrary, there is no way to placate those for whom "myth" is an intentional poke at those to whom the account is more than simply myth. What those of you who rely on "academic" credentials fail to understand is that it's offensive to many. While I full understand its use, it's underlying offence is greater than its academic credentials. It is hubris to continue to insist on its use in this context without expounding on its meaning or at least clarifying it. However I also understand that is article is patrolled by a small group of academics who don't think like humans and their POV will continue to be exerted here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's been said, Walter, but wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We just had a long and excruciating arbcom case about offense as it pertains to religious believers and that we're not censored was soundly upheld. Furthermore, if you take a look at WP:RNPOV you will see that mythology is specifically mentioned as an example of a term that has a certain scholarly meaning and "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." We seem to be following policy to the letter here and claiming offense is not going to justify the change, that's just not how WP works. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you missing the "avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader" part?

If only the term used were mythology and not myth, a fine distinction, but that is territory for theologians, and this is a theological article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're taking that out of context again. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. The article uses the word in only a formal sense, to avoid causing unnecessary offense. It does not say "Whatever you do, avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." - SudoGhost 19:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, your quip that those who want myth in the article are intentionally trying to poke people is rude and uncalled for. Please keep your speculations as to the motives of other editors to yourself - it's not appropriate here. N^oformation ^Talk 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a quip, not an speculation, it was an observation and it was completely called-for.

Don't lecture me on assuming good faith unless you also lecture the comment to which I was responding which did the same thing in reverse. It's a huge double-standard that I've seen you and other editors impose on other editors here and you've got to stop being one-sided in your criticism.

The issue for me is not that the term is used, it's that no compromise can be reached to attempt to explain the it. So the fact still remains: those of you who are opposed to elaboration of the term are sticking their heads in the sand if you think that the vandalism and unconstructive edits will stop just because you think you're justified in your use of the bare term. The unconstructive edits won't stop and there will be debates like this until you realize that the position is unsustainable. It's easier to explain the term rather than force people to debate you here. Those unconstructive edits are just as much to blamed on those who hold to the term as it's currently used as those who actually make the edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion much, so forgive me if this has already been said, but isn't explaining the term is exactly what wikilinks are for? - SudoGhost 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If it actually did what we all assume it should do, then we wouldn't have editors coming to this page and changing only that term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, it seems that there are editors here who are assuming that what's broken is other editors. That's not supported by the evidence. The other editors are not broken. The way that Wikipedia works is not broken--whether wikilinking or the ability for editors to edit (read: lock the article). What's broken is the way that phrase is being presented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement is presented in accordance with policy and that's what we're supposed to do. Secondly, people would change it without without a qualifier because people simply don't like seeing their religion treated as though it is the same as other religions. I've pointed out the relevant policies, sources have been well documented on this page supporting the use of the term, and that's all that really matters. N^oformation ^Talk 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy? I doubt it. Guideline maybe. Agreement, most likely. If you want to keep your head in the sand, go ahead. You can wrap that around all the obfuscating discussion you want, but unless the phrase is changed or elaborated you will continue to have edits made to fix it. I have written that before and it was ignored. You may continue to ignore it, but at some point you're going to have to face the facts that the phrse needs to be changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is such a policy. WP:RNPOV (specifically 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.) - SudoGhost 08:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

" Oh. That policy. The one that starts, "Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs" (emphasis mine). Right. We should get on that immediately. So far we only encompass an academic viewpoint. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, even out of context. The designation of creation myth in no way affects the rest of the article's ability to encompass what motivates individuals, and I would say that the third paragraph of the lede does indeed touch on the motivation of at least the reasoning for the narrative. If you feel that this is inadequate, you're more than welcome to fix it, but that's ultimately another subject entirely, unrelated to the fact that creation myth is backed by both reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But it's the policy and it's completely in context. It's time we addressed encompassing what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs to meet the policy. Every attempt at fixing has been reverted by the cabal here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with that, because I'm honestly not sure to what you're referring (I haven't really read anything outside of this subsection/what I've directly responded to), but in regards to the topic of this section, the only thing I was addressing was the creation myth wikilink and the discussion about rewording it due to possible misunderstandings of the meaning. Outside of that, I have no comment or opinion, because I don't know is being referred to. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was referring to something else as well, my comments were about the wording of the link, nothing more. - SudoGhost 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There are certain things that are controversial, in which there is no wording that will satisfy everyone and solve all disagreements. Religious topics such as this are a prime example. Such articles will always have editors come along to try to reword the article to adhere to their point of view, not out of maliciousness, but of a desire to improve the article. I don't believe that people removing this because they disagree with it is indicative of an issue with the article, but rather that it is a religious subject. - SudoGhost 05:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have edited and watch several other "religious subjects" and none have this problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you are fortunate. It is likely you haven't seen this problem because many religious articles have been indefinitely semi-protected to prevent perpetual edit-warring on controversial subjects. If you look at WP:NPOV, Religion has its own subsection under "Controversial subjects" (WP:RNPOV), the only other one being "Pseudoscience and related fringe theories". - SudoGhost 05:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term creation myth fails to adhere to WP:NPOV as it is clearly a POV spin, I have edited it out twice only to have it reverted, with the last editor stating that it is included after reaching editor consensus, however WP:NPOV clearly indicates that this is inappropriate when it states

"The principles upon which this policy (WP:NPOV) is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". 

I don't wish to get into an edit war over the subject, therefore, I expect that some cooler heads need to prevail over this matter and present the matter from both sides, stating what views are held by both parties rather than present the idea that creation is a myth as a factual statement. I invite additional comments on the matter. Willietell (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the talk page, it is not "clearly" anything, and is certainly not "clearly POV". Creation myth has a definition, and this subject fits this definition and has been called such by numerous reliable sources. You're more than welcome to demonstrate why you feel it is in violation of NPOV, but I would ask that read WP:RNPOV beforehand. - SudoGhost 05:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortune has nothing to do with it. I just don't see this sort of debate over things that are simple. I've explained why, but obviously, simplicity eludes certain editors.

And speaking of simple, it's simply not a POV issue. The class of narrative is the creation myth. That's not POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the content and not the contributors. - SudoGhost 06:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For pity sake, the issue is the editors and not the content. Sorry if you don't comprehend that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagreements are not cause for incivility, and "simplicity eludes certain editors" was not a constructive comment meant to improve this article. That I do comprehend. - SudoGhost 07:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a disagreement. It's blatant disregarding of facts as presented. Sorry if you feel otherwise. Feel free to report my actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this edit is a good solution. Both sides are accommodated with the edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that there are certain editors who are determined to see that only one side of the subject is represented here, which is in violation of WP:NPOV, perhaps arbitration of some sort is in order. Willietell (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Summing up

Here's a summary of positions from most recent editors:

THE NOTE IS NOT NEEDED:

• Jess - "the note is unnecessary"
• FoxCE - "the current note is redundant"
• Obsidi♠n - "I do agree that the note is a bit unnecessary."
• Tom - "the note is redundant and unnecessary."
• St John Chrysostom - "If we're going to have a note (and this is one thing I actually did propose first, and was argued out of seeing the necessity of it above)..." (John goes on to say he's happy with the wording of the note as it stands, but this is about the very existence of the note, and he says he's been argued out of that position) - agreed. A dose of learning cured me of my push for further definition. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: (sorry guys, I couldn't find a pithy quote above)

• Walter Görlitz - (seems to lean towards the "not needed" camp)
• Theroadislong
• Eusebeus - "the note wording ("as used in britannica...") comes across to me (and probably me alone) as sounding amateurish, like the kind of thing one would find in a first year undergraduate essay" (Eusebeus is against the current wording, but I can't see any comment on the note in general).
• Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556

To sum up, the only enthusiastic, unequivocal supporter of the existence of the note is Zenkai - the rest of us, even those who proposed and supported the note, have been lukewarm. The lack of real support indicates that it should be dropped. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that clarification of "myth" is needed for those unfamiliar with its academic use. The note was a good option, but far from ideal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a clarification of what is meant by "myth" is needed. A lot of people don't understand what "myth" means academically. A clarification is a necessity because the current wording confuses many readers. Zenkai _talk 16:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What we think is not important. Based on the edits made to the lede, I would argue one is necessary to avoid well-meaning edits that change the meaning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a note, Wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopaedia and the creation myth article is perfectly clear on its meaning. We should assume a certain level of intelligence of our readersTheroadislong (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with intelligence or a lack thereof, it has to do with semantics and that argument requires intelligence to understand. We either completely lock the article so no one can edit it or editors will "fix" the article to "correct" the myth statement. In the brief time that I've been watching the page, that one statement has caused at least six edit wars. Why are a few "academics" digging their heels in instead of correcting an obvious problem in the most simple way? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Because if we pandered to everyone and everything that someone somewhere might not understand, we'd need a shitload of notes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a note isn't the best solution, but something has to be done to fix the lead. Zenkai _talk 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Soooo, any ideas? Zenkai _talk 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think everyone is missing the obvious. If we don't explain it, the article will be "fixed" (read: vandalized) so that it makes sense. I fully understand what the term means. I disagree that this article should be for and by academics and we should write the article for everyone, not only academics. It's amazing that the other editors here don't understand that. So here's my idea: write to be understood by everyone, not only academic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really not difficult to click a blue link and read the next article. I'd go as far as to say that's one of the greatest parts about the Wiki interface. It's not that we write for academics, it's that we're a scholarly encyclopedia and thus use academic terms. Consensus has been strong to keep "myth" and I doubt consensus to change this will form anytime soon. I'm not adverse to other changes in the lede but I think it's time to drop the "myth" debate as it's been hashed and rehashed on many occasions with the same conclusions. N^oformation ^Talk 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing there to clarify the issue though. Sorry. I explained that a long time ago and it may have been missed. It simply explains the various creation myths, not what the term means. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this isn't about the "myth" debate. It's about the article's vandalism because of the "myth" of academic use superseding common usage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for missing it. That, in and of itself is an issue. My proposed solution would be to write that into the Creation myth article (why it wouldn't be there now is beyond me). Regarding the vandalism, this is just something we have to deal with on WP. I think if myth were not in the lede we would find people adding it just as consistently as people remove it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait sorry I must be confused, the open to the article is "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." is that not clear enough or am I missing something here? N^oformation ^Talk 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not clear enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree but am not adverse to clarification if you think it's necessary. N^oformation ^Talk 01:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Noformation that it's clear. As I've said before, we get vandalism to change clear wording based on a common POV all the time, all over wikipedia. It's simply a part of editing an open encyclopedia. Check the archives for Talk:Atheism; their definition has been debated over and over again, so many times I no longer check the page. See the talk page for Mohammed; their use of images has been debated so many times they have a separate talk page just for that. We don't make changes to our articles due to vandalism. We make changes to our article when good sources are presented which conflict with our current wording. No such sources or arguments have been presented, so the wording need not be changed. If you have a proposal based on our current sources, please present it. Abstract notions that "the article should be changed so we won't have as much vandalism" are spurious.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK it's clear. Feel free to remove all future "corrections" to that section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia endorsing pov sources as undisputed fact? Arbitration is badly needed here

Why must certain editors here continually force wikipedia to endorse POV sources as if they were undisputed, unassailabe fact that nobody disagrees with? This is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty in this article. There needs to be a major arbitration on this article, because significant viewpoints as usual are being brushed aside as if some new information had supposedly come up settling the controversy, which it most certainly has not. Numerous editors coming here immediately notice that the article is a one sided propaganda vehicle and that it teaches a certain point of view as uncontroversial doctrine, but a small team of editors who proudly self identify themselves as atheist, routinely band together and drive all of the impartial editors out. I will fully support any moves made by anyone toward long needed arbitration of this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples so that we may go over them one by one. It doesn't really help anyone to make a generalized complaint like this. Also, I don't think it's the arbitration committee's job to address issues like this.Farsight001 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct, Arbcom has no control over content or policy, they are enforcers of policy only in regards to editor behavior. N^oformation ^Talk 00:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not on contributors. If something in the article is actually wrong then it does no service to your point to attempt to group editors into atheist vs. theist or any other system. N^oformation ^Talk 00:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have also seen these same editors who self identify as atheist, more times than I care to recount, immediately label any arriving editor or even any published theologian who disagrees with their atheology, as "creationist" or worse, when they don't even self identify as such. They are the ones who group themselves, group others, this is just another case of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it in the least. Their circular reasoning litmus test for whether a source is reliable (i e if it holds the same point of view they accept) is unacceptable and making a mockery of calling this a "neutral" encyclopedia. That's why much more light desperately needs to be thrown on this backwards article, so that it doesn't just purport to "explain" theological matters from the POV of ONE side of the controversy, but rather ALL the sides without "playing favorites" as it does. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "arbitration" (in English) is also a synonym for any sort of mediation process in general. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we have specific uses of many terms here. You might be thinking of WP:DRN, but that would be a step to come only if discussion here cannot find consensus. There is also a mediation system, but no committee or set of users has anymore authority than any other, everything is done by WP:CONSENSUS here. N^oformation ^Talk 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing the options here (Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution), but it would help to outline your specific concerns before doing so. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Being that vague and nonspecific is about as useful as having said nothing at all. This is nothing more than a rant; a venting of your frustrations. Outline your specific complaints, and we can go from there. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fox, and the allcaps don't help much either. Eusebeus (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously characterizing the actual adherents of a religion in question as "impartial"? If they were we'd have various religious articles here vying with each other claiming each and every one of them is true. We do not count the number of adherents to satisfy WP:V, we wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia then, would we? We count the number of reliable sources. That's what prominence and notability means. Creationism has zero reliable sources that treat it as fact and thus must never be presented as such, though it can be treated in a scholarly and historical context.

A million believers still can not compare in terms of reliability to a single repeatable scientific experiment that refutes their conclusions. That is the most basic thing about NPOV. What you see as inequality is simply due weight.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the article we would expect to see if it were controlled by one of those regimes around the world that has a militant POLITICAL agenda to eliminate Biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. What ever happened to NEUTRALITY? This article's "neutrality" is a CROCK, whom are you kidding? You don't get to declare that only YOUR school of thought on theology is determined correct and therefore every other source is "undue weight" no matter how many support it! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and so follows how mainstream science and history characterizes the topic based on the use of reliable sources. In this discussion you have presented zero reliable, secondary, independent sources. Neutrality does not mean that wikipedia must pretend that two different views have equal weight. Instead we aim to represent views fairly and proportionately WP:NPOV. A quote from WP:FRINGE: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this thread is conducive to improving the article in any way and it's starting to border on vitriol. I suggest archiving this thread and moving on people. Cheers, 58.111.81.178 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Til, I am a very devout Christian and I believe the article is fine the way it is. Actually, I think it should use the word myth instead of narrative, to reflect the style of other articles on other religions' creation stories. It was religious people who campaigned and generally behaved exactly as you describe militant atheists behaving to get myth changed to narrative even though the proper definition of a myth does NOT mean untrue.

