Talk:Creation myth
| Copied templates | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collapsed for convenience | ||||||||||
Original article split due to WP:Article size ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Important notice: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy and the Words to Avoid guideline. Furthermore, it reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past. Before starting another discussion about the article title, please consult the above policy and guideline, and read through the archives to see if your concern has already been addressed. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
 | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): [[blue lotus]]
For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
Neutral point of view?
| After an extensive (and many would consider overly long) discussion, there is no WP:CONSENSUS that there is a NPOV issue or that the current article title is inappropriate or inaccurate. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like to apologise in advance for what I am about to say on the basis that I understand that I am not the first person to raise issue with the "creation myth" title applied to this article. Its just that I cannot see how this title reflects a neutral point of view and, as such, would like to propose the use of the title "account of creation". It seems to me that the conclusion that regards these "accounts of creation" as being representative of "creation myths" to may well be interpreted to be biased in its scepticism. Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi or Zamba were not actually involved in creation? Arguments can obviously be raised to propose alternative explanations of existence and some of these arguments may well be interpreted to be very convincing and yet, as a sceptic I'd like it to be proposed that they are no more than that, arguments. It seems to be apparent that there are "accounts of creation" that relates to the creative activities of a wide range of "creators". There may well be strong arguments to say that these accounts are of a mythical nature and yet these arguments are, ultimately, inconclusive. It can be readily admitted that the creative contributions of A'akuluujjusi and Zamba cannot be proven and yet neither can they be disproven. Can anyone prove that, for instance, A'akuluujjusi did not rig the physical evidence so as to suggest alternative explanations of existence? Can anyone prove that, from an alternative 'instant', that a Cartesian 'demon' did not feed the individual with a particular view of reality that was suggest of this form of apparent evidence. René Descartes opted to argue against this view through reasonings that were dependent on the conception of the existence of God and yet it may be interpreted that a God of the type conceived in Cartesian philosophy might choose to validate any particular creation myth of 'his' choosing. Can anyone disprove the concept represented in the idea of the Cartesian demon without calling on a higher authority? If someone can then this action would, in my view, generate a greatly valued contribution to philosophical understandings of existence. The Wikipedia article on, 'Mythology' begins "Mythology is the study of myths and or of a body of myths". This definition, however, raises the question related to who it is that may decide whether a story has a mythical nature. What is the nature of a particular story? It may be argued that there are two fundamental interpretations that people may take. Either it is true or it is untrue. People who believe a story to be true will, by definition, have interpreted that there was truth in the story. People who don't believe a story to be true will have interpreted the story to be untrue and may, classically, have regarded the story to possess a mythical nature. It may be argued that different people may come to differing opinions with regard to the nature of any particular story and it may even be agued that, within conceptions of freedom of thought, their liberty to do so should be protected. Mythologists are at liberty to adopt their own interpretations with regard to the veracity of various stories and as such an outsiders view of mythology might regard it to be "the study of stories that are (widely/commonly/sometimes/on occasion/typically/often*) interpreted to be myths". * choose description to fit In an adult world it may be regarded that each individual should be empowered to come to their own conclusions with regard to the veracity of any particular story and this light, and as someone who experiences no particular belief with the regard to the existence of any particular conception of any form of creative agency, the assertion of the mythical nature of certain stories isn't regarded to be welcome. Based on the argument that a level playing field for debate should always be preserved and according to the view that a "neutral point of view" should always be adopted I propose that a title along the lines of "account of creation" be used in connection to this article. Gregkaye (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition continues:
As far as I am able to reason, all the 'creation stories' in the article in question are likely to be myths - by any definition. The only trouble is, and its not for want of trying, I can't prove it.
I personally see no problem with the use of this word on the basis that an 'account' can be either interpreted to true or false. Who trusts an accountant? (edit: O.K. the word is suggestive of the existence of source material which may be taken to represent a lack of neutrality).