The point being that I, being a Christian, certainly don't want to eliminate biblical beliefs from the face of the Earth. As I asked above - please provide a specific example for improvement. We can't do anything with generalized accusations. Pick one issue, present it here, we'll go over it, and when we've come to an agreement on what to do with it, present another issue, and so on.Farsight001 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Farsight does have a point as far as specification goes. However, I would like to ask a series of questions that all of us editors might be able to ask ourselves in the process of bettering this encyclopedia: Are the views of the authorities we appeal to accepted by a significant amount of experts in relative fields? Do the collective bearings of these authorities (esp. "majority authority") nullify or completely counter other views? Are the other views supported by a significant amount of credible, relative experts -- and what percentage of the field should they take up to be deemed significant enough to be considered with both critical and sympathetic ("neutral") points of view? On that point, how does the majority consensus bear on which one of these points of view should overweigh the other -- if any? Where is the boundary between powerful ("absolute") authority and significant speculation? How should we treat the "why" they arrived at their consensus? And most importantly, what is Wikipedia intended to be? Wekn reven 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article Wikipedia is not a forum Theroadislong (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If one wishes to improve the article, they must first improve themselves. I intended the above paragraph as a sort of, 'think about this before taking the discussion any further, then discuss'. Wekn reven 14:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait until I'm done with my full rewrite and see how it is accepted. I believe it will still be too "atheistic" or liberal for the more die-hard Christians/Jews here, but I am attempting to expand and balance it a great deal (which is no easy task, trying to write and then passing it under my own scrutiny while alternating the Christian and Atheist glasses - I suppose I know how Chamberlain must have felt). I mainly began the rewrite with some attempt at balancing and removing some unreliable sources (i.e. Ellen Gould White), but much more so to improve the absolutely terrible lack of perspicuity and bad prose in the article as is - stylistic concerns, as it reads now (and I challenge anyone to disagree) as the result of the worst kind of design by committee. I will almost certainly be spinning off at least one other article, "Genesis in Christian Theology" (as I'm at 149k with refs, and I haven't finished referencing some statements - much of my style when writing is to write out of my knowledge, so it is well written in good prose, and then go back and reference my own work, finding the sources for that knowledge, and deleting that which I can't reference, and so on), which will deal with the religious aspects of the Genesis creation narrative, and, if space permits, the entire first eleven chapters and twenty-six verses of Genesis, commonly marked the "primordial history" in exegesis (but, beware, that all of the people quoted in the lead are believing Christian theologians, not Spongites, so if it's too "biased" for you, "Genesis in Christian Theology" probably will be too). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This project has also made me consider writing some other articles (if you look at my edits, I'm mainly a copy editor), dealing with "[Book X] in [X] Theology", such as "Gospel according to John in Christian Theology", "Apocalypse of John in Christian Theology", "Qur'an in Islamic Theology", etc. - something I am surprised Wikipedia doesn't already have, and which most definitely is distinct from the parent articles, and is not a POV-fork, as the topic of a certain book in a certain context is completely different from a description of the book itself: much like "Nineteen eighty-four", "Impact/Influence of GO's 1984", and "Literary criticism of GO's 1984" are, for example. St John Chrysostom ^view/_;;my bias 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your division of this article into Christian/atheistic viewpoints and sole reliance of "believing Christian theologians" in the lead is disturbing. This article should be an academic summary of the Genesis creation myth and so such divisions or facts should be irrelevant to the construction of this article.

Now, obviously this creation myth is important to Christian theology, and one of the many subsets of academia that is relevant to this article is theology, so this article can and should discuss this myth with respect to Christian theology. However, Christian theology is only one of many slices of pie that we need to fit into this pie tin and so we are forced to write in a summary style. This article's discussion of this creation myth with respect to Christian theology can lead into a larger Genesis in Christian theology article where that discussion can be fleshed out even further. That is, there is nothing wrong with a Genesis in Christian theology article per se but it must not become a contrast of this article (a POV-fork), but an expansion of material that is summarised in this article and others (notably the Genesis article itself). 114.78.16.179 (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, I am merely pointing out for all of those that accuse the article of liberal/atheist "bias so strong that it makes 'The Nation' look conservative", that all of the sources used in the lead are by believing Christians or Jews (that is, the article isn't using atheistic sources to further some sort of atheistic conspiracy to vanish Biblical beliefs from the face of the planet, as alluded to above). It just so happens that all (or almost all) of the academic sources, whatever their viewpoint, dealing with the Genesis creation narrative (or any other book of the Bible, for that matter) tend to be written by religious people, who are the undisputed masters of the field (for Genesis: Wenham, Sarna, Brueggemann, Walton, von Rad, etc.). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 07:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Believes/notes

I made this revert, which was then reverted again, so I wanted to come here and discuss it. The source given does not state that Sarna "believes" it, and a belief is not the same as a statement, so this edit summary is not correct, because it turns into speculation about what is believed, rather than what is stated. - SudoGhost 02:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Would "says" be better? Zenkai _talk 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nahum Sarna

He "notes" that the Israelites borrowed themes from the Mesopotamians? How would he know? Was he there?

It would be far more accurate if "notes" was changed to "believes" or "considers'. Thank you. Zenkai _talk 02:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How would you know that he "believes" it? See above, thank you. - SudoGhost 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But "note" implies that it is a fact. Which it is not. Zenkai _talk 02:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Close. "Note" implies that they consider it a fact, not that it is one. - SudoGhost 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SudoGhost here. "Notes" does not imply absolute factuality. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In this context it's presented as if it were a fact. Zenkai _talk 02:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the section yet again, and to me it's presented as if it is academic consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't read that way. Zenkai _talk 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, academic consensus is fact. If there are notable fringe views to the contrary of the academic consensus, then these can be discussed in the article but must be discussed very carefully in order to avoid giving them undue weight. The relegation of intelligent design and creationism to the "social and cultural responses" section of the evolution article is a good example of how to do this. 114.78.16.179 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarna does not represent the academic consensus. That's beside my point anyway. Zenkai _talk 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Seb_az86556, you seem to have difficulty in understanding that you can't close a discussion just because you don't like it. Zenkai _talk 02:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But he can close it when discussion is pointless because no one else shares your position. N^oformation ^Talk 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you don't, but others do. You and seb always seem to gang up on me. Zenkai _talk 03:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No where in this thread is a statement expressing agreement with your position so no, other do not. Once again you are pushing a POV because you don't like that your religion is not given special treatment here, it's nothing new and what you call "ganging up" is simply the response you get when you try to undermine an article because you don't like it. N^oformation ^Talk 03:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You and seb always push your POVs, along with others. You just don't like that someone can have different views than yours. Zenkai _talk 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My POV is the scholarly POV so pushing it is akin to NPOV. I don't edit articles that deal with a topic with which I don't share the expert view. There is a really good reason to follow that line of thinking. When you're involved you can't think clearly. N^oformation ^Talk 04:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I will politely disagree. Your POV is definitely not NPOV(or anything close to it). Zenkai _talk 05:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, back on topic. Do you think "says" is better than "believes" or "considers"? Zenkai _talk 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The horse is dead, Zenkai. Let it go. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is actually quite good and reasonable. We will wait until others join the discussion. Zenkai _talk 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I think notes is the most appropriate word. 114.78.16.179 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes it four or five to one. Plenty of others have joined. Leave the poor horse be. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But no one has put up a good argument as to why "notes" should stay, or why "says" or "considers" aren't good enough. Zenkai _talk 05:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TE, notably this section. Yes, we can leave this discussion open for further input, but it would be obtuse to assume consensus had not already formed. Consensus can change, but pushing this against standing consensus in the meantime is disruptive. 'Notes' represents the academic consensus where 'believes' does not; 'notes' is fine.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I took Sarna out altogether. That Genesis 1-11 uses Babylonian (and other) mythological texts as its basis is a commonplace of biblical criticism, and I know of no-one who disagrees or suggests otherwise. To suggest that this is a new or limited idea is simply misleading. If you doubt me, I can quote a dozen passages from our bibliography alone, including major college-level works. PiCo (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pico. Attributing this to one scholar is amateurish since it is commonly understood and textbook level stuff. Eusebeus (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have been restored.

The question is do you need a phrase that reads:

"Nahum Sarna writes that the Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema"

and then add a reference to Sarna? It makes much more sense to have:

"The Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema"

since it's obvious that it's Sarna's idea by the reference that follows it. It's also appropriate in this case to add multiple references to support the idea.

This article does this multiple times and it's not necessary to have the "bookends". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with the shorter version without Sarna. Walter is correct that it should be apparent from the ref, and per policy we shouldn't be reducing the academic consensus down to a single opinion via unnecessary attribution. It seems that's the forming consensus here, so I've restored it for now. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also have nthing against the shorter version without Sarna. No need to "double cite", and his statement concurs with scholarly consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to solve the problem by "Sarna writes...and several [or many] other exegetes", but was reverted because the second clause was not sourced (I didn't believe it to be a contentious statement). The original phrasing was more than acceptable as well ("Sarna notes": to whoever started this argument, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" - or it'll get broke worser). I support a plain reversion to the pre-contention statement, "Sarna notes" (I also support strengthening the statement with something such as, "along with most other exegetes", or, "representing the [vast] majority of scholars", or in some way someone else comes up with) which, as noted (no pun) implies majority consensus/academic consensus, without attributing to it a weight of logical fact that isn't present? I don't believe a bare statement of fact is correct in this situation, or, a bare statement of fact stated as forcefully as it is (maybe a rewording without attributing Sarna could give it appropriate weight without making it read as if it was a mathematical fact). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but it seems to me the current (bare) wording is ideal. This wording represents the broad academic consensus, where attribution to a single source (or related group) does not. Per policy, we must "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". I think what we'd need is not a source supporting "several other exegates" who agree, but a source backing up a prominent view to the contrary. If there is really controversy about this in the academic community, I would support clarification in the text, but without it, I'm not sure clarification is appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The status quo is imposed

It's not consensus as can be seen from the number of edits. Please attempt to fix the lede. Before anyone questions whether it needs to be fixed, look at the edit history and count the number of times it's been edited in the past four weeks. If it was actually working, it wouldn't be the primary change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, it's a discussion. One person with a reasoned argument beats 99 opinionated reverts 100% of the time. Consensus is achieved by reasoning how an edit helps the encyclopedia while adhering to policy. I provided you with the relevant policy here (WP:RNPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED). I don't think clarification is needed because this is an encyclopedia and is thus expected to use academic terms; that there is a subset of users that don't understand the academic terms is irrelevant per policy. If you don't think the Creation myth article is specific enough then by all means, head over there and try to make it better. But I don't think we need to clutter up the lead with unnecessary language. A wikilink is sufficient and is a pretty damn efficient system. Lastly, WP:STATUSQUO is the norm here. N^oformation ^Talk 23:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No one is asking for a democracy (and it's certainly not being offered) however WP:RNPOV clearly states: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and 'mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." (emphasis mine). So were is the effort to "unnecessary offense or misleading the reader"? I don't see it. FIX IT NOW! (shouting intended because it seems the cabal isn't listening). There have been several efforts to correct this oversight and a few editors have opposed it. The next step is to take it to the NPOV discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And so despite what you think ("I don't think clarification is needed") you're not following the policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We are following that policy to the letter. The sentence says to use those words only in their formal sense - this is what we're doing. It doesn't say that we have to go out of our way to explain that they are being used in a formal sense, it just says to use the formal sense. To violate this policy we would have to use "myth" in the non-formal sense. Attempts to correct this "oversight" have failed because they don't adhere to policy - this has been discussed many, many times. Thus far your arguments have come down to the fact that the term offends people and that a lot of people would like it to change - those are not arguments that carry weight here. N^oformation ^Talk 23:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No we are not following it to the letter as the current wording is causing "unnecessary offense or misleading the reader" and that is what is to be avoided. So try again and reformulate the lede to adhere to the policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter I'm sorry but you are misreading the policy. If we were to convert the sentence into logical form it would be stated as

1. Certain words have specific meanings in certain contexts
2. Some of those words when misinterpreted may be offensive
3. Therefore we must only use those words in a formal context

There is nothing in that policy to indicate that we don't use words that cause offense, only that when we use certain words we must use them in a formal context. You are seeing a premise that isn't there, namely that we should always avoid offending people (or something akin to this). And again, I point you to WP:NOTCENSORED for maybe the 4th time now: "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."

What you are asking for is not in line with policy. N^oformation ^Talk 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're imposing your POV on the policy. Feel free to read it again. I am not misreading it at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply saying it doesn't make it true, Walter. I gave you a logical breakdown of the policy and your response was to accuse me of pushing my POV rather than actually commenting on what I wrote. If you disagree with me you can say why without talking about me, if you're unable to do this then there's no point in continuing the discussion. N^oformation ^Talk 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because the Genesis myth is the most currently popular one of the bunch doesn't mean it gets preferential treatment. All other articles about creation myths outline them as being just that in the introduction, or even as part of the title itself. I still think the title here should be Genesis creation myth, but due to much backlash from adherents of the Abrahamic religions we've made a stable compromise. But the contrived changes that are currently being offered just go too far in weaseling around what is said without controversy elsewhere — that these stories are called creation myths. You don't see any push to move the Christian mythology article to "Christian stories", so why the controversy here? Myth is the academic term. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Preferential treatment is not being requested. Following WP:RNPOV is. If offense isn't intended, they why do the cabal of "academic editors" (as I call them) become so enraged when a compromise is attempted to be reached and it pushed myth out of the limelight? I don't object to the use of the term, but clarification is needed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@FoxCE, to be fair, the current title wasn't a result of a "backlash from adherents". IIRC, it was an application of WP:UCN. I happen to think it's the wrong title, but the arguments were based on policy, and non-religious editors weighed in to give support.

@Walter, I agree with Noformation. Your arguments have been discussed and rejected a long time ago... even before you entered the discussion, in fact. There is longstanding consensus for this wording, and you've thus far failed to sway consensus for a change. We've all been there before - no big deal - but continuing to harp on it without presenting anything new is WP:IDHT behavior, which falls squarely under WP:TE. Please let it go.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think anyone here is enraged; I certainly am not and I don't see any behavior that would indicate any sort of angry emotional state. Nor would that mean that offense must be intended even if it were true. An editor could surely be upset with his work being undone whether he was attempting to offend people or not. N^oformation ^Talk 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The point that is being missed is not being missed by me Mann_jess, but by those who claim to have consensus on this issue. Quite simply, and I've stated this many times before, if it were truly neutral and had achieved the consensus of all editors it wouldn't be the target of so many editors. So stop Wikilawering and fix the phrase. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already addressed this. That people don't like it has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is a discussion of how best o apply policy - that people don't like the wording and attempt to change it on a regular basis does not contribute to consensus. People didn't like depictions of Muhammad in the Muhammad article and constantly removed them until the page was indef semi-protected. Then a few established editors tried to get images removed and it went to arbcom. As I already told you, in that case NOTCENSORED was once again upheld and the editor that lead the charge against images was banned for a year. I'm sorry but your position is not in line with community norms here. N^oformation ^Talk 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also please note that "neutral" does not mean unbiased or not offensive - neutral means presenting sources according to their prominence. N^oformation ^Talk 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You may think you've addressed it, but since I have made a point which you're not addressing, you haven't. This isn't about liking the lede , it's about accommodation of both POV as per WP:RNPOV, vis: "avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're just being vague now and not responding to anything I'm actually writing. If you present something new I'll discuss it but I will not waste anymore time repeating what I've already said. N^oformation ^Talk 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. You just don't have a clue as to the actual problem. Sorry you don't understand. I've done my best to explain but your POV clouds my comments. I trust that the RfC that is about to start will help clear things up for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The context of your quoted information is important. There was relevant text both before and after your quote. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.

Creation myth, as used in the article, is done so through its formal meaning, which is reflected by the fact that it is a wikilink which takes readers to the appropriate article, explaining the exact meaning meant. The lede therefore fulfills WP:RNPOV by using the formal meaning of creation myth to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. This is what WP:RNPOV says. It does not say "accommodation of both POV to avoid causing unnecessary offense..." but rather "Formal meaning to avoid causing unnecessary offense..." - SudoGhost 15:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to object to a clarification in the text of the article is a desire to portray the story in Genesis as fictional. We all know that the academic sense of "myth" has a meaning which is clearly at odds with the way the word is understood by the average reader. The common understanding of the word is a fictional narrative. The academic use is different.

There are editors (and WP:AGF isn't meant to make us shut our minds to the reality of the situation) who want to use the word myth precisely because the average reader will read it as defining the Genesis narrative as fiction. There are other editors who want to avoid the use of the word "myth" at all costs, because they don't want any hint given to the average user that Genesis may not be literally true.