Despite its history this word has a less respectful (but remarkably similar) meaning as that presented by 'account' and yet is ready to be used. The word 'myth' is defined by falacy and is far from neutral. Perhaps 'accounts of creation' can be proven to be myths. Perhaps they may be proven to be legends and, if so, fine. In the meantime I consider that answers to the questions that I have raised may present valued contributions to the content of this discussion page. Gregkaye (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The use of this word is not neutral and perhaps a title such as "Creation story (Religion)" may be used. Alternatively it may be argued that a title such as "Creation story (Religion-Mythology)" might be used and yet it may be interpreted that the stories are typically of religion and interpreted within mythological studies. The word 'myth' [5] [6] [7] can clearly be taken to presents its hearer with a concept of an untrue story. The words 'account' and 'story' don't do this. The description of a "true account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be true. The description of an "untrue account or story" can be clearly taken to describe an account or story that is claimed to be untrue. This happens for the simple reason that these words both possess a notable degree of neutrality. In contrast a description of a "true myth" can clearly be taken to describe a story that is certainly untrue. However, a description of an "untrue myth" can be taken to describe something that is not a myth. A simple mathematical equation can be taken to explain what's going on: +1 ✕ -1 = -1. As such a description "untrue myth" may be take to be descriptive "non-fiction" and this can happen due to the clear definition of a myth as fiction. No I can't demonstrate (prove) that any of the 'traditional stories' (as they have been perhaps fairly described) are not traditional. Moreover I would find it difficult to imagine that any orally recounted story of significant age would not have been affected by the influences of a transmitting society. At the other extreme I cannot provide any conclusive proof that these stories have or haven't been based on a supposed true account of creation. The particular difficulty in the current case is that the stories involved tend to call on supernatural agencies that may or may not include 'God'. This raises the question how might 'God' have done it. Indeed, it may be imagined that an entity with divine ability could do whatever he wanted and yet this statement does not cover the potential freedom. It could also be considered that she could have done whatever she liked as well. I would still tend to argue that there may be limits to divine freedom[8] but you get the point. At the moment the article begins: A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often as a deliberate act by one or more deities. Perhaps the article could begin: A creation story is an explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often through the deliberate action by one or more deities. {and then say something like:} These stories are widely regarded to be mythical in nature.[citation needed] Citations related to significant claims should, surely, always be needed. I hope that this may conclude matters relating to the current issue but, if not, can anyone actually disprove the various creative claims related to the variously claimed creators of history (my divinism website contains a list)[9] and the previously mentioned questions? Gregkaye (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should all remember that this discussion does not relate to a popularity contest of ideas but to the single issue of what is right. Neutrality has been presented as the central issue in the debate. I have also raised a number of issues that I would not like to be forgotten. However, at this stage I think it may be wise to get things in a historical perspective. Scholars have always recognised the word myth as being derived from the Greek μῦθος (a tale; fiction ('myth')) [10] [11]. The Wikipedia article on Mythology speaks of Euhemerus (working late fourth century B.C.) as: interpreted myths as accounts of actual historical events,... The article continues: ... 19th-century theories framed myth as a failed or obsolete mode of thought ... The sad thing is that anyone at any time could have stood up and said that we can't actually prove that the various events recounted in ancient stories did not actually happen. No one was able to effectively able to stand up for the rights of ancient beliefs to be regarded with neutrality and then it was suddenly to late. At some point someone, in effect, said, "I don't Adam and Eve it!" The biblical creation story became just as vulnerable to the wrongs of the myth interpretation as everything else. Well that's equality for you. Things are equal and yet they are not fair. Consider the story of young Z. Z is well behaved, goes to school without problems, is relatively friendly and happens to share the same religious beliefs as his parents. There's no way to know how it started but one day the the other kids found out about what Z believed. Ha, ha, Z believes such and such. What's wrong with that? Its a myth. And there's no denying it. There's little chance for debate. No proof is offered as to why the belief is wrong and yet even the God damn encyclopedia says its a myth. Gregkaye (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (all comments are of a non-biographical nature)
No Öomie I think that you will find that you make fun of Z because you are the kind of person who makes fun of people. Oh, and thanks for raising the burden of proof issue. And perhaps you can reread what I said about the definitions of 'account', story and myth. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to detract from the ethical issues that are raised by the blanket description of every "supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe" as being a myth and yet I still want raise this reminder of the burden of proof issue recently raised. I'd also recomend that people might refrain from the use of first person descriptions in their writing if perhaps they don't mean it. 90.193.209.169 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
How? I am genuinely interested in the line of reasoning that has been applied in relation to the "blanket description". Gregkaye (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (still centrally interested in the neutrality and related issues)
Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. It offers an unrivaled range of digital information to absolutely anyone who has an appropriate web connection. This includes people with non-academic backgrounds. This page begins with the statement: "The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;" and yet this is immediately qualified with the statement: "however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity. That is what people who seriously write on the subject think, ..." But what about people when they are not seriously writing on the subject? How do they use the word? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22the+myth+of%22 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22its+a+myth%22 An initial Mirriam Webster dictionary definition has been quoted for the word and yet it may be noted that at least three of the five following definitions are clear in their presentation of variations of the "untrue story" definition.[12] I also quoted Google[13] Oxford[14] and Wiktionary[15] and, in an open access site, I commend these definitions for future presentation simply due to the absence of words like ostensibly. One thing is clear, The word myth has a range of meanings and yet, given an awareness of the full range of these meanings, the one conclusion can be reached. It's not neutral. The use use of this word makes a judgement in regard to the contents of the page before the typical reader will have got passed the title. Perhaps various of the editors of this page may interpret the word to be neutral enough so as to warrent its use and yet it surely won't surprise you when people disagree.
Hrafn, you seem to have described the definitions of myth following its first entry in the MW dictionary as being lesser and I am wondering in what sense this was meant: in sequence in the dictionary; in academic opinion or in terms of the words actual usage in the English language. Ben, I am pleased that nobody is denying that there is a colloquial definition of the term. Its just that I don't agree that this definition, in the context of an open access project, should regarded to be lesser. I also understand any potential frustrations with my sticking with this issue and will admit to a refusal to except the 'point' made in several of the comments. I have, however, not stuck to one argument and have presented a number of views that are not represented on this discussion page so I would view the contributions to have been valid. Auntie E, the problem is that the "secondary connotations" of the word, as you describe them, result in that it is not perfectly fitting. The word myth presents a meaning of untruth while other possible terms do not do this. In my view a judgement is expressed in the use of this term and I find the notion pleasantly ironic that mythologists, of all people, can be interpreted to have adopted the role of playing God. The stories of creation belong to the groups of people that came up with those stories. It may be argued that their views may be consulted with regard to the ways in which their stories are being portrayed. I don't personally have anything new to currently add to this argument. All the same, any responses to the questions that I have raised will still be welcome here or on my talk page if preferred. Gregkaye (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC) OK, as Gregkaye has nothing more to add, I suggest we end this discussion now, with a decision not to change the title, and move on to more productive things. Abtract (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In my ‘opinion’ the use of the word “myth” within a wide range of contexts throughout the historic use of the word has been conducted in an abusive way. Having presented this opinion (which has been rightly presented as an opinion) perhaps I can move on to present some ‘facts’ that are considered to add substance to my interpretation of the history of the abusive use of myth related terminologies: In 1755 Samuel Johnson published “A Dictionary of the English Language”. It was quite a dictionary. It really has the most beautiful typography considering its date. But here's a curious thing. While the "SJ" dictionary presented definitions of many terms related to the topic of myths, it didn’t directly present a definition for the word “myth” itself. Perhaps the reason for this is that the dictionarys “myth” related terminologies tended to make reference to fables instead. I'll start with a presentation of the "SJ" definition of FA´BLE so as to prepare the ground for a contextualised understanding of the definitions of MY´THICAL/MY´THICK, MYTHO´GRAPHER, MYTHOLO´GICAL/MYTHOLO´GICK, MYTHOLO´GICALLY, MYTHO´GICIST, TO MYTHO´LOGIZE and MYTHO´LOGY. This presentation may lack the typographic flare of this remarkable text but is faithful to the content. FA´BLE. n. s. [fable, Fr. fabula, Lat.] MYTHOLO´GICAL.† MYTHOLO´GICK. } Adj. [from mytho- logy.] relating to the explication of a fabulous history. MYTHOLO´GICALLY.† adv. [from mythological.] In a manner suitable to the system of fables. MYTHO´GICIST.† n. s. [from mythology.] A relater or expositor of the ancient fables of the heathens. TO MYTHO´LOGIZE.† v. n. [from mythology; mythologiser. French. Cotgrave.] To relate of explain the fabulous history of the heathens. MYTHO´LOGY. n. s. [μύθος and λόγος ; mythologie, French] System of fables explication of the fabulous history of the gods of the heathen world. Here's another thought. If the MW dictionary is considered unscholarly, then perhaps this will do. The most recent edition of the greatly influential Oxford English Dictionary published 1969, updated 1991 and most recently reprinted in 2001 has this to say: myth ... The primary definition of the word “myth” presented in this most highly esteemed of dictionaries is of: “A purely fictitious narrative”. The topic of the historic use of the word “myth” may be of great interest and this is content that I expect it might contain. The actual followers of a religious tradition who, it may be argued should have the right of description of their stories, may have considered their stories as being accounts of actual events and would be unlikely to describe them to myths. At the other extreme other people who have not had any strong belief in the factual content of the stories will have been most likely to dismiss the stories as “myths”. The word “myth” is not neutral and I suspect that its meaning has been primarily developed by people who have lacked neutrality.