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of the creation of the world as described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible). It is a creation myth, in the academic sense of the term.

User:Noformation reverted the edit with the comment "We're an encyclopedia and thus expected to be academic, we don't need to state that, it's just sloppy". That's an outrageous and almost humorous rationale for reverting an edit which clarifies the usage of the word and makes the entire conflict unnecessary.

User:FoxCE reverted it with the comment "rv - contrived and biased sentence... allow the reader to visit the linked creation myth article to further their understanding of the term". It is certainly contrived, but not in any way that reduces the simple readability of the sentence. Nor is it biased in any way. And the idea that a user should have to click through in order to see a definition of a term that has a very well known common meaning is beyond outrageous. This is a patent attempt to obscure things, and to make the article more biased, rather than less.

User:Noformation reverted the edit again, accusing User:Walter Görlitz of edit warring for restoring the edit twice. Why is that edit warring any more than Noformation's two reverts?

Given the incessant wars over the word "myth" in this article, I'm going to start an immediate RfC on the question of this edit. Wikipedia should be clear to the average reader, and attempts to muddy the waters will not stand. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit protect request 23 February 2012

• Please change {{Sc|L|ORD}} with plain text LORD (note: case sensitive; 5 occurences)
• Please change {{Sc|L|ord}} with plain text Lord (note: case sensitive; 7 occurences)

• Reason: The template {{sc}} used these ways does exactly nothing. It produces the outcome as proposed in the next code. This is even the case for side effects regarding {{smallcaps}}, like when non-CSS reading (mobiles) and copy-pasting text to a different editor (no lowercase/uppercase change happening before or after).
• Test:
  • Old {{Sc|L|ORD}} → LORD (equals new LORD → LORD)
  • Old {{Sc|L|ord}} → LORD (equals new Lord → Lord)
• Non-controversial? Indeed. This is a technical change, the resulting page is not altered. The template is used idle. It definitely refrains from proposing changes to the text (It does not alter the casing).
• Background: template {{sc}} is to be merged into {{smallcaps}}, per this TfD. Removing these idle usages here makes the merge possible (to be specific for this page: do not use the second argument. Since the usage is idle, we can throw the template away alltogether). -DePiep (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I advise that this be declined. The problem is not with the content of the article, it's the editors who refuse to see that there are problems with the lede. It's a content dispute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

??? As I said: this edit is not about content or the dispute. Content will not change. The dispute is not about this edit. I am not in the dispute. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you replace instances of {{sc}} with {{smallcaps}}, as that output is what's intended? Also, I made a change to sc to properly use smallcaps. — Bility (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Because {{sc}} is sitting in between without doing anything. Idle. "LORD" produces "LORD". So we kick the middle {{sc}} out and have the same page. And: I want {{sc}} out because it is a to-be-merged template. It is will be deleted or neutralised. All this I wrote in "Reason" and "Background" above. And "Test" says: text "LORD" will be "LORD". I'd say: stop worrying, start helping. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to be clear: there is no smalcaps involved. Not before, not after. If you want something for smallcaps, start another proposal talk afer this edit. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If by "smallcaps" you mean the template, no, but it did use the smallcaps font-variant. Anyway, it's changes to {{sc}} that produced the plain text so fixing that error (by replacing it with the template that superseded it) fixes your complaint about {{sc}} being idle also. This can all be handled in one edit instead of two for simplicity's sake. — Bility (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Please go away. If you mean: No, no ifs. The test is clear. LORD=LORD. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If all you care about is that {{sc}} isn't changing the text, then why did you revert a change to the template that fixed it? In cases of merging a template, as was decided here, you don't simply remove the deprecated template, you replace it with the new one. I don't see any reason why you would vehemently oppose fixing the underlying problems instead of myopically pursuing the removal of a malfunctioning template, while at the same time preventing it from being fixed. — Bility (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as it has to do with the proposed edit: explained in my first post here. The rest is not relevant here. Then, what is your remaining issue with my request? -DePiep (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Doing a quick find on the page for {{Sc|L|ORD}} and {{Sc|L|ord}}, nothing came up. In any case, it seems that this issue is controversial so I'll close the request. The page will be unprotected later today for any edits required. Tra (Talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Are all the instances in passages where we have direct quotes from bible verses? If so, it should follow whatever bible edition we're using - it's a quote, after all. PiCo (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I introduced the SC changes. Small caps must be used, because all Bible translations based on the Masoretic text (and that's all except for the NETS, OSB, Brenton, and Douay-Rheims), use small caps, as it is a circumlocution for "YHWH" in the Hebrew text. If the template needs to be changed, so be it, but the small caps on the word itself in quotations must be retained in accordance with quoting policy. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?

The fighting over the use of the word "myth" with regards to the first two chapters of Genesis has raged on now for years. The main issue is that the word has a very well known common usage (a fictional tale) and a lesser known but widely used academic meaning ("A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it").

There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" not be used at all in this context, lest Wikipedia be seen as supporting the view that the first two chapters of Genesis are fictional.

There are editors who are adamant that the word "myth" be the primary descriptor of the first two chapters of Genesis, often for the opposite reason: so that the casual reader will understand those chapters as being non-historical.

Neither side will ever back down, and I think we're all aware of that. But the conflict itself is predicated on an overly terse use of the word. Why leave things vague? Wikipedia is not meant to adopt either of the above views, which are both in violation of WP:NPOV. Nor is it intended to "hint" at one point of view or another. And the conflict is easily solved by making it clear that the Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth, but that it's a creation myth in the academic sense of the word. Hence the change from this:

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

to this:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of the creation of the world as described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible). It is a creation myth, in the academic sense of the term.

This RfC is solely on the question of this edit. Please comment in the "threaded discussion" space below. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment - Although this does not directly pertain to the edit in question, I wanted to clarify something you stated: the use of myth is not a violation of WP:NPOV, but is in fact supported by said policy, which has an entire section, WP:RNPOV, that directly deals with this. That "myth" not be used at all is a violation of said policy. However, I don't say that with prejudice either for or against the edit in question, but just to clarify that the removal of myth is not a policy-supported option. The clarification that usage of this word is used in the formal sense, however, I think is a valid discussion. - SudoGhost 16:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think your NPOV comment is misguided, but at least your intentions seem correct, and I have a more eloquent suggestion (phrases like "in the academic sense of the term" seem stylistically odd - consider a similar phrase in scientific articles that use the term "theory").

Ideally the article title would be something like Genesis creation myth which would allow us to expand the precise definition of the term creation myth in the very first sentence, for example:

The Genesis creation myth is the symbolic narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

This simultaneously deals with both sides of this tug-of-war: it clarifies exactly what we mean by creation myth (so as not to confuse readers, or impress upon readers that it is a fictional account which literalists may find offensive) without them having to click another link to find out, and still correctly uses academic terminology. As an added bonus, the article title would be consistent with our articles on other creation myths. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your revision looks great 114.78.5.201. I might suggest the removal of the word "symbolic" since many take the narrative to be a literal one. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to also agree with 114.78.5.201's suggestion, minus the "symbolic" term. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur, the irony being that this page used to be called Genesis Creation Myth and iirc that was really close to the opening sentence. I like this phrasing and think that the page itself should be moved to Genesis Creation Myth with this new wording. N^oformation ^Talk 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, with the exception that it doesn't include a link to creation myth. I'm not sure if that's ok or not. On one hand, we'd be including creation myth in the title, and thus providing a proper definition of the subject. On the other hand, the lack of a wikilink may be less helpful to readers unfamiliar with the term. It seems appropriate to mention and link creation myth within the body... could we, perhaps, also do this when mentioning the relationship to Mesopotamian creation myths? Then, we would have a concise definition in sentence 1, and a wikilink for readers shortly after. Would that be acceptable for everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm okay with this proposal if it's acceptable to everyone. I think we can do better, but if this is the most agreeable solution, that's ok.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I had simply assumed that the bolded "creation myth" text would be linked to its respective article, which is what I support doing as well. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the lack of wikilink was an oversight, the IP can correct me if I'm wrong. If there are no objections to this in 24 hours I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the move and the changes. N^oformation ^Talk 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I won't be able to make the move. The page already exists as a redirect and so an admin would have to do it. N^oformation ^Talk 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment-I am totally against placing the POV spin phrase of creation myth into the title of the article, color it any way you want, it is still POV spin directing the reader to the viewpoint that the Genesis creation account is a false tale, but to include it in the title simply moves the POV spin into the title of the article as well as the body, compounding the problem. I think the view of both sides needs to be expressed, anything less is in violation of WP:NPOV and the title of the article is no different than the body in the consideration of this. The original suggested edit is likely the closest we will ever get to adhering to this policy. Willietell (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless all articles about creation myths are treated in the same way, it is not neutral to assign special treatment to this article in particular. The scholarly consensus is that the events as recorded in the Genesis creation myth did not happen.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the POV of the reliable sources and that's really the only thing that matters. NPOV doesn't mean that WP doesn't present any POV, it means that editors can't present their POV. "N" doesn't mean "non" and "neutral" doesn't mean "unbiased." As far as I am aware, the absolutely majority of scholarly sources (which are what count, not some dude who lives in Alabama with no theological qualifications) characterize Genesis as a creation myth, so right now the article is an NPOV violation because it caters to reader offense rather than scholarly treatment. I seriously doubt anyone in academia actually believes that a snake literally talked, that's a very fringe view. I seriously doubt that the view that a snake literally talked is taken seriously in any academic circles (my statement was too strong, rewording). N^oformation ^Talk 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with 114.78.5.201 on most points. I think "myth" is probably a word to watch in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias, and I'd support using a synonym of some sort. I think Lisa's on the right track, though I like the IP's suggestion better (for the reasons he/she gave). Another possible alternative might be:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

This way, story, account, narrative, or some other synonym can be pipe-linked to the creation myth article, without implying a bias to someone who doesn't know the academic definition of myth. As a side note, I think the term "creation myth" should definitely be used later on in the article (as it is) but it's probably not quite right for the first sentence. Hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mythology is one of the two examples given in the policy WP:RNPOV: Editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. - SudoGhost 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you, though I would still argue that the word myth needs to be used carefully so as not to mislead a reader who might not know the formal meaning. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on that. "Creation myth" is used to refer to Genesis only once in the article itself, in the lede, and is used in a formal sense, and links to an article explaining exactly what is meant when it is used in that sense. The other uses of the term "creation myth" in the article refer to other creation myths. I cannot speak for any use of the term "myth" or "mythology" as opposed to "creation myth", because I haven't looked into it (and is not, to my understanding, the focus of this RfC), but I believe that every instance of "creation myth" in the article is used carefully, and in the formal sense of the term. - SudoGhost 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You obviously know the article better than I do. It sounds like there might be a mild violation of WP:LEAD at issue as well (in that the Lead is supposed to summarize the article, therefore if something isn't in the article, it probably shouldn't be in the Lead either). I don't think that's anything we need to argue about here though...it seems there's enough going on already :-) Anyway, I think everybody agrees on the accuracy of the academic definition of myth in creation myth. Perhaps the question we should be asking is whether or not it is immediately clear to the reader that this definition is the one intended. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Does the term 'creation myth' (not just 'myth') have a non-academic meaning? In my view, there is no reason to treat the word 'myth' in isolation from the phrase 'creation myth' when the link plainly is to the latter. It would would be like linking to Alvin Rouse and then claiming that 'Rouse' is ambiguous. Considering sentence structure, I would much rather the term 'creation myth' be defined within the first sentence rather than split off into a short, second sentence. For example:

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth – the symbolic narrative of how the world began – contained in the first two chapters ...

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Adjwilley for most of it. Note: I've been passively watching this discussion elevate ever since it was started. The word "myth" is definately a word to watch in both 'the sense that it lacks precision' and that it will most likely 'introduce bias'. I may be O.K. with a synonym. Lisa is on the right track, as well as the IP (as far as the reason goes). Adjiwilley's definition, modified by me:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation as presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.

This way, account/narrative/other or some is linked to the creation myth article, without implying a bias to someone who isn't familiar with or does not recognize the "academic definition" of myth. Wekn reven 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- I actually like this idea even better than the original idea as it solves both problems by eliminating the POV spin term creation myth while still linking to the page to provide an explanation for the uninformed reader who might be curious. I therefore support using the phrase suggested by Wekn reven which states:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation as presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.

Willietell (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that "myth" is not a "word to watch", "creation myth" is not a "POV spin term" (only by misunderstanding the meaning of the term could it be considered as such), and the suggested change runs counter to Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 05:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with User:Adjwilley, User:Wekn reven i susej eht, and 114.78.5.201, et. al. The word myth is probably a "word to watch in the sense that it lacks precision and may introduce bias." I would support the inclusion of any of the revisions suggested by these three named individuals. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - With props to the proposer for trying to resolve a long-running dispute (in which I'm not involved), I oppose the proposed change as unnecessary and awkward. The current wording uses not simply the term "myth" but the term "creation myth", which is linked to an article which explains exactly what it means. This wording appears to be neutral, verifiable, and simple—just as it should be. That objections continue or recur doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with the wording. That some readers who haven't been exposed to the term object to it because it contains a word that has other connotations is unfortunate, but they need only follow the link and read some more to learn something new. That is the way WP should be; we ought not pussyfoot around in our wordings because someone might be offended. Incidentally, the term "creation myth" is hardly esoteric; I first encountered it in high school (then subsequently in various university courses in different disciplines). Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rivertorch, Drawing from personal experience, I was first exposed to the academic usage of myth as a freshman in college. That said, I don't think that Wikipedia should be written at a college level (nor does this UPI article, which criticizes WP for being written at a college level instead of a 9th grade level). Also, a reader should not have to click on a link to discover what an ambiguous term means. This is partly personal preference, but it's also advice that's been given to me by more experienced editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, neither of our personal experiences should directly influence the decision being made here. I mentioned my experience only after reading comments that (to my reading) implied the term "creation myth" is somehow absent from common discourse. I'm well aware that it's far from universally understood—even at postsecondary education levels—but I don't think that means we need to clutter up article ledes by defining such terms every time one pops up. That is the beauty of WP's internal links: one term leads to another which leads to another, and before you know it, you've learned something. (I mean "you" in the general sense, of course.) In any event, please note that the relevant term (as I noted above) is not just "myth" but "creation myth", which carries no other meaning aside from the one intended here. Rivertorch (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RNPOV states "articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader". The term itself is being used correctly and so meets the policy, however it is causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader as per the proposal and must be amended to observe the second half of the phrase. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording is "...use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense" not "...use these words only in their formal sense and avoid causing unnecessary offense" Using the proper use of the term is what avoids the unnecessary offense. Using the term correctly is what observes the second half of the phrase. By using the term only in the academic sense, in accordance with what reliable sources show, and linking to the article that explains exactly what is meant by the term, we try to minimize any potential offense caused. - SudoGhost 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the lesson in prepositions. The problem is that in this case, the use of the term is causing unnecessary offense and is misleading the reader therefore the policy is not being adhered to correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the term is necessary, per WP:RNPOV, it is impossible for what is necessary to also be unnecessary. Using the term in the formal sense is what avoids causing unnecessary offense. However, the term must be used per WP:NPOV. This is necessary. What is unnecessary is using it in an informal way, to suggest the informal meaning of the term, thereby offending people without reason. This is what is meant by "use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." The word is being used in its formal sense, therefore it avoids causing unnecessary offense. - SudoGhost 20:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP is not censored. I know you've read that link a dozen or so times, maybe 5 times from me, so it's really time to drop the offense angle on this. There are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims who would be offended by our article on Muhammad because it violates a deeply held religious tradition by showing depictions of the prophet but at the end of the Arbcom case the images stand. Secondly, in no way does it mislead the reader. To "mislead" would mean that the word were being used in a context to insinuate something that isn't true - you're conflating the fact that some people may not understand the term with the sentence being misleading. Genesis is a creation myth, this is a fact. Stating that fact is not misleading in the least. You have still yet to give a single policy based reason as to why the term shouldn't be included and ignored the fact that the arguments that you make do not matter on WP at all because offense is not part of our decision making process with very, very few caveats that do not apply to this case. N^oformation ^Talk 01:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@Noformation: This may be a little tangential, but I was wondering if you had a link to the arbcom case you mentioned previously. I am interested in reading up on it. Also, I've been thinking a lot about the WP:NOTCENSORED argument. I've seen this particular guideline used most often relating to words and images considered offensive because of vulgarity or nudity, though your usage also makes sense. If this interpretation is valid, and NOTCENSORED applies here, I don't think we should ignore the flip side of the coin, in that "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not seek to needlessly offend its readers." (WP:Offensive material) While I see you as being fairly neutral on the current issue, I've see others taking a stance like, "It's too bad so many people are offended by this wording, but it's accurate, and Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED so we should use it." While I agree with both the accuracy of the wording, and the NOTCENSORED policy, I think it's possible to be both accurate and non-offensive at the same time, at least in this case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it was a recently settled case and you can read about it here. Just to warn you, this is a long and tedious case to read. I agree with you completely that we shouldn't needlessly offend our readers. If something is going to be offensive it needs to be justified to be included and cannot be included simply because we're not censored. In this case I think that we're well justified in using the word based upon its acceptance in the relevant fields as demonstrated by sources, and so to not include it because it might offend a portion of the population would run counter to NPOV. I might have missed it if other editors have said that we should include it because we're not censored and would not agree with this line of reasoning. That we're not censored doesn't mean we should do anything, but rather if there are compelling reasons to do something the fact that we're not censored is a reason not to not include something. I should probably think of a better way to phrase that :) N^oformation ^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While I believe that the lead needs a lot of work to comply with the WP:LEAD guideline, I think the first sentence (first three sentences, actually) are fine as they are. I understand that some people may not realize that the word "myth" has multiple meanings (Myth as in "Bigfoot is a myth" vs Myth as in core religious narrative) and take it as a pejorative description, but I don't think we should rephrase it because of their misconceptions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A few editors have said that 'myth' is a "word to avoid". This assertion runs directly and explicitly counter to policy. WP:NPOV says "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of...concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid." Mythology is one of the two examples used at WP:RNPOV in the above example, and words to avoid has no entry for myth. The claim that we should avoid using myth is spurious, and counter to the exact wording of NPOV, and even if "words to avoid" did address it, the manual of style does not trump one of the five pillars.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted says, "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words [fundamentalism and mythology] only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." I think a problem with the sentence is that it's not immediately clear to an uneducated reader that there is a formal academic definition of myth. I also believe that a reader shouldn't have to constantly follow links to other articles to discover what ambiguous words mean. Though I agree with using the term creation myth in the article, I think the word myth should be used with care, especially in the first sentence of the Lead.

I don't remember if I've ever commented on this article before, but I do remember seeing a RFC here not too long ago. It would be nice if both sides could give a little and agree on something that will be stable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't clear to the reader what is meant by the word, they are able to click the term, as it is a wikilink, which provides an "instant pathway to a location within the project that is likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." - SudoGhost 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It won't help. I have shown that several times. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, that is correct; that first sentence says we should use mythology "only in its formal sense", which we are doing. The following sentence says that we should not avoid using it out of "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings". The argument that readers may not understand we're using the formal sense runs counter to that policy.

@Walter, you've shown several times that readers remove "creation myth", but it's been shown to you several times that this behavior is normal and does not influence consensus or the weight of sources. If it did, we'd need to change Age of the universe to say it might be 6,000 years old. That article gets changed far more than this one.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please just read what I've written. You're answering a question that is not an issue. The issue is that while the phrase purports to be unoffensive, it isn't. No amount of reasoning will change that fact. I am not asking for the term to be removed. I am stating that we have to change the way the sentence is written to avoid offence and continuing edit wars over the term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have, Walter. You're still asserting that readers changing the article against consensus should influence our coverage. It shouldn't. You're still asserting that the term being 'offensive' should influence our coverage. It shouldn't. We are following policy to the letter, which indicates the term may be offensive, and so we should use it only in its formal sense, and not avoid it when appropriate. In theory, I don't object to changing the wording for clarity, but no proposal thus far (including this one) has been acceptable. This wording, like others, attempts to push one of the singular defining characteristics of the subject out of the definition, and adds unnecessary and confusing wording to boot. All this when our current wording is explicitly supported by policy. I mean seriously... it's the example NPOV uses to demonstrate policy. It's not that I haven't read your replies, Walter; it's that you haven't presented a policy-based objection, or a proposal which doesn't suffer from unnecessary problems.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jess, take a look at the proposal above by 114.78.5.201 and my addendum to it, I think it's more concise than anything else that has been proposed thus far. N^oformation ^Talk 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I was avoiding that thread while I mulled it over. I've responded now. That may be our best option for the time being. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@Walter: You've shown nothing, all you've done is make assertions without any sort of reasoning or appeal to policy and you've ignored every instance of people pointing out to you that you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting policy. All that matters here is what the sources say; that's the whole point of NPOV, that our views as editors are not inserted into the article. Like it or not, the academic sources (which are what WP uses, like it or not) are very explicit in their use of the term. as Jess pointed out, this word is the word used in the policy to demonstrate the policy. Your argument is essentially WP:IJDLI. N^oformation ^Talk 01:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I respectfully disagree. And out of respect for the proposal will stop arguing with the cabal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note The OP for this thread, Lisa (talk, has asked editors to look at two possible ways of working "myth" into the opening of the lead. She is not suggesting that the word be dropped. I think we should restrict comments to her proposal. PiCo (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, PiCo, for keeping us on topic. After reading through the comments above, I think there's a fair consensus against Lisa's specific wording, though I think there have been a few alternate suggestions that merit discussion. I'd like to see this discussion move forward, and I think an important question to discuss is: "Does the current wording make it clear that the word 'myth' is being used in an academic sense?" Perhaps Lisa, or an uninvolved editor, could create a subsection for that discussion, where if editors disagree, they can discuss how to fix the sentence so that it is clear. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - My only reservation is about the clause "in the academic sense of the term." The page linked to by the term seems, to me, to use only the academic sense of the term, so the clause is seemingly redundant. Also, personally, I am myself unaware of the phrase "creation myth" being used in any sense but the academic sense, so the clause seems to almost be trying to dissociate itself from the relevant content, and I can't see a good reason for such extraordinary measures to be taken. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. Suggested wording is clearer to a general audience, but too verbose. Is there a way we can say this in less words? Here's one suggestion, borrowing from the lede of creation myth:

The Genesis creation narrative is a creation myth (a symbolic narrative of how the world began) contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

I personally believe the Genesis narrative to be a myth in the colloquial sense of fictional as well, but would like to avoid further bloodshed over the issue, and be clear about the meaning of terms we use. Dcoetzee 03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There is abundant evidence—anthropological, archeological, geological, cosmological—that the Genesis 'creation narrative' is a myth in both the colloquial sense and the academic sense. Many religious people acknowledge that the account can only be regarded as 'allegory', which is essentially a euphemism for 'myth'. List of creation myths lists quite a few articles that no one minds referring to as myths. The assertion that the biblical creation myth can't be called a 'myth' is merely argumentum ad populum.

Wikipedia is not censored, and does not need to employ euphemisms to avoid upsetting people who believe something that is ostensibly not real. See also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case the theory of evolution should be included in your List of creation myths as it is even less supported by evidence—anthropological, archeological, geological, or cosmological—than the Genesis creation narrative and is in fact a far-fetched explanation of events leading up to life in the universe that denies scientific reality. (sorry about the off topic comment, but again, editors are only wishing to include context from only one side of the subject, which violates WP:NPOV). Willietell (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is maybe the most ridiculous statement on this page and it's utter, absolute bullshit. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of articles published in peer reviewed journals every week that add to the immense amount of evidence for evolution. You are clearly out of your element here and need to take a biology class or 5. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some crap blog that can publish any sort of nonsense that its editors want. Find me a reputable encyclopedia on this planet that treats evolution as anything other than the well established theory that it is. We have many, many policies that demand evolution be treated as fact - we even have an article entitled Evolution as theory and fact. And just FYI, from someone who actually studies science, believe it or not but there is more physical evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity. Please educate yourself on the topic if you're going to comment on it. N^oformation ^Talk 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The theory of evolution has absolutely no basis in scientific fact, and chose to believe it or not, it still regarded as a THEORY and not as scientific fact. The theory in itself is more religion than science and creates a conundrum of which came first, the chicken or the egg, or more scientifically stated, which came first RNA or DNA, both of which are dependent on the other for their very existence. In other words, you cant have RNA without the pre-existence of DNA, and yet RNA must be present for DNA to be formed. Those my friend, are scientific facts and they lead to the simple conclusion that life must have had an intelligent creator, rather than forming by accident. Willietell (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response indicates a fundamental misunderstaning of the meaning of theory as it applies to the scientific method. Specifically, a theory is not simply a vague untested concept with no evidence, but "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc." Compare theory of gravity, germ theory. Your flawed concept of the term theory in this sense is popular among creationists. The Usage notes at Wiktionary's entry for wikt:theory even states:

In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”. This is particularly found with reference to the “theory of evolution”, which opponents disparage with “it’s just a theory [conjecture]”, while proponents retort that in this context, theory means instead “well-developed, well-established”.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you've had a very poor education and don't have a full grasp of the definition of the word "Theory". I could help you by defining it for you, but you will likely get greater benefit by actually looking it up in a dictionary. 68.32.70.131 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be thoroughly confusing the informal use of the word theory with the formal one. Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is, unless you mean to suggest that gravity and the Earth revolving around the Sun are also "still regarded as a theories and not as scientific fact". This only serves to demonstrate that your arguments against usage of "myth" are similarly flawed, based on a similar misunderstanding of the meaning. - SudoGhost 07:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be thoroughly confusing! Gravitation is a law, not a theory. Go read the article linked to the redirect you linked. Newton codified it as a law. Prior to that, it was just a theory and there are theories on how it actually works, but gravity is itself a law. This only goes to show that your ideas are similarly flawed, based on a similar misunderstanding of the meaning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Theories do not "become laws", a law is a fact, it just is. A theory explains the why and how. They are not mutually exclusive; there is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity. If you're going to copy and paste someone else's comment to mock them, at least get your facts straight. - SudoGhost 07:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. (And I will here re-iterate that believers like to misuse the term theory by ignoring the scientific context of the term.) Additionally, if Walter were to read History of gravitational theory, he would see that the history of the theory did not end with Newton to be replaced with a law. Rather, the history of the theory extends right up to the more detailed modern understanding of gravity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is laughable, it's like being on a game show where you have to convince people from the 10th century that the earth isn't flat and that the sky isn't made of water, except you're playing the part of Sisyphus and the only contestant is George W Bush. Do you not realize that the entire field of biology makes no sense without evolution? DNA itself was discovered because two very brilliant men deduced from evolutionary theory that it must exist. Without evolution it could not have been predicted nor found. The two of you have no idea what you're talking about in any stretch of the imagination. Take one biology class if you're so in to biology, please. N^oformation ^Talk 09:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, few here have a true grasp of either the definition of the word "theory" or exactly what is and isn't understood regarding either Newtons law of gravity, which has application in Physics, or of the "theory of gravity", which is the subject of a multitude of debates in the scientific community, because gravity is still not understood and how it works is still a mystery. They are in fact, two separate issues and thus two separate topics. That aside, the topic was evolution, not theory. To bring the discussion to theory instead of evolution is like discussing a box containing some material, rather than the contents of the box, because you don't know enough about the contents of the box to sound intelligent and therefore discuss the container to detract from the true point of the discussion,(politicians do this all the time). The scientific facts are that the theory of evolution has no basis in scientific fact because it falls into a conundrum when trying to explain either the origins or the complexity of life. Evolution thus fails a basic litmus test and cannot answer basic questions, such as which came first, RNA or DNA, both of which are dependent on the other for their very existence and cannot exist without the other existing first. These basic facts necessitate intelligent design, not evolution, for the beginnings of life. Evolution therefore, will never be proven correct and will always remain a farfetched theory. Willietell (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the specific RFC request, the former wording is suitable. The suggested alternative wording sounds more like a disclaimer with a provisional definition of the term. This is unnecessary, unless all creation myth articles are treated the same way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. I didn't think about WP:NDA here but it seems to loosely apply. N^oformation ^Talk 05:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I of course oppose the suggested rewrite, which strikes me as amateurish (in the academic sense of the term...). I would note that the proposer seems confused that already by not entitling this article the Genesis Creation Myth, in keeping with our other creation myth articles, this already reflects compromise wording. So I support moving this back to Genesis Creation Myth for consistency with similar articles. Simply put, there is no way that someone who believes Genesis to be true (to whatever degree) can bend an encyclopedic treatment of this topic, given the weight of academic consensus, to their POV, although this article can certainly admit of the fact that plenty of people actually believe the story of Genesis. I know that this is an ongoing issue, but Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for people who find the conclusions of a century of biblical criticism objectionable, nor can Wikipedia adopt a form of self-censoring prior restraint by shying away from representing that consensus based on the protection of sensibilities. And finally, Lisa, calling something a "violation of NPOV" because it doesn't conform to your personal views, while reflecting the academic literature, is itself an obvious violation of NPOV. Eusebeus (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I am indifferent to it, for the most part. I weakly oppose putting it in the body of the article. I weakly support putting it in a large footnote (i.e. [NOTE 1] style). I weakly consent to keeping it as is, with the wikilink, but think the page needs to be semi-protected if so, because at least one or two different IPs comes in here every day to change it from "myth" to "story" or "account". If the page is not semi-protected, I do believe clarification is needed, so I support a note, and am indifferent to/weakly oppose putting it in the article, but will lend my support to putting it in the article if consensus for a note can't be found. Summing up: 1. Keep it as-is and semi-protect the page, 2. Add a note, 3. Put it in the article, in that order of preference. I am moderately opposed to moving the article per WP:UCN. Note to above poster: "theory" means "demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt". In scientific discourse, "hypothesis" is used in the way you use "theory". St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Further Comment: I fully support and endorse BlackRaven's wording - The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth – the symbolic narrative of how the world began – contained in the first two chapters... (with or without "symbolic") as the best compromise solution yet suggested to keep the first sentence from being constantly vandalized, which is a strong sign in confirmation of my far-earlier suspicions - that a large amount of users who read the first sentence page are confused by it (a position I stopped holding, at the time, due to the simple and reasonable statement of another user, "do we actually have any studies that show the average person is likely to misunderstand the term"? - it seems now that many do, based on the levels of changes, especially when compared to the Law of Internet Content Creation. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its a matter of people misunderstanding the term, but of people not liking the term. The same situation is present at the Age of the universe article with people constantly changing the same thing over and over, not because of a misunderstanding, but because it isn't consistent with their POV. - SudoGhost 04:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Never attribute to malice what incompetence can explain" is the dictum I follow here with IPs.