Repeated and pointed mention has been made within this discussion of the WP:NPOV neutrality principle. I thought this might stop but, since it hasn’t, perhaps we can discuss the content. Bias These principles have not been fairly applied. The current “Creation myth” article title demonstrates clear and present (as well as historically rooted) indications of fallacy which will be received by most readers before they will have begun to absorb the content. Gregkaye (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Courtesy Break
No, King Öomie the dictionary texts were put together yesterday for the direct purpose to present them in this page. I also have in mind to use them on a website on themes related to the topic of Freedom of thought. I have enough to do and a different book to finish without thinking about any publication on this subject but thank you for the question.
Titles, by their very nature, may be encountered within contexts that may be devoid of any form of expanation related to understandings of the meaning of the title. Titles, on the other hand, always always provide a context for a context that follows. When a title is used in relation to an article whose content may be interpreted in different ways, a neutral title needs to be applied. In the current case the words "story" or perhaps "account" may provide a simple introduction to the "creation stories" / "accounts of creation" that are mentioned within the article.
King Oomie, would you consider all the accounts in this article to be myths in the non-academic sense of the word? Cmiych (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we can remind ourselves of the initial definition of the word myth supplied by the Oxford OED: 1. a. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. It's a definition that provides a fundamental understanding of an initial definition of the word and here's how it works. People who believe in the veracity of a story (such as a creation story) don't use the word myth in the context of the story. Outsiders to such views who disbelieve in the veracity of such a story may describe the story to be a myth. A confusion may then occur. People who are uninformed of the fundamental meaning of the word and who see it to have been applied to a story that cannot be proven to be false think, somehow, that the word has changed its meaning and fall into this mistake. This situation leaves us with two options. We can either use the word myth that enables a retention of clarity in regard to this aspect of the English language or we can allow the continued use of a non neutral term, allow understandings of the word myth to range wide and put up with the resulting 'ambiguity'. Gregkaye (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy Break II Look up myth in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Taking Phatius McBluff's comment on board, how about the following:
This may be too close a paraphrase, and may need its language simplified, but provides a good basis for working up a sourced lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Cmiych asked a question that was preceded by the statement: The term myth is formally accurate. Me: Are you referring here to the OED definition of myth or to something else? Cmiych continued: If there's not an equally accurate term that lacks the connotations, then there's no sense in even having this discussion. What would you suggest Gregkaye? — I suggest that various editors admit to mentioned "connotations" and they admit that the term myth cannot be neutrally used in the context of an open access encyclopedia. I suggest, if there are editors who propose to continue to use the work myth in connection with article, that they do so according to reasoned argument and not in reference to any unjustified claim to neutrality. I suggest that specialist dictionaries be used with caution. They tend to provide definitions of words in the ways in which they are understood by specialist groups. I finally suggest that one of the words: "story", "account" or "narrative" be used in connection to the main article. My suggestion is simple. I suggest that the word "story" be used in conjunction to this article. But what kind of story is it? As a convenience we find that a clear decription is neatly provided in the title. It's a creation story. Its the kind of story that some people believe in and other people don't. It is described to be a creation story which says it all. Its very neat and the further convenience is then found that, there is no need to begin the article with an otherwise needed and unneccessarily complicated rational that might attempt to justify the use of such a word as myth. A level playing field would have been smoothly accessed and within this context the content information of the article might then be fairly presented. I have answered all the questions with which I have been presented. It would be appreciated if my various questions might also be tackled. Gregkaye (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
While I still dispute the use of the word myth in the current context, I cannot dispute the content of the last statement. "A creation myth is not just another story". Its a "creation story". Moreover its a "creation story" that that has a 'sacred past' but, more than that, in the eyes of many believers, they may additionally be regarded to have a 'sacred present' and it was for these reasons that I previously proposed the title 'Creation story (religion)'. This is a title that, in every way, is respectful of cultural identity.