• Comment The current wording seems fine, the link to creation myth avoids ambiguities. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The current wording doesn't comply with policy. It is not neutral to call all the other creation myths myths, but to call this one something else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment was aimed at the original wording of it being called creation myth in line with what the academic sources do. "current wording" was a bad choice of words as the article had changed. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

So far:

• It seems everyone is happy to make some accommodation towards avoiding the possibility of offending readers;
• No-one seems to be particularly for the wording suggested by Lisa and endorsed by Walter Görlitz.
• Most people seem to agree that the proposal to rename the article to Genesis creation myth and specify what exactly we mean by the term creation myth in the first sentence so we very clearly satisfy WP:RNPOV. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I count:
  • For: Myself, Anupam, FoxCE, Noformation, Jess, Adjwilley, Walter Görlitz, Wekn (I think);
  • Against: Willietell, Wekn; JohnChrysostom
  • Unknown: SudoGhost, Black Falcon, PiCo, Dcoetzee (although he/she is proposing a similar solution, although I don't like the idea of parentheticals in the first sentence), Jeffro77)
• Some of the above people have made additional suggestions, for example linking creation myth in the first sentence, and this should be fine (but is an easy thing do once we're settled on the path forward).

So, perhaps the people who haven't yet commented on this proposal (or some slight alteration of it) could explicitly comment on it and then assuming most people are happy then we can move forward? 114.78.5.201 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am against renaming the article, I am not opposed to changing the lead, I prefer the suggestion offered up by Wekn reven , which is:

The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation as presented in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.

I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach. Willietell (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop calling it a POV spin. It is not that editors on this talk page want it to be "myth" it is that the reliable sources call it a creation myth. NPOV means we report what the sources say and best represent the academic view. Can you not see that your statement is saying that the sources are POV and thus we should do what you think is fair instead? That's the very definition a POV violation. N^oformation ^Talk 11:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Per my statement here, my position should not be unclear. I support the previous wording rather than Lisa's suggested wording or the other suggestions. Additionally, WP:RNPOV states, "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, because that position splits the vote. My suggestion of renaming the article and using this (or similar) as a first sentence

The Genesis creation myth is the symbolic narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

does not avoid using the term creation myth, can not be accused of deliberately offending readers (we spell out what we mean), brings this article into line with our other creation myth article titles and may even discourage random IP's from trying to drive-by remove the term creation myth from the article since it's built into the article title and would be therefore be a wasted effort. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But it does explain it more fully than it is now. Three people did object to the use of "symbolic". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there reliable, academic sources that describe it as literal? If so then let's drop symbolic, if not then it has to stay per NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 05:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I just drew the term symbolic from the creation myth article for consistency between our articles. I don't see why a biblical literalist would complain about the term - consider that you could argue (in a sense) that the theory of general relativity is symbolic of what we perceive to be reality; it's a representation. Similarly, the Genesis creation myth is symbolic, and if you choose that to be your representation of reality then so be it. There are no false connotations associated with the term symbolic, in my opinion, but if people really want to remove the term, then so be it, I'm not that worried. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was only referring to the specific terms of the RFC regarding Lisa's suggested changes. I do not object to renaming the article to Genesis creation myth. Sorry for any confusion. On consideration, I don't have strong objection to the wording offered by 114.78.5.201, with the exception that symbolic should not be used, as some believers consider the account to be wholly literal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I object to including the use of the phrase creation myth in the title as well as to the use of the word symbolic in the description of the Genesis account as BOTH are simply an introduction of more POV spin into the article. POV spin issues cannot be solved by the introduction of yet more POV spin. Willietell (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If I were a literalist, I would be more concerned about the connotations of the term story than the connotations of the term symbolic, but hey, each to their own. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with symbolic is that it contradicts those who hold a literal interpretation of the creation narrative. The word "story" isn't used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You're still acting as though it matters what the layman thinks about the subject, so apparently I have to point out again that this is not the case. NPOV is not determined by the opinions of the layman it is determined by expert sources. If every person on earth believed the sky way red but one single reliable source said it was blue our article would also call it blue. The reliable sources - IE the scholarly sources - do not speak of genesis literally and so per wikipedia policy that is what the article must represent. I get that you don't like the rules, so by all means try and change them; until that happens these kinds of statements hold no water. N^oformation ^Talk 09:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, since I wasn't mentioned in the IP editor's count above, I see no compelling reason for change and therefore support the status quo. We don't "vote" on these things, however; consensus cannot be found in numbers alone. Besides, this is still a very new RfC and many contributors may yet wish to weigh in. It seems premature to talk about "moving forward" just yet. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone dig up the AFD on the Genesis creation myth article? It's listed in the history but as a red link. I'd be interested to hear the arguments in that case. N^oformation ^Talk 09:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD was about the redirect, not the article itself (diff), which was then discussed here. - SudoGhost 10:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

On the statement at the beginning of this section, I conform more to Willietell's view, part of which states: "I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach." Wekn reven 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That would violate WP:RNPOV by doing exactly what Wikipedia policy says not to do, so it is not an option. - SudoGhost 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Escuse me, but:

On the statement at the beginning of this section, I conform more to Willietell's view, part of which states: "I prefer this rendering because it solves the issue of POV spin that is leading to edit warring over the insistence of using the terminology creation myth while providing a link to this very page for expanded understanding by the reader. I think this a a fair and logical approach."

Especially per: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid." Not because readers may confuse the two meanings, but because even the formal meaning can be used offensively, and the word 'narrative' seems to more accurately describe what is found in chapters 1 through 2. Wekn reven 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, then discuss that on the policy talk page. But as per the policy you quoted, creation myth must be used, and should not be changed just to avoid causing offense. The formal meaning is used in a very specific way to avoid unnecessary offense, but that does not mean that possible offense is cause to remove what is reflected by reliable sources. - SudoGhost 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wekn, this interpretation was explained as incorrect above. The clause is not saying that those words be used in their formal sense and not to cause offense, it's saying that those words should be used in their formal sense to not cause offense. The policy doesn't prescribe anything beyond using the words formally as a means to inhibit offense, it is exclusive to that one way of doing so. The rest of RNPOV specifically states that we do not omit academic terms for the sake of catering to a religious viewpoint. I can't see any justification for your proposal because it obfuscates a much used academic term and the only reason I can imagine it does so is to remove what some may consider an offensive element from the mix, and fortunately or not, that contradicts WP policy. N^oformation ^Talk 10:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no policy justification for removing the term "creation myth" because it may offend the sensibilities of uninformed readers. First of all, Genesis 1 and 2 are routinely and non-controversially described as a "creation myth" in the scholarly literature. Second of all, readers come here to be informed, and the information that Genesis is a creation myth is essential information. Third of all, for readers who are still confused, a link is provided to the article on "Creation Myth" so as to clear up any misundrestandings.

We do not patronize uninformed or misinformed readers simply out of reluctance to hurt their feelings. As long as we are using the term in the scholarly sense, we are not responsible for how they feel. That is their own problem, and they'll just have to deal with it. It's a normal part of learning, and growing up. Keeping them in an informational ghetto does them no service, as far as the goals of WP are concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely with the above. Eusebeus (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So do I. Well said. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

People can go round in circles all they like. The end of the matter is that the Genesis account is a creation myth, and per Wikipedia policy, that is exactly what the article should call it. Wikipedia is not censored. Secular sources call it a creation myth. Wikipedia is supposed to use the correct formal terms. End of story. If people don't like the policies, they need to discuss the policies elsewhere.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not a matter of liking a policy, its more a matter of not adhering to some people's opinionated interpretation of that policy. The policy was put in place to avoid just what certain editors are attempting to do, which is use scientific terminology to embed POV spin into an article and then stand back and hid their intentions behind the policy and plead innocence. The use of creation myth in this instance is introducing POV spin into the article in just such a manner, and it therefore in violation of WP:NPOV, like it or not. Willietell (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That dog won't hunt. Best shoot it now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation myth is not POV, but it is only one term used to describe the event. And ideally, the term should be elaborated. Click-through obviously doesn't work. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Opinionated interpretation"? The policy says: "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." The policy is extremely clear. The article should not avoid using the term myth, which is the formal term used in reliable sources. The wording in the article should not be modified "out of sympathy for a particular point of view". It is not sufficient reason to leave out the correct formal term out of "concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The objections to the correct terminology are entirely against the policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Willietell's talk page archives. S/he has a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV and sourcing and has been accused in the past of POV pushing on Jehova's Witness articles. It's also been noted that when a source contradicts his world view he refers to it as a POV spin. What he needs to understand is that NPOV refers to editor opinions, and that sources are the only thing that matters on WP - NPOV means following what the sources say regardless of whether editors agree with it I fear, however, that this will fall on deaf ears since it's not the first time he's been told. Ultimately it's not really relevant though; no closing admin is going to consider arguments that misunderstand policy. N^oformation ^Talk 02:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

N^oformation ^Talk I don't know why you want to get personal and start slinging mud, this subject has little to do with me, my religious affiliation, or my talk page archives. It has to do with whether or not the inclusion of the phrase "creation myth" leads the reader to a POV interpretation, nothing else...I feel that it does, as do other editors here. Reasonable compromises have been offered. I have supported one that was offered by an editor who I have never had any past dealings with in an attempt to reach consensus. There is no need to attempt to engage in personal attacks of myself or or any other editors, as we need to direct our attention towards being constructive in editing out the POV spin introduced by "creation myth". Willietell (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, a great many of the issues that you consider to be "POV spin", in reference to statements from reliable sources, are quite directly related to your religious affiliation, as is the case for several editors who object to the proper academic term, creation myth.

If the purpose of the RFC is to determine whether the intro "leads the reader to a POV interpretation," then the RFC is redundant. The policy already explains that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources out of ... concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I like this wording:
• "The Genesis creation narrative is the story of creation contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible)."

Per the policy (WP:RNPOV), it should be Genesis creation myth. The rest of this suggested wording is fine, and the piped link for creation myth gets around saying 'creation myth' twice in the same sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would support to change it to that wording (or something similar). I would oppose a change in the title of the article. Zenkai _talk 18:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm fairly neutral on moving the article, though I doubt that a move will result an any long-term stability, since it seems to be a step away from compromise. I think the wording above would be a nice compromise, but I don't think a consensus will be reached if the discussion becomes any more polarized. I'm going to take this page back off my watchlist now, but I can be reached on my talk page if somebody has a question. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be kind of hard for drive by IPs to challenge it being in the lede if it were the title of the article though, and with a large RFC backing the move, arguing against it after the fact would kind of pointless. This may upset certain editors with a hard Christian POV, but it's the option that's most in line with policy and may have the best shot of stability. N^oformation ^Talk 00:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia. It presents information from reliable sources. It's not a church journal. "Editors should not avoid using terminology ... out of sympathy for a particular point of view." We do not need to dance around the word myth with other euphemisms. People with "a hard Christian POV" will have to either accept it or refrain from reading the article. Cartoons depicting Muhammad are present at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for much the same reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Having a "moving forward" discussion seems inappropriate in that the RFC is still open. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that talking of moving forward is likely premature after only two days of opening an RfC. Still, out of concern for there being only one viewpoint being represented in the moving forward discussion, I have participated, as I will in the attempt to improperly introduce POV spin into the name of the article by re-naming it to include the contested phrase to compound the error with a more is less attitude. The policy that is being used to insist that "creation myth" be used states:

"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid."

What is being ignored by certain editors is the first sentence, as the introduction of the word "creation myth" in the manner in which it is being employed, does not "take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." In fact, it uses them in such a way as to cause offense and mislead the reader by taking an opinionated stance, in the article, in support of viewing the Genesis Creation Narrative as a mythological story and therefore untrue, and seems to do so in a rather purposeful manner. It does not attempt to handle the view held by multitudes that the Genesis account is a true historical representation of creation, and thus puts Wikipedia in the position of taking sides, which constitutes POV spin and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV. Willietell (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The quoted policy does not say "Do not use these words to avoid causing offense", which is what you are suggesting. Neither does the policy suggest that causing offense is a determining factor either, it in fact states the exact opposite. What it does say, is to use terminology in a formal sense to avoid causing unnecessary offense, not to avoid causing any offense. The article does this, reinforced by the wikilink explaining the meaning intended. - SudoGhost 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If its use wasn't causing unnecessary offense, the edit-warring would not be going on and we would not be having this discussion. Please don't pretend to be in denial of reality here. I am not suggesting that the policy says "Do not use these words to avoid causing offense", but the policy implies that editors should take care in the use of possibly inflammatory wording. Phrases such as creation myth, when discussing the beliefs held by millions, is certainly a possibly inflammatory phrase, as is indicated by the number of times it has been edited out, thus demonstrating that its use has not been carefully considered to avoid inflaming the reader. I submit that better alternatives are available and thus should be substituted to avoid the constant back and forth editing. This is only common sense and should be little cause for argument, but instead, some editors are unyielding in their support of the terminology in the article and now insist also in its incorporation into the title as well. Willietell (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true. The fact that it is edit-warred over at most suggests that it causes some offense, however this does not preclude the necessity of adherence to reliable sources. This is what is meant by unnecessary offense, that no offense is caused is not the priority, it is secondary to WP:RS. The number of adherents to a particular religion is not a factor in determining anything, and if the number of times it has been edited was an indication of what you suggest, then the both the Age of the Universe and Age of the Earth articles would have to state "6,000 years" instead of adhering to reliable sources, and we would have to remove any image of the prophet Mohammad from any article on Wikipedia. However, we do not do this, because while it is unfortunate that some people are offended by certain things on Wikipedia, this is not what guides our policies or our articles. - SudoGhost 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It does cause unnecessary offense. Zenkai _talk 05:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No it does not. You are confusing "unnecessary offense" with offense caused by adherence to Wikipedia policy. That offense is caused does not equate to "unnecessary offense", and simply being offended is not something that guides the policy. Will you also argue that images of Muhammad on Wikipedia cause unnecessary offense? Should those also be removed? - SudoGhost 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track

I am simply appalled. This RfC was intended to sidestep the conflict, and instead, it is being used by both sides to launch renewed assaults to push their own POVs.

There are a number of issues that are being ignored here. First and foremost is Wikipedia policy. This is taken from WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion:

An important note on using the term "fundamentalism": In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Wikipedia articles about religion should use this word only in its technical sense, not "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. As religion is an emotional and controversial topic, Wikipedia editors should be prepared to see some articles edited due to seemingly minor quibbles. Stay civil and try not to take discussions too personally.

I've bolded the sentence "Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." for emphasis. Wikipedia is about providing information. Not about reaching for some sort of academic or ideological purity. The suggestions above which remove the term "creation myth" entirely, relegating it to a hidden wikilink, are inappropriate. As is the ill-considered request move request below.

Secondly, some editors have argued that NPOV requires that articles have a uniform title. That if Ainu creation myth and Yoruba creation myth are called creation myths in the title, it would be POV to not use creation myth in the title here. This reflects a misunderstanding of NPOV. As stated, Wikipedia is not about achieving some sort of purity. It is about providing information. User:Jeffro77 suggested above that "The assertion that the biblical creation myth can't be called a 'myth' is merely argumentum ad populum." Wikipedia is for the populum. The goal should be readability. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers understand the terms "myth" and "creation myth" as denoting fiction is ignoring reality.