The topic of creation envokes strong reaction and this page remains open for comments as to why such terms as "Creation story" might cause offense. On the same vain potential titles like "Account of creation" (previously discussed), "Creation narrative", "Creation doctrine" (a common favourite amongst people who believe in these stories) and others might also receive comment. However, through our consideration of issues like of any offense that may be taken, we should remember that the issue in question is the topic of neutrality. Gregkaye (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou. When you look at the results it becomes clear that the formal description that is most commonly applied to a creation narrative by people who actually have a belief in the content of the narrative is "account of creation". Doctrine of creation is also mentioned quite a lot. The Catholics have even been noted to speak in terms of "dogma". Never-the-less, it can still be interpreted that all these terms have a greater degree of neutrality than "myth". Gregkaye (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Lead
I'm just moving the two suggestions for a new lead, by Hrafn and Phatius McBluff respectively, into a new section:
A creation myth is the narrative projection of a culture group's sense of its sacred past which describes the original ordering of the universe and the group's relationship to the powers of the universe. They use symbolic narrative to explain the beginning where the culture at one point lacked the information to give a scientific explanation. They also provide a metaphoric 'ultimate reality' conveying a culture's sense of its particular identity that transcends science.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in:|isbn=(help)</ref>
and
A creation myth is a story that a culture uses to describe the original ordering of the universe. Like other myths, a creation myth expresses a culture's sense of its sacred past, its identity, and its relationship to the universe. In many cases, a creation myth acts as a symbolic model for a society's worldview and way of life.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in:|isbn=(help)</ref>
Does anyone else care to comment? Ben (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer the second one but could accept either. Including one of these in the lead will reduce further edit strife. Grantmidnight (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I also prefer the second one, if it is a straight choice, but I am uncomfortable about the use of the present tense "uses", "expresses" etc. Many (most) of these myths are no longer promolgated even by the culture groups that originated them. Abtract (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see little difference between them - the second may be in slightly more approachable language. Whichever is used, I suggest a paragraph at the end of the first sentence - that first sentence will then be the definition, and the remainder will serve as an expansion. I see no problem with the use of present tense - technically this is the "historic present", the same tense that's sometimes used in history-writing ("Napoleon faces Wellington: on this battle will depend the future of Europe"). PiCo (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- How about this modification of my suggestion:
A creation myth is a myth that describes the original ordering of the universe. A myth is a story that expresses a cultural group's sense of its sacred past. Virtually all cultures have creation myths. A creation myth expresses a society's sense of its identity and relationship to the universe. It acts as a symbolic model for the society's worldview and way of life.<ref>Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195102754 page=vii.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: invalid character (help); Missing pipe in:|isbn=(help)</ref>- This version is a bit choppy (we can clean that up later), but it directly reflects the statements in Leeming (the source), and it keeps distinct claims distinct. (Leeming defines "myth" separately from "creation myth".) Also, keep in mind that not all of the material in the lead has to come from Leeming. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- As for the issue over present tense, that can be addressed easily by replacing "is" with "is or has been", "uses" with "uses or has used", etc. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Where does the source state that "virtually all cultures have creation myths"? I couldn't find it. Also I'd strongly suggest rolling the first two sentences together as "A creation myth is a cultural group's story that describes the original ordering of the universe and its sense of its sacred past." A {{further}} to myth might be appropriate at the end of the lead. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- See the last sentence of the second paragraph of Leeming's Introduction: "So it is that virtually all cultures have creation myths." As for the combination or separation of the first two sentences, I don't have very strong feelings either way. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is time to choose which paragraph to add to the lead section. I am OK with the options being offered, the important thing is that one of them actually be included in the article.Grantmidnight (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the 2nd is best however either could be refered to religion(just an observation)Mlpearc (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is time to choose which paragraph to add to the lead section. I am OK with the options being offered, the important thing is that one of them actually be included in the article.Grantmidnight (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV
Creation "myth?" Seriously? How can a article with the title "Creation myth" ever be NPOV? Some of these apparent "myths" could never be disproven short of someone creating a time machine and going back to see exactly what the heck happened. Regardless of how many references and citations are available, it's only the opinion of some people and should not be presented as fact, unless of course we can cite opposers of the evolution theory and present their views as fact. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read this article? The mythology article? The notice at the top of this page? The talk page archives? WP:NPOV? WP:WTA? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I still don't consider it NPOV to classify any widely accepted theory to be a myth. Some people consider Darwin's evolution by chance theory to be mythology. It's generally considered acceptable to classify something as mythology if it's something that's no longer significantly followed, but it gets controversial when we tag theories such as the Genesis theory as a myth. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm having a hard time trying to find the section of WP:NPOV that supports you. Can you please help me out by quoting the relevant sections? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Great, now which view is it you think we're biased against? Ben (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I second that question. Right now all the creations stories are treated equally in the article, why shouldn't it be the case ? --McSly (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's a gray area. If one is to look at it that way however, we should look at evolution (a theory I actually kind of believe in along with creation) with the same uncertainty. Afterall, science once said Pluto was a planet like Mars and Jupiter. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c)I believe it's biased against the creationist view. This is basically a list of different creation accounts if you read the article. Granted, many of these ancient accounts are widely considered to be mythology, but there are also many of these that are taken seriously by large populations around the world. NPOV would be to move this to something like List of religious accounts of creation. This doesn't mean that there can be no references to mythology here, it simply means we shouldn't be classifying currently popular religious beliefs as mythology as it tends to alienate believers. I've seen people who have complained about the coverage of articles related to creationism, evolution, and atheism. Want to be politically correct? Forget about saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, we need to write creation/evolution articles that are neutral. Also, how can one say that evolution theories are "fact" when every science teacher I've ever met has said that science is dynamic? Furthermore, no editor here is NPOV on the issue; editors either believe in creation or they don't. Same thing with evolution. I personally believe in creation and evolution. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I second that question. Right now all the creations stories are treated equally in the article, why shouldn't it be the case ? --McSly (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Great, now which view is it you think we're biased against? Ben (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm having a hard time trying to find the section of WP:NPOV that supports you. Can you please help me out by quoting the relevant sections? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but I still don't consider it NPOV to classify any widely accepted theory to be a myth. Some people consider Darwin's evolution by chance theory to be mythology. It's generally considered acceptable to classify something as mythology if it's something that's no longer significantly followed, but it gets controversial when we tag theories such as the Genesis theory as a myth. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(←) So your argument is essentially that this articles contents should depend on what the general population believe. Doesn't that clearly satisfy the definition of bias? That is, we would be biasing this article in favour of a groups beliefs? And what about this section of the NPOV policy: WP:GEVAL. Should we just ignore it? Ben (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. 'Creation myth' is also the 'normal' phrase used for the stories in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Several points for PCHS.
- I've seen an absolutely incredible amount of material called 'biased against creationism'. It's a meaningless phrase at this point. I've come to the conclusion, myself, that reality is biased against supernatural explanations. The manual of style is very specific on the issue you bring up- when there is an established terminology, DO NOT avoid it simply to avoid hurting one group's feelings.
- Common misconception. No one (knowledgeable) is calling evolution theories fact. In a nutshell, the fact or law of evolution explains THAT evolution occurs, and the various theories try to explain WHY. This is similar to the state of research into gravity- everyone knows that gravity is real, but we're still a little in the dark as to WHY it exists, and how, specifically, it works. See also, Evolution as theory and fact.
- Proving a negative is a logical impossibility, so claiming that "No one can DISprove" a story in any way increases the likelihood of it being true is a fallacy. I'm not sure where you're going in pointing out how science updates its textbooks occasionally. --King Öomie 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Several points for PCHS.
- Thank you for explaining your opinion. It often helps in NPOV discussions when all users willing to state their own POV.
- However, I don't think that your POV ought to be the viewpoint of the article. We should rather describe both your viewpoint (i.e., that reality is biased against supernatural explanations) as one of the common views; identify what authors have expressed this POV and what arguments and evidence they advance to support it AND the viewpoint that reality consists of both a natural and a supernatural world.
- Scientists who study the physical world tend to express the confidence that they can find a physical cause for all phenomena, but there are also religious believers who assume (or place faith in) a supernatural cause. My question is whether we should write about cosmogony or creation accounts with a bias that favors "science" and materialism, or with a bias that favors religion and faith?