Perhaps the particular edit I suggested in the RfC isn't the smoothest writing possible. That doesn't change the fact that the appropriate solution to this ongoing and incessant war is to (a) identify the first two chapters of Genesis as a "creation myth" in the lede, and (b) clarify -- right there, and not merely in a wikilink -- what is meant by "creation myth" in this context. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if we use “creation myth”, and I believe we should, better we should do so with an inline explanation. Informing readers is our goal. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lisa here (deliberately?) confuses argumentum ad populum with some notion of argumentum pro populum. Wikipedia is indeed for the 'populum'. But it presents the views of reliable sources, not of 'the populum'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again another section is started before the RFC has finished. Can people not simply wait till the RFC has finished so we can gauge where we are and what the consensus is? This section appears intended to sidestep the conflict, and instead, it is being used to launch renewed assaults to push their own POVs (paraphrasing your words).IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Genesis creation narrative → Genesis creation myth – WP:RNPOV states that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." The correct formal term for this article per that policy is Genesis creation myth. Jeffro77 (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move. This will bring the article's title back in line with sister articles found at List of creation myths, none of which use similar euphemistic terminology to tiptoe around sensibilities regarding the academic term. Most of the recent argumentation here has revolved around where and in what context to place the phrase "creation myth", and I think that only a move back to the original name can stabilize this continuous conflict. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This move will not stabilize the conflict any more than it did the last time this was tried. And the titles of other articles are not relevant. If you go to List of creation myths, you can see that not all of them use that term in the title anyway. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the articles about creation myths listed at List of creation myths have "myth" in the title; it's just that some of those links are to articles with subsections about a creation myth. The sister article titles are relevant because they use the proper notable academic term, which is the same one used in all of our primary sources here. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I support this per the discussion in the above RFC. In particular:

• The consensus is clear that this is a creation myth;
• The suggested title does not avoid using the term creation myth (as suggested by WP:NPOV);
• With respect to certain terms, taking care not to deliberately offend people is also mentioned in WP:NPOV, and the suggested article title allows us to eloquently construct a sentence that spells out exactly what we mean by the term creation myth so as to avoid that possibility, for example:

The Genesis creation myth is the narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

• The suggested title brings this article into line with the article titles of our other creation myth articles (the current situation suggests the current article title is avoiding the term creation myth);
• Some people are concerned by drive-by censorship, and the suggested title may actually discourage random IP's trying to censor the term: since the term is built into the article title such a change would require discussion on the talk page. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style, the bold text should not contain a link. Therefore, to retain a rather imporant link to the academic concept of creation myth without saying it twice in one sentence, it should say something like The Genesis creation myth is the story of creation found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the obvious, but after scouring through the relevant MOS guidelines I don't see anything about avoiding wikilinks in the leading bold text. Can you point to the relevant guideline page? Thanks. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to confuse the situation by using two different terms to refer to the same concept. After a quick scan I couldn't find anything in the MoS that prohibited a wikilink where I suggested (note that the article title is descriptive not proper), however something like

The Genesis creation myth is the narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created.

might work too. However, it's probably not worth investing too much time in the details of the first sentence until after the Requested Move succeeds. 114.78.5.201 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK#Principles: "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if the title is considered merely discriptive rather a specific reference, note that WP:LEADSENTENCE states that "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." If different words are used in the opening sentence for descriptive titles, they also do not need to be in bold (see the Mississippi River example at MOS:BOLDTITLE). However, I think in this case that the title is too specific to be considered 'descriptive' in that context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can follow what is done at Ancient Egyptian creation myths, where "creation of the world" is hyperlinked to creation myth, thus: The Genesis creation myth is the account of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).. That seems to flow nicely. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The redundancy in the lead of that article isn't really a prime example, but your suggestion seems to work.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To reduce wordiness, and to reflect that the account is the creation myth, could we change it to: The Genesis creation myth is the creation narrative contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That could work as well—we can wait for further input from others to see what the community can agree on. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: WP exists to inform people about the scholarly consensus, not to patronize them. We use the language favored by the experts in the topic area, not the language uninformed and misinformed readers are comfortable with. Creating a "comfort zone" or "Christian Ghetto" does our readers no service. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP exists to inform people. Full stop. Using a term that you know will be understood by most readers is a policy violation. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant misunderstood. However, that isnot a policy violation, and is in fact specifically mentioned by Wikipedia policy as being something that is not a factor in determining the usage of said terminology. - SudoGhost 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I support this, but won't argue for it when the rocks start falling. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:RNPOV and for consistency with other creation myth articles. Eusebeus (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is not Wikipedia policy. And WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion clarifies WP:RNPOV, stating that the term should be explained for readers. Which cannot be done in the title, but can and should be done in the lede. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it says that, since you added it into the FAQ: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I added the paragraph noting that "myth" and "creation myth" are cases functionally identical to the case of "fundamentalism", which was already there. I'll thank you not to make false accusations. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support The fact that this article is not already entitled as a creation myth is a serious WP:NPOV issue. Firstly, our sources call it a creation myth without contention, and in fact the only opposition is based upon the personal feelings of a number of editors who hold WP:FRINGE views on the subject and believe that the word "myth" is offensive because it's not in line with a fundamentalist Christian POV. Secondly, WP:RNPOV specifically uses the word "myth" to demonstrate the policy; the policy itself reads that we should not shy away from using established academic terms in order to appease a segment of the population that may not agree with said terminology. As it stands, there have been no policy based arguments against using the term in the article nor against using it in the title. All arguments against it have been based on WP:IJDLI, with at least one editor claiming that the sources themselves are a "POV spin", which clearly misunderstands the purpose and meaning of WP:NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 09:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The continued assertion that only a Christian POV explains wanting to clarify the term "creation myth" in the lede, rather than place it in the title, is demonstrably false. I'm not a Christian. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As a member of a religion in support of the creation myth found in the Hebrew Bible, your objection is semantically redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as it reflects the name used by sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately the word "myth" has a negative connotation. The word "narrative" is actually NPOV and should be maintained. However hard to understand from a non-traditionalist point of view, there are people who believe that the first two chapters of Genesis reflect the actual order of creation (perhaps in shrouded language, e.g. one "day" denoting millions of years) and that it is certainly not a myth. This point of view would be underrepresented if we chose the term "myth" where the more neutral term "narrative" could be used. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "There are people..." — just curious: how many? Where are they? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. But myth is the correct term per policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it actually is not. WP:RNPOV is clarified by WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is. The "clarification" you added does not carry any weight, nor does it, even as written, preclude adherence to WP:RNPOV. The usage is correct and formal. - SudoGhost 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Myth" is merely a term found occasionally in use in academic circles. "Story" would probably be the most commonly encountered characterization of "Genesis". The term "narrative" is perfectly acceptable as a characterization of the Genesis creation story as it is clearly understood by all—without the negative connotations of "myth". We should be mature enough not to be taking potshots at easy targets such as religion in our article-naming and in the words used in the leads of articles. The positioning of the term "myth" in the title or in the lead I feel is just a gratuitous slight to the broad area of religion, which makes an easy target. We should exercise restraint and use terms such as "narrative" or "story" which fail to express the negative opinions that "myth" inevitably conveys. Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Curious: what makes this one different from every other myth? White people believe it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would bring skin color in to this discussion. It seems out of place, childish, rude, and incendiary. It makes me discount pretty much every argument you put forth. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't any of the things you mentioned. I am simply asking whether it is believed that a supposedly offensive term can be readily applied to the beliefs of black people, brown people, and Asians, but not when it potentially offends white people. It's a completely legitimate question. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like very uncharitable, cynical, bordering on malicious, race-baiting to me. I would support using "narrative" for all of those titles described as such in reliable sources, but, in English, Judaic and Christian sources predominate, as do those for living religions, and those with more adherents. There's not ongoing discussion and debate about the Egyptian stories, nor about the many Hindu ones in English literature, from what I know. It has absolutely nothing to do with race, and I ask that you strike those two comments. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support the consensus is that this is a creation myth we should not use euphemistic expressions when there is a clear academic term in general use.Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:RNPOV is clear on this, and the only arguments I have seen given against this are that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings, something RNPOV specifically says is not a determining factor in using such terminology. - SudoGhost 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV is clarified by WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion. WP:RNPOV says that the term should be used, but WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion says that editors should "take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." That can't be done in a title; it can and should be done in the lede. And a wikilink is insufficient.

Something you just added to the FAQ doesn't make it a policy. However, even if it were, I very highly doubt that adding it to the title somehow makes it impossible to clarify the title of the article, and unless you can demonstrate the highly unlikely scenario where it would be impossible to clarify something, then that argument carries no weight. - SudoGhost 20:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not add the basic principle to the FAQ. Please don't make false accusations. I did add a paragraph noting that the one example given there ("fundamentalism") was not the only example, and that the same principle clearly applies to "myth" and "creation myth". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor have you demonstrated in any way that the term is not used in its formal sense, nor does the requested move preclude the ability to explain what is meant by the term. The FAQ is in no way an argument against the requested move, even with your recent addition taken into consideration, as nothing being proposed here in any way violates the policy, or the FAQ. - SudoGhost 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per FoxCE. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the fallacy that assumes the word "myth" has ever been demonstrated to be "terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources". The word "story" is far more common. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating this without backing it up does not give any weight to your position, as reliable sources in the article do describe the article's subject as a creation myth. This is in addition to other numerous reliable sources found elsewhere that describe the article's subject as a creation myth. In fact, most of the sources I found describing it as anything other than this appeared to be Christian sources writing solely from a Christian point of view. On Wikipedia, independent reliable sources carry more weight than non-independent sources. An independent source has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. I do not think it could be argued that a religious author writing about a religious subject has no significant connection to that religion, nor could it be said that they describe it from a disinterested perspective. Oddly, however, it was only the Christian viewpoints that described it as anything else, the sources I found that discussed the matter from a Judaic perspective had no issue describing it as a creation myth. - SudoGhost 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's clearly a creation myth, true or false, and although I understand this may offend some sensibilities we can't allow that to determine our articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says otherwise. See WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policy supports this change, the addition you recently added to the FAQ does not a policy make. - SudoGhost 20:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The only addition I made to the FAQ was an additional paragraph pointing out that what applies to "fundamentalism" applies just as much to "myth" and "creation myth". I added that for the logically impaired. Please don't make false accusations implying that the FAQ didn't already say that such terms should be clarified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The above is still completely relevant, and your additional clarification does not alter this, this application has no bearing on the title, the article does have the ability to explain itself, after all. - SudoGhost 23:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I think it comes down to a question of neutrality, so it should be named in a way similar to other articles of the same vein: Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Ainu creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Fon creation myth, Japanese creation myth, Kaluli creation myth, Mandé creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, and Tungusic creation myth. Green Giant (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - for all the same reasons that were used before when this article was wrongly moved to Genesis creation myth. The word "myth" is a loaded term which has a very common colloquial meaning. Furthermore, I suggest people check out WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion, where discussing the term "fundamentalism", it says "Take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." While this is speaking about the term "fundamentalism", the principle applies equally to the term "myth". Since it is impossible to explain what is meant by the term myth in a title, it should not be used here. The issue of other articles is a red herring, and entirely irrelevant. The use of a term in another article does not establish that it is appropriate here. Perhaps it is inappropriate there. The appropriate way to comply with the NPOV FAQ is to retain the current title of the article, define the Genesis creation narrative as a creation myth in the lede, and explain, also in the lede, that the term use being used in the academic sense, rather than the widely understood sense of "fictional creation story." - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That the word "myth" is a loaded term which has a "very" common colloquial meaning is not in any way a determining factor in its use in Wikipedia articles, as per WP:RNPOV. Wikilinking to the term at some point in the lede as previously suggested also solves any issue of not explaining the meaning behind the term, and even if this is not the best solution, it is incorrect to say that it is "impossible" to explain what is meant, as this is the entire point of any Wikipedia article, to explain and inform. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to ignore reliable sources and instead cater to a select few individuals out of concern that they may be offended, especially when that offense is not based on what is presented, but rather a misunderstanding of the terminology. - SudoGhost 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding terminology (or facts or images or anything really), as you suggest, out of concern we may offend someone is not an ideal this project upholds. For more details you can read the policy pages WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED that directly address this issue. However, as editors it is not our intention to deliberately offend our readers and we do recognise there are situations where some decorum on our part can and should be used, which brings us to your second point (which is largely irrelevant to choosing an article title) ...

No-one here objects to explaining in this article what we mean by the term creation myth, and how exactly we can do this has been discussed at length in this RM and the above RFC. We can realise both ideals (neutrality and decorum) by correctly naming this article as Genesis creation myth and then expand the definition of creation myth in the very first sentence. As I mentioned, there are numerous suggestions of how to do this in this RM and the above RFC. Using phrases like "in the academic sense of the term" as you suggest is at best poor style and at worst hopelessly unprofessional. 110.32.3.142 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

'Strong Oppose' means nothing more than simply 'Oppose', particularly when it is not backed up with a valid reference to policy, and especially when the editor has—during the dispute—modified a policy-related article to which they refer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is a large body of theological sources who actively question the "correct" definition of the term "myth". There is a large body of theological sources that strenuously oppose the application of "myth" as a genre to this particular work. There is a well documented history of the use of "myth" as a polemic and POV term. (You can find this linked from my userpage). All of this is proven evidence of a widespread viewpoint held by many theological sources to whom this topic is significant. However, all of this evidence of a significant point of view has been brushed aside or ruled "inadmissible" by select wikipedians who happen to take take the opposing view. This cannot be neutral conduct. Wikipedians are not supposed to set themselves up as smarter than reliable sources, or demand POV "litmus tests" for what they consider "reliability" for purposes of establishing that a viewpoint exists. If we make no mention at all of the massively documented opposition to this classification, then we are only telling HALF THE STORY and thereby doing the truth a disservice by pretending the other half does not exist or is unworthy of mention. We can do better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

where is this large body of, presumably mainstream and reliable, theological sources you mention? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the prominent theologians who have argued for one reason or another that this narrative does NOT fall into the genre of "myth" include: Bernhard Anderson, G. Ernest Wright, James I. Packer, James Orr, G. C. Berkouwer, Claus Westermann, Robert Jenson, René Girard, etc. etc. Only if we can decalre the opposing POV "right", can we declare this POV "wrong". How is doing so "neutral"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Granting you your list of sources for minute, there are no constraints on this article discussing a conflict of genre. The reality is though that the mainstream point of view is that this material is a creation myth. Avoiding this in the article title is not neutral, it is giving undue weight to your list of sources. 110.32.3.142 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose- I feel that to change the title to include the phrase creation myth is at a minimum, inflammatory. I think it violates [[2]] as well as [[3]] and becomes a title that in and of itself will be a point of contention, and is therefore ill advised. Willietell (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Lisa appears to use what was written in the FAQ as the basis for her argument. This seems disingenuous considering she added the paragraph cited herself: [4] IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty bad form. Eusebeus (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Very disturbing indeed. Like pissing on the campfire. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. The paragraph at WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion on "fundamentalism" was already there. I added the paragraph about "myth", but did not cite that here, specifically because I was the one who added that. If you think there's a distinction to be made between "fundamentalism", which has a scholarly definition and a connotation which differs, and "myth" (or "creation myth"), about which the same can (and has) been said, you should make that case, rather than violating WP:AGF. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing Creation myths and you referenced the text which states "that editors should take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.". This text is present in the section on creation myths. In a discussion on creation myths in the article did you expect people to look at the section on fundamentalism, or the section on creation myths that you added just an hour before posting? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Step away from consensus (indeed, coming full-circle from established consensus, which has been a war of POV-pushers from the beginning: first, "Creation according to Genesis", then "myth", then "narrative", next we'll have "Beginning of the Universe", and after that, "Bullshit fable"), unnecessarily inflammatory and contentious, not adhering to WP:UCN (as many, if not most, of the sources on this page use the term "narrative" - the use of "myth" or "narrative" depends on whether one is using something written by a comparative religionist/mythologist or Biblical scholar, and Biblical scholars tend to write the most, and most of the reliable sources, on Biblical topics). I'm sure I listed a few more objections up there, so just hit CTRL+F and type my name in. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support move - There is not only the question as to whether it is referred to as a "creation myth" in Biblical studies, but also the question as to whether it is called a "creation myth" in terms of studies of creation myths, like in te Encyclopedia of Creation Myths here, where it quite obviously is. Also, I note that there are several individuals who today worship in the tradition of Norse mythology (see Germanic neopaganism) and old Greco-Roman mythology, as I remember a piece on the BBC during the Athens Olympics about practitioners of the old Greco-Roman religion, which is currently illegal in Greece. There are also several revivals of old Egyptian religion. However, we do describe their beliefs under the general heading "mythology." I can see no particular reason why this individual case requires different treatment. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I can indeed point out a bona fide distinction. It seems the only relevant statements we have from the practitioners of these tiny neopagan revivals, are like those of Asatru, which specifically states that they officially consider the Norse sagas of Thor, etc. to be "myths" (meaning NOT historically or literally true, btw) and that they specifically do *not* object to this characterization. See the distinction? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While that does address one point of contention, it does not address the other. Yes, I acknowledge that there are any number of people who argue in some or all cases that some "myths" are true. However, as has been pointed out immediately below, existing policy specifically includes the word "myth" as an example in the relevant policy, and I can see no reason yet given why that policy should not apply in this case. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I've seen only three arguments against this proposal: 1) The claim that readers may confuse the formal and informal sense of the word. This is explicitly handled in WP:RNPOV, using "myth" as the example of policy. 2) The claim that the literature most often avoids "creation myth". This assertion has not been adequately supported with sources. SudoGhost presented a long list of sources using creation myth. As Dougweller points out, many of those avoiding "creation myth" are written from a Christian POV exclusively, not in a dispassionate, purely academic style. 3) The claim that the term "creation myth", even when written in an academic sense, is needlessly offensive to some readers. Per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RNPOV, this argument is explicitly against policy. Lisa's poor behavior is an additional cause for concern. Based on the remaining arguments presented, it appears consensus supports the move, and I see no reason not to concur with that consensus.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for now. I don't think the rename brings us any closer to solving the problems at hand. I still think a consensus could be reached by slightly tweaking the wording of the opening sentence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, changing the name is only going to compound the problem and lead to additional edit warring. The lede needs to be repaired to eliminate the questionable wording. Willietell (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Genesis 1-2 is by definition a "creation myth." The Christian mythology article explains the traditional attitude that Christianity has sacred "narratives" while other (esp. polytheistic) religions have false "myths." As long as Wikipedia uses "creation myth" for all cultures and religions except one, it will remain inconsistent and religiocentric. Keahapana (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth adding that section to this page. N^oformation ^Talk 00:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move. We should not give Christian creation myths special treatment; article titles should be consistent. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per Jess et al. The "narrative" is most accurately defined as but one of the many "creation myths" in existance. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until I can see an itemized list that myth outnumbers narrative in use, not only academic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What sort of request is that? You must realise that such a list is not possible, or is that the point here? And what is this "not only academic" statement? But it turns out you can be offered something even better - a reliable source claiming exactly what everyone here for the move has been saying. Per someone else's comment above: in George Every's book Christian Mythology (page 22), he notes that in contemporary Christianity myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone including probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants". He goes on to list this creation myth as an example. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Britannica (the closest thing to a comparable publication to Wikipedia you can ask for) also labels this a creation myth. 110.32.3.142 (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable request. The academicians seems to be disturbing the greatest amount of fecal matter, but if you'd rather just limit it to academicians not already listed here. You see, I fear that the list we have is incomplete because those who may not use the term would likely be already excluded. It's not because they're bad authors, only that they offer a contrary view. We already know Waltke's position and I'm sure that there are many others. So perhaps a better way to have phrased the term would have been "academicians from religious studies rather than religious studies or other branches of anthropology". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I get 361 post-1980 English-language Google Book hits for "genesis creation myth", 596 for "genesis creation narrative", 1,790 for "genesis creation account", and 2,340 for "genesis creation story". Doukhan's The Genesis Creation Story: Its Literary Structure (1978) is a widely cited scholarly work on this subject. The word "myth" may suggest the beliefs of a dead religion, as in "Greek myths" and so forth. It seems that the overwhelming majority of writers on this subject wish to avoid suggesting that Genesis is part of such a belief system. How can we justify "myth" when there are at least three other names that are more common? Kauffner (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. "Biblical creation story" OR "Biblical story of creation" looks like the winner as far as common name goes, with 5,900 post-1980 hits. Kauffner (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t and WP:GNUM. WP:WEIGHT also applies here - higher numbers doesn't mean higher quality. Your argument also doesn't address the fact that "myth" is one term used in WP:RNPOV to demonstrate the policy. N^oformation ^Talk 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Using search results in this way in general is not a reliable way of determining what is actually the common name for something. In particular, those who believe the Genesis creation myth to be literally true are a vocal minority, and as such, the search results do not accurately reflect usage by academics, or by society in general. For similar reasons, arguments about narrative being a better common name are also flawed, because they do not reflect a dispassionate neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - So far, three eighths of those responding have opposed the move, in most cases directly contradicting the policy at WP:RNPOV. One attempts an equivocation fallacy regarding the use of fundamentalism. One employs a slippery slope argument about some eventual hypothetical name for the article. Another goes policy shopping in an attempt to claim that the policy-supported title is not neutral. It is clear that there will never be a complete consensus on the matter; however, the majority of editors are in favour of complying with the relevant policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, it is a myth, but what's the reason for renaming the text? What is wrong with the word narrative? Is it wrong to call this biblical text a narrative? Should all old literature be renamed according to the same lines? I think fiction should be treated as fiction. Suédoise (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia strives to be accurate and neutral, "neutral" meaning that we follow what the sources say. The sources call it a creation myth, so that's what we're supposed to call it. If you really want to know why we should change the name of the article then start reading at the top of this RFC and make your way to the bottom. It's been explained in depth by multiple editors. N^oformation ^Talk 21:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation—"myth" is a characterization and it is gratuitous. The term "myth" strongly debunks veracity. As an encyclopedia we should aim to maintain an agnostic orientation to material involving beliefs other than scientific or more objective beliefs in general. Some segments of academia indeed may be anti-religious. An encyclopedia need not follow in the faulty footsteps of some segments of academia. We have adequate language in the more bland terms "narrative" and even "story". We are writing for a broad spectrum of readers. Arguably even academia should be avoiding value-laden terms. There is nothing special about the term "myth". It is not as if some additional piece of information were conveyed by the word "myth" as opposed to the more bland terms "narrative" or "story". Furthermore—there is a proper place for the introduction of the term "myth" to this article—that is in the body of the article. We are discussing the proper placement of the term; not whether or not it should appear in this article. My argument is simply that it does not belong in the title. I don't even think the word "myth" should be found in the lead of this article. I think an explanation of the use of the word "myth" in relation to the material treated in this article should be introduced in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is specifically theologians who are using the term myth, not a bunch of scientists. Again, your opinion about how things ought to be is not relevant - you're ignoring the fundamental pillar of WP when you say that we should ignore what the sources are saying and do what bus stop thinks is right (or anyone else for that matter). I recognize your name so I know you've been here long enough to have read NPOV, and I'm guessing you've been here long enough to know that NPOV literally means that we are neutral as editors towards what the sources say. You may think it's gratuitous - this is your opinion. You may think that WP should eschew objective statements in favor of agnosticism but this is also your opinion. Your opinions are not in line with the policies of this encyclopedia. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Theologians are in the department of biblical studies while these people are in the department of religious studies and are religious anthropologists. They are studying people not God. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Either way, they are still the ones whose opinions are assigned weight; not yours, not mine, not Bus Stop's or anyone else here. N^oformation ^Talk 22:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation, I don't question that it's a myth, I question why it is not a narrative. You have to describe why it is wrong to call it a narrative before we start to discuss what to call it instead. You want the change, so you are the one who should explain this. So please explain: Why is it wrong to call it a narrative? Suédoise (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Jess, Jeffro and others above that there appears to be consensus to move this article based on the strength of arguments put forward. And surely I cannot be the only editor who feels somewhat uncomfortable that this discussion reflects Wikipedia's Systemic Bias. Why should the Judeo-Christian creation myth by given special exemption over a standard naming practice found elsewhere, as noted above by many editors? If this (straightforward) move should not be achievable after this, I suggest we find a better venue for the discussion, especially since it has ramifications for a host of articles (Islam, Indigenous American belief systems, etc…). Further, since interest in and study of creation accounts are often undertaken comparatively, are we not artificially separating this debate? Perhaps we should set up a wider RFC and solicit feedback from editors who work across all of our articles on different creation myths. If we cannot form consensus here for naming Genesis a creation myth, it will only be a result of an accumulated POV grounded in biblical belief; that seems unacceptable given the larger (and uncontroversial) naming conventions we apply to articles that detail the equivalent myths of other cultures and belief systems. Eusebeus (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves can last up to 7 days though I don't doubt this will be closed before that. Consensus seems pretty strong for the move and I'll be surprised if that's not how it's closed. Still, we need to be patient and allow for community input. N^oformation ^Talk 10:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia's Systemic Bias that of Western, well-educated, atheist or agnostic, white males? Alexa says this site "severely over-represents" those with postgraduate degrees, and to indulge in a bit of WP:OR, most studies linking religion and education have found that those with postgraduate degrees are less religious. So, may it be the risk isn't that this is going to be "a bunch of Biblical POV", but that it will reflect the systemic bias of the levels of over- and under-representation of certain cohorts? Note: both sides are currently attempting argumentum ad lapidem and proof by assertion (repeatedly thumping on a guideline/policy is the same as repeatedly quoting a Biblical verse, for analogy, and repeatedly misinterpreting it is, mutatis mutandis, the same). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really not the same. For one, we follow policy on WP but we don't follow the bible. So while quoting Revelations as an argument to delete an article would go nowhere, appealing to WP:N would go somewhere. Secondly, I'll quote from WP:CONSENSUS "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", emphasis mine. The argument for changing the title to "myth" is based entirely on policy, sourcing and dare I say common sense (it is, after all a creation myth) and to say that it hasn't been explained and just asserted blindly is just false. N^oformation ^Talk 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad auctoritas is argumentum ad auctoritas whether you're quoting the Bible or a Wikipedia guideline. As far as that goes, I recall reading a policy/guideline/essay that people quote with authority as "consensus can change": Wiki is [consensus] as Wiki does [the RS consensus]. Type the various terms, "myth", "narrative", "account", etc. in to Google Book or Google Scholar for a rough academic consensus. And, to clarify, my essential thrust of meaning in saying both sides are making proof by assertion, is that each camp is talking over the other. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 23:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to talk over anyone and I apologize if that's how I'm coming off. I will admit to a certain level of frustration on this page; most of the oppose votes are completely ignoring that we have an established policy that deals specifically with this situation and instead users are asserting their opinions on the word "myth." NPOV is something that should be taken very seriously and it just doesn't seem to matter to people while in some other cases there is a demonstrable misunderstanding of the policy coupled with a resistance to being corrected on said misunderstanding. Regarding google, another editor brought this up and I responded with Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t and WP:GNUM. For a variety of reasons raw search engine results are not good indicators of notability or quality. I think I miss your meaning on WP:CCC, can you elaborate please? N^oformation ^Talk 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support and if this doesn't get moved, maybe we can move all other creation myths to creation narrative? There is no reason to make a distinction for christianity here.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Each creation story should under its most common English-language name. These are not things that naturally match. I see no advantage to giving them artificially matching names. Kauffner (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  The bone of contention seems to me to be the amount of usage in the English language as a whole of each term. Unfortunately, we deal in the English language, and the greater majority of people using that language are Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Bahai to some degree or other, and there are comparatively small but significant groups within that tradition which take this story as fact. That may have, in many cases, caused writers of popular works, particularly of a religious kind, to perhaps have chosen the religiously more acceptable (to fundamentaists) word "narrative" or similar to "myth". Unfortunately, I am not sure whether we should take the possible bias of popular authors, including popular theology works and such, as being a significant factor in determining which words we use here. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose due to the nature of the word "myth" as the term "narrative" seems to be a better, more neutral term than "myth" both in its academic usage and that in popular culture (although the latter does not matter, anyways). It seems that the academic term "narrative" is widely used secularly both by secular scholars and those with religious ties and without -- I cannot say the same for "myth", which suggests that the term's usage amongst scholars is influenced predominantly, though not necessarily always, by bias. Wekn reven 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, you don't have to call it a myth to know this is a mythical story. Narrative is a more neutral term, so let it be. Also, when you talk about a 'myth' you usually refer to a more orally transitioned story through the generations, but the Bible is written literature. Suédoise (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood you... but your argument appears to be that the term creation myth is both accurate and verifiable, but we shouldn't include it because we should expect readers to know it's a "mythical story" without us saying so. We don't just make assumptions about our reader's knowledge like that. Our aim is to comprehensively describe the topic to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Regarding your last point, a creation myth is not necessarily oral, as the article describes. If you're talking about its informal use, then WP:RNPOV applies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, everyone who knows even a little about Christianity (and most people do, regardless of their own believes, as it is the most widespread religion in the world) knows that the Bible is the holy text of Christianity. Everyone who knows something about religions, knows that religious texts of this kind include myths and parables which are not meant to be taken literary. So you don't have to point out that it is a myth. The Bible is great literature and holds many good moral standards (and some acctually not so good) but noone takes the Book of Genesis as a description of something that acctually happened. The tale of Adam and Eve is a moral parable. So why do you have to point out that it is not to be taken literaly? And more importantly, as you are arguing for a change: What, exactly, is wrong with the word narrative in this context? Suédoise (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as per David Adams Leeming (2005). The Oxford companion to world mythology. Oxford University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-19-515669-0..