- I daresay NPOV urges us to pick neither bias but merely to state that there are two viewpoints, and to point out that scientists are more likely to adopt a standpoint of methodological naturalism while religious believers are more likely to choose a faith-based Creationist idea. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I must ask - what does the objector to the use of "myth" prefer we use in it's place? A myth is defined by the OED as a "traditional narrative usually involving supernatural or imaginary persons and embodying popular ideas on natural or social phenomena" There is no suggestion of falsehood there, though the possibility remains. In contrast, a story is defined as "account of imaginary or past events; narrative, tale, or anecdote". A story is not necessarily false either, but the implication is actually more pronounced than with the word myth. Theory has been suggested in the past, but the scholarly definition of it does not even remotely apply to this situation - "Exposition of the principles of a science". Narrative - "spoken or written account of connected events in order of happening" - fits pretty well, but I can't really see it as a fitting descriptor for all of these different accounts. And as for the word account - "narration or description". It's not really descriptive enough either, nor truly applicable to all. Myth seems to be the only truly fitting descriptor and the pov is only seen by those who don't seem to understand what it really means, which isn't our problem. (though they often like to try and make it ours)Farsight001 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not being the original objector, I can't speak for him or her, but I too object to the use of the term "myth" on NPOV grounds. "Myth" can be interpreted as an invented story, imaginary or fictitious event, or false collective belief. Instead of using the word "myth", does anyone object to the use of the words "belief" or "doctrine" instead? 69.245.90.210 (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- The notice at the top of this page says the article title is consistent with WP:NPOV, yet you tell us it is not. There are then three possibilities.
- The notice at the top of this page is incorrect, in which case you should identify what part of the NPOV policy is being infringed and how it is being infringed;
- You are incorrect, in which case the likely reason for this is that you have not read or failed to understand the policy; or
- Both you and the notice are correct, in which case the NPOV policy contradicts itself.
- Please help us work this out by giving us a little more than a vague reference to the NPOV policy and no accompanying explanation. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- The notice at the top of this page says the article title is consistent with WP:NPOV, yet you tell us it is not. There are then three possibilities.
After reading the exceptionally long discussion and rationalisation around the term "Myth" I must still object strongly to it's use in reference to my beliefs. You are welcome to use a number of other words, for example and in order of preference: Creation beliefs, Creation doctrine, Creation philosophies, Creation stories, Creation rationale, non scientific creation viewpoints, Creation points of view, Creation world views, Creation allegory, Creation accounts, Creation faiths. It should not be difficult to find an alternative, even having a redirect from a "Creation Myth" page will be acceptable. Jpvosloo (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definition of creation myth from Oxford Dictionary of Creation Myths: "A creation myth is a myth that describes the original ordering of the universe. A myth is a story that expresses a cultural group's sense of its sacred past. Virtually all cultures have creation myths. A creation myth expresses a society's sense of its identity and relationship to the universe. It acts as a symbolic model for the society's worldview and way of life." (Leeming, David (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths.) Note the word "sacred" - creation myths involve gods or other supernatural beings and agencies. To put that another way, sacredness, not truth, defines a creation myth. PiCo (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can strongly object all you want, Jpvosloo, but as per the manual of style, the established, scholarly terminology will not be avoided out of sympathy for a particular group. We "are welcome" to use the term Creation Myth, and will continue to do so. --King Öomie 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having this debate every 2 weeks adds a great deal of stability and regularity to my life. Thanks. Side note: Did anyone actually followup on changing this to "List of creation myths" as mentioned at some point? Cmiych (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- The regularity of this debate should itself evidence that there is a problem that needs to be addressed - namely that there is a group of people who feel that the article is biased against them. May I introduce several obvious points that I think all people in both camps can agree with:
- The majority opinion of the scientific community is that the theory of Evolution, or some variation of it, represents truth.
- There are a large number of people, including a small minority of scientists, who today believe that the theory of Evolution is false.
- Both groups pose questions to the other, which they themselves believe the other cannot adequately answer.
- Therefore, regardless of any of our personal beliefs, there is undeniably controversy on this topic in our time, with a large number of people on either side, albeit more on one side than the other.
- If the NPOV policy is to be of any value whatsoever, then it should be apparent that it applies utmost when there is a current controversy in play.
- One of the meanings of myth is (according to wiktionary) "A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing..."
- Irrespective of whether wikipedia chooses to narrow the definition of the word 'myth' to exclude falsification, most visitors to the site will not have read the wikipedia policy on the word.
- It should therefore come to no surprise that those who take a creation position should feel that the term 'myth' is non-neutral and bias against their beliefs.