And think that "The Genesis creation myth is the narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis that describes how the world was created." is a good opening ... Moxy (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - 'Myth' would be a fine word if it weren't loaded. Honestly, I think 'tale' or 'story' would be more NPOV than 'myth' or 'narrative' because it explains precisely what it is in an NPOV manner. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read over WP:RNPOV which specifically states not to avoid using established academic terminology and specifically uses "myth" as the example to demonstrate the policy? N^oformation ^Talk 20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation—I also find a guideline concerning Contentious labels. I find reference made to "value-laden labels". Aren't we discussing whether or not the word "myth" is a "value-laden label"? Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not discussing the word "myth". We're discussing "creation myth". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. However, policies take priority over guidelines, and it has already been said that there is an extant policy, WP:RNPOV, which specifically includes the word "myth" in its text, seemingly discussing exactly this sort of situation. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The MOS doesn't trump NPOV, especially as NPOV explicitly discusses the word myth, and the MOS does not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, saying that we shouldn't use a word used by the majority of sources because editors think it's loaded is the exact opposite of NPOV. The whole point of our policy on neutrality is that editor opinion is not relevant, only the sources matter. If the sources called it a jkabndjfnj then we call it a jkabndjfnj. N^oformation ^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation—"jkabndjfnj" would be preferable to "myth". Unfortunately we are missing a policy that might caution us against using gratuitously inflammatory language when other perfectly adequate language is available. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Which policy are you referring to, exactly? The page you pointed out before, dealing with contentious labels, is a part of the Manual of Style, and all of the MOS is a guideline. There does seem to be one policy involved, WP:NPOV, and policies take priority over guidelines. If you were referring to some other policy page, it would be very useful if you indicated exactly which one. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You presented a guideline based on the manual of style, RNPOV is policy and NOTCENSORED is a policy. It is not gratuitously inflammatory language, it is the language used by theologians. It is not our job as editors to second guess sources and decide by community fiat what is and isn't "appropriate," it's our job to be neutral to the sources. "jkabndjfnj" would be preferable to you, but you or I don't matter - the sources matter. N^oformation ^Talk 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Myth" doesn't mean "fiction", and "creation myth" is by far the common usage in academic sources. Powers ^T 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many people here are basing their arguments on the wrong policy. WP:RNPOV is not aimed at article titles, but rather at how we deal with religious topics in the text of the article. As long as we don't shy away from a correct and neutral use of the academic term "creation myth" within the text of the article, the title should remain as it is. And there is no good reason to change the title based on current policy. For every non-adherent who chooses to describe the story in terms of mythology, you will find adherents who defend the position that the story should be labeled as or divinely inspired history. Narrative is about the most neutral and natural term you can find in common usage in reliable sources, from academic circles both within Christianity and without. No one argues that it was not written as narrative (at least no one who has bothered to study the text), but plenty argue that it was not written as myth. Neither term is going to be totally neutral, because it's not an inherently neutral topic. Ἀλήθεια 01:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV applies to the title as much as the rest of the article. We do not gain the ability to "avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" just because it is in the title. Almost every source I encountered that described it as anything but a creation myth was a reliable sources writing solely from a literal Christian POV, not as an independent reliable source, which on Wikipedia does not take precedence over independent sources. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint. Also, a very quick search on Gbooks shows that there are indeed groups of people and reliable sources that both argue that Genesis (either parts of it, or as a whole) is not written as narrative. - SudoGhost 10:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. This has been discussed a lot already. "Narrative" was decided on. It is neutral. Period. End of discussion. Zenkai _talk 02:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutrality is not the only criterion to be considered; we must also consider what terminology is used in a preponderance of sources. Powers ^T 02:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:CCC, and it appears it has. It would be helpful if you advanced an actual argument against the proposal, since empty votes don't carry any weight. Besides which, "neutrality" means properly reflecting the weight of sources, and the sources use "creation myth" quite a bit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quantify, in percentage, "quite a bit". What percentage exclusively use creation myth, exclusively creation narrative, and what percentage a mix of both. Without that, "quit a bit" is just a weasel words. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to look through the list of sources presented above by SudoGhost. I referenced that list in my support, as have others. "Percentage" means very little, and is a poor reflection of weight, for much the same reason as google hits.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Read as: "no, we'd rather throw around weasel words than actually quantify our statements". Percentage is a great way to quantify it, but rather than wikilawyer your way around it, find your own way to quantify its use. Until then, "quite a bit" is weasel words. In short, the list that the cabal have limited this article to may use the term frequently, but they don't reflect all academic use and likely not the majority of academic use. Secular sources may prefer the term, but theological sources don't. I can show you secular bias in acadmic work, but you'll probably come up with some source that you prefer to discredit it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, the best I can do is provide you with sources. We've done that. A lot of them. Some of them are very high quality. I've presented sources, policies, and explanations, but all you're doing is throwing around assertions about academic bias and secular conspiracies. I'll have no part in that. If one really high quality source says that the prominent academic view is one thing, and a couple low quality sources say something else, we go with the high quality source. We do that even though it's "outnumbered" by the low quality ones. That's why a percentage is useless. I don't know where you're expecting me to come up with a percentage anyway, so the request is ridiculous. Why don't you give me a percentage, and source it please. Until then, please stop accusing me of wikilawyering, and bad faith, and belligerence. It's getting really old. I've discussed my reasons in depth, provided sources and policies readily and civilly any time I've been asked. That you disagree with other editors is no reason to treat them poorly. Please give legitimate reasons for rejecting the sources presented, or move along.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your best isn't good enough to remove the weasel from the words. That's just Wikipedia for you.

I notice that Waltke's material still hasn't been incorporated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not go by "percentages", they aren't an indication of the reliability or the independence of the source used, nor do they allow for weight to properly be expressed. You're asking for something that is less than worthless on Wikipedia. As for the misguided weasel word assertion, "weasel word" on Wikipedia applies to vague statements without attribution in which readers cannot properly assess the statement for themselves. As these sources have been provided, they aren't weasel words just because you disagree. - SudoGhost 16:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Opppose per Til, Ἀλήθεια, etc. "Narrative" is not incorrect and has a significantly less negative connotation. Whilst the denotation of "myth" in its secondary sense is applicable; common usage of the term is for its primary purpose which would create an appearance of WP:NPOV. With regard to WP:RNPOV, it is not the case, in my opinion, that "myth" would serve better than "narrative" especially is creation myth itself is defines as "A creation myth is a symbolic narrative…" in its wiki article. As the terms are equivalent, there is no loss for using "narrative" over "myth" and only gain. -- Avi (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I wonder if those who Oppose (or Strongly Oppose or [sigh] Very Strongly Oppose) on the supposed ground that myth is 'not neutral' or 'loaded' feel just as strongly about all the other creation myth articles that have this same label. It is the correct term, and the policy (WP:RNPOV) explictly states that the correct academic term should be used. Additionally, though some people might be offended, the correct use of the term—again, per the policy—is not unnecessary offense. Editors should also remember this is not a vote (and very strongly opposed doesn't count for extra points). It is valid arguments that will determine the wording, not simply the strength with which people feel 'opposed'. So far, there is no compelling policy-based reason to not use the correct academic term, consistent with comparitive articles about creation myths.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• So far, there are no compelling arguments against the use of the word narrative. What is wrong with narrative? Myth might be right, but if narrative is equally right there is no reason for a move. Suédoise (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment again Lisa appears to be trying to bypass the consensus that is building here by changing the policy: [5]. More comments are welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I have seen reliable sources use both "narrative" and "myth" to describe the Genesis creation stories. My recollection is that I've encountered the words "account", "cosmology" and "story" more often than either the current or proposed titles in my own reading (and that applies as well to other creation stories). Usages from good sources range across the board, and I would be wary of claiming any consensus for a single term. I just do not see the proposed change as much of an improvement, while agreeing that the current title is less than satisfactory, and thus my weak oppose. • Astynax ^talk 10:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:RNPOV has been been cited many times in this RM, but this guideline has nothing to do with titling, and certainly doesn't override WP:COMMONNAME. As far as the references to mythology books go, this is a narrow field compared to Bible studies. In a Bible studies context, this subject is just "Creation". See Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary (p. 316), Creation: a reader, Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Browning's A Dictionary of the Bible, and The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. So the article should be titled Creation or Creation (Biblical). Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy does not cease to apply when a title is considered. WP:NPOV, being one of the 5 Pillars, does indeed override WP:COMMONNAME, however this is not relevant here. As far as the "Bible studies context", the article's subject is not "Genesis from a Christian perspective", or "Genesis as told in the Bible". The article's subject is not solely a Christian one, and as such we cannot name it as if it were. We especially cannot name it by only using primary sources; ignoring those that are independent of the article's subject would be a massive WP:NPOV violation. - SudoGhost 12:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be any particular religion to study the Bible. In fact, Jews are quite prominent in this field. Perhaps they call it "Torah studies," but it is the same field of study. They publish in Biblical Archaeological Review or whatever alongside the Christian scholars. I didn't cite any primary sources. The "subject is not...'Genesis as told in the Bible'"?? Do you realize that Genesis is a book of the Bible? It is not generally available as a separate item. Kauffner (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's "available as a separate item". "The Bible" is a collection of books, which, since the advent of the printing press, tend to be bound together in Christian usage. But that doesn't make it a single indivisible whole. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Bible is not the only source in which Genesis exists, so we cannot base the title off of what adherents to one selection of one branch of traditions call it. By "Genesis outside of the bible" I was referring to the Christian Bible, which is what most people (WP:COMMONNAME) mean when they say the Bible. Zondervan is a primary source, and certainly not an independent one on Biblical topics. "Creation" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, especially by independent reliable-sources. - SudoGhost 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - mostly per Jess. Specifically, per Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (since I just finished the chapter in which he discusses the creation stories, uses "myth" and explains why it's the appropriate term). The last time this was discussed, when it was moved from myth to this title, I was on the fence and I didn't participate. But given the arguments here, and after looking around at academic usage and reading Borg's argument (can't call him anti-religion) I'm in favour of the move. Guettarda (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question for supporters of the current title - why "narrative" and not "narratives", since there are at least two (J and P)? Guettarda (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That itself isopen to debate. Biblical critics believe their are at least two, Rabbinic Biblical scholars believe there is only one and the change in the name used for G-d is representative of something other than author. As the singular version of the word can represent one or more authors and the plural version cannot represent one author, for wikipedia to take a stand would be NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at things logically - were does this belong Category:Narratology or Category:Mythology.Moxy (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if that hypothesis was a sound one, the narrative in present form is contained in one place. Wekn reven 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lexical reality check: This debate involves two unverified claims about myth and narrative semantics.

• • Is myth an "academic term"? The COCA Academic corpus includes 10,702 narrative and 3057 myth usages. Note that many of the latter are in colloquial secondary "common misconception; popular legend" meanings rather than the primary "traditional story; sacred narrative" one.
  • How is narrative usage "neutral"? See the archived Is "creation narrative" religocentric? discussion of July 2010. Keahapana (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Straw man argument, you aren't even comparing the correct things, Searching for the term creation myth i get 70 returned, searching for creation narrative I get 16. Even though Creation Myth gets more hits returned it is still a stupid metric to judge terms by. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How many times a certain string of characters is used in any given source doesn't show how it is being used, or in what context it is used. - SudoGhost 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This whole discussion about changing the name of the article is a waste of time. The current name is fine. Lets now focus on the real problem, which is the lead. Zenkai _talk 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the current name is fine with Zenkai so we can move on now. Can't believe we wasted so much time discussing this when you were fine with it the whole time! N^oformation ^Talk 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. Zenkai _talk 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to ask at AN for a three admin close. N^oformation ^Talk 21:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not include both titles?

This edit is a great idea. I would suggest that rather than "The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) is..." perhaps "The Genesis creation narrative also commonly referred to the Genesis creation myth) is...". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the original, the current, the suggested, anything that doesn't move the article. I more strongly support the original (is a creation myth) than the others, and secondly prefer the parenthesized (or creation myth). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, and specifically MOS:BOLDTITLE, might make "The Genesis creation narrative (also Genesis creation myth) is..." a good alternative. I think we know why I believe the current form isn't working. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another discussion ongoing on the rename, it seems premature to start another topic which will just divert attention everywhere and thus lead to no resolution. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the policy, the correct article title is Genesis creation myth, which would also be the first bold term in the sentence. However Genesis creation narrative could be listed as a secondary alternative. The bolded part of the lead sentence should not contain a link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it makes sense, whatever the outcome of the RfC, that the beginning sentence use both phrases, and bold both. The only question I can see is which order they should be put in, as the phrasing above would probably work just as well with the terms reversed, and I assume that the RfC will decide that issue. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not include neither title?

Why isn't the title, Genesis, first two chapters?

Why doesn't the first sentence read, "The Book of Genesis is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of the Christian Bible)"?

Why aren't we leaving out the elaborations over which we are disagreeing? There is essential language that has to be included in the title and the first sentence. It is not essential that we characterize the first two chapters of Genesis in either the title or the first sentence of the lead. There is ample room in the body of the article for such characterization. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a discourse on the first two chapters of Genesis, it's a discussion of creation which is discussed in other locations as discuss in the Biblical creation mythology outside Genesis section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, as can be found in Category:Book of Genesis, there already are several other articles relating to smaller parts of the first two chapters. While it might be acceptable, I suppose, to try to merge all those articles and this one into a single article, I believe that would probably be the required first step of such a change in the title and scope of this article. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is apparently no willingness for compromise or for concession and both sides feel justified in continuing in their ways. I think it may be time for me to ignore this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I also find myself wondering why title needs to include either "narrative" or "myth". For that matter, why even narrow the title's focus to "Genesis", when it is covering various views (and there are certainly other notable views on the subject that could be covered) of Judeo-Christian creation stories, and covers material outside of Genesis? • Astynax ^talk 10:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about one of many creation myths. It is not neutral to treat this article any differently to other creation myths articles, which do not shy away from correctly naming the articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're confused, Jeffro77. If you go to List of creation myths, you'll see quite a few articles that don't have "creation myth" in their title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of which are poor quality articles with infrequent editing on them as I noted below. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

why was genre removed?

Without any discussion, the entire section on genre was summarily removed. Here is the text that was included...

In academic circles the Genesis creation narrative is often described as a creation or cosmogonic myth. The word myth comes from the Greek root for "story" or "legend", and describes a culturally significant or sacred account explaining the origins of existence by using metaphorical language and symbolism to express ideas. The text has also been variously described as historical narrative (i.e., a literal account); as mythic history (i.e., a symbolic representation of historical time); as ancient science (in that, for the original authors, the narrative represented the current state of knowledge about the cosmos and its origin and purpose); and as theology (as it describes the origin of the earth and humanity in terms of God).

Was this some preliminary move to try to strike the word "narrative" from the article? We already have whittled away the vast majority of the academic sources discussing the fact that the text was conceived as and should be viewed as historical narrative. There seems to be a concerted effort to ignore all but the most secular opinions on this topic. Shouldn't we consider the opinions of people who have spent their lives studying to understand this passage irrespective of their religious ideologies? Ἀλήθεια 03:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For instance, here are two excellent examples of academics who have contributed to the discussion about the genre of Genesis 1:

• Feinberg, John S. (2006). "The Doctrine of Creation—Literary Genre of Genesis 1 and 2". No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Vol. 2. Good News Publishers. p. 577. ISBN 1581348118.
• Boyd, Steven W. (2008). "The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3:What Means This Text?". In Terry Mortenson, Thane H Ury (ed.). Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. New Leaf Publishing Group. pp. 174 ff. ISBN 0890515484. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ἀλήθεια (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Aletheia. The section was removed because it's not really an adequate discussion of this very complex subject. To do it justice would require another article all its own, and would take us into an area which is, in the end, rather off the topic we want to treat, which is the social and historical origins of Genesis 1-2 and its original meaning. For a while we tried to go into the subsequent meanings (or interpretations, if you prefer) that the story acquired, in Second Temple Judaism, in early and later Christianity, and in rabbinic and modern Judaism, but it kept getting longer and longer and losing focus. Even now, we have an article which is already at the limits of acceptable length. PiCo (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be restored and expanded not simply removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are editors claiming that all creation story articles have "myth" in the title?

One of the most common arguments among those who want to put "myth" into the title of this article is that all the other articles about creation stories call them "creation myth" in their titles, and that it would be NPOV to do otherwise here.

Either they haven't checked themselves, or they are relying on the fact that most people won't check for themselves. Because it's not true. If we go to List of creation myths, we find numerous counter-examples.

There are those which only give the name of the story:

• Enûma Eliš
• Kumulipo
• Väinämöinen
• Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)

And there are those which describe the story, but without using the term "myth":

• Jamshid creation account
• Raven in Creation
• Hiranyagarbha creation
• Kaang creation story (Bushmen)
• Yoruba creation
• Anishinaabeg creation stories
• Hiranyagarbha creation (India)

Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

and there are at least thirty that do include myth in the title.Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you suggesting that the trusted editors are using hyperbole? I've seen that "quite a bit" before. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But "at least thirty" is not all so there is no need to make this one part of "all" but rather it may remain part of the minority that don't use the term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your examples are really relevant, Lisa. The first four are myths known by the titles of the stories that express them but Genesis 1-2 doesn't have a title (though "Bereshit" sounds rather nice). Of the others, "Raven" isn't about a creation myth but about a mythical character, "Hiranyagarbha", so far as I can make out, is about a metaphysical concept expressed in a mythical form, and most of the others are collections of myths, not single unified stories like Genesis 1-2. Jamshid I'm not sure about. Overall, what's it matter? (I rather liked Lisa's original idea, by the way - not often I agree with Lisa, so that must mean something). PiCo (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the ones on your second list are article-titles, so please don't pipe them to give the impression.

*[[Jamshid#In scripture|Jamshid creation account]]
*[[Raven in Creation]]
*[[Hiranyagarbha#Creation|Hiranyagarbha creation]]
*[[Kaang#Creation story|Kaang creation story]] (Bushmen)
*[[Yoruba religion#Creation|Yoruba creation]]
*[[Anishinaabe#History|Anishinaabeg creation stories]]
*[[Hiranyagarbha#Creation|Hiranyagarbha creation]] (India)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How many of these articles (and sections) have anything close to any sort of decent article status? 2 are rated stub class, another 6 are rated either start class or c class and only one is rated B class, the other two being unrated by any wikiproject. You appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with these articles. Again I also note why is another thread being created on the exact same issue instead of including it in the RFC as a comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)