- Now, if indeed the current title is in compliance with the letter of NPOV and WTA, then perhaps those policies are also in need of adjustment, because NPOV is not currently evident here. Or, have these policies become immutable documents of rule to which all must submit without questioning? :) As to alternate suggestions, I don't think either party would object to 'Creation Belief'. It may also be worth organizing the topic into two sections: one for currently held beliefs, and one for beliefs that have been long abandoned by all and can truly be called myths in all senses of the words. PKA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.48.213 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- The regularity of this debate should itself evidence that there is a problem that needs to be addressed - namely that there is a group of people who feel that the article is biased against them. May I introduce several obvious points that I think all people in both camps can agree with:
- Having this debate every 2 weeks adds a great deal of stability and regularity to my life. Thanks. Side note: Did anyone actually followup on changing this to "List of creation myths" as mentioned at some point? Cmiych (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly there has been heated discussion on the neutrality of the title of this article. It seems to me there are plenty of definitions that support the neutrality of the title. Because of this, those arguing that the title is neutral are correct if you use the definitions that do not define myths as "false". As it has been clearly stated, the word myth is not being used to mean "false". This being the case, I think we should all be in agreement that another word could be used in it's place. We can all see that the word myth has created significant controversy because of it's connotation and other possible definitions, so unless someone is using the word myth to mean "false" then we should all be in agreement that a title such as "Creation Accounts" would be a suitable title. As we are all clearly trying to eliminate the controversy of this title (and the word "Myth" has obviously caused it) , I see no reason that anyone would object to changing the title. --Isaaclill (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Re-write needed?
As Hrafn notes above, the article is no more than a list of myths. I think what the average reader really wants is a discussion of creation myths as a whole - what they describe, common themes, main differences, that sort of thing.PiCo (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose this is essentially a list of creation myths and so the whole thing could probably be moved to "List of creation myths". The only problem is that there isn't an article to take its place here. Until a replacement article on creation myths generally is written I don't see a need to move the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is already an article like that. Please see Creationism Vinnie (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Alternatives to "myth"
I believe that Cosmogony is a rather obscure word, so I'd prefer to see Creation account as it connotes neither validity nor falsehood.
Furthermore, a Creation account can include both religious accounts (as in Creationism, a view clearly deriving from faith and theological belief) and scientific ideas such as the Big Bang Theory which is based only on physical science. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- An explanation of the word is available right there on it's linked article for those who don't know what it means. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the common, ordinary use of the word "myth" is so dominant in societal thinking, all the way back to the days of our bedtime stories, that it's only reasonable for the reader to assume that he/she certainly already knows what that simple four-letter word means. Therefore, how reasonable is it even to suspect that any reader might reason that they don't know what "myth" means, with or without the "creation" prefix? Is this line of reasoning by Wiki's fictitious "ordinary reader" logical for any of us to even imagine:
- IS THE FOLLOWING A LIKELY SCENARIO??
- "Hm, 'myth'. That's something that is imaginary or not true. It's fictional like the Santa Claus myth or 'Peter and the Wolf' and the Loch Ness monster and urban legends. But just in case 'they' are thinking of some other kind of myth (though I don't think there IS any other kind), maybe I'd better look it up by clicking on the light-blue Wikilink." Hogwash!
- IS THE FOLLOWING A LIKELY SCENARIO??
- The problem is that the common, ordinary use of the word "myth" is so dominant in societal thinking, all the way back to the days of our bedtime stories, that it's only reasonable for the reader to assume that he/she certainly already knows what that simple four-letter word means. Therefore, how reasonable is it even to suspect that any reader might reason that they don't know what "myth" means, with or without the "creation" prefix? Is this line of reasoning by Wiki's fictitious "ordinary reader" logical for any of us to even imagine:
- From umpteen years teaching in university classrooms, and almost as many years as a student, I know that people are loathe to look something up if they think it's somehow beneath their dignity on the basis that "I already know that. When we read the word "myth," unless we are among "the few and the proud" who are specifically schooled in a technical/academic/literary genre, highly atypical usage of the word, our kneejerk response is to run with the MOST familiar definition we've had of that word throughout our lifetime. And that's going to be an untruth that has been whitewashed as truth.
- May I illustrate from the Wall Street Journal's use of the word myth, and the connotation they clearly expect from readers:
- Jun 20, 2009 . "A Doctor's View of Obama's Healthcare Plans: The Myth of Prevention."
- Feb 20, 2010. "The Myth of the Techno-Utopia." The complete sentence: "It's fashionable to hold up the Internet as the road to democracy and liberty in countries like Iran, but it can also be a very effective tool for quashing freedom. Evgeny Morozov on the myth of the techno-utopia."
- Apr 24, 2009: "...the Treasury for getting only 66 cents in value for every TARP dollar spent. This accusation would be troubling if true, but the 66 cent claim is a myth. The 66 cent conclusion is no more sound than a subprime mortgage."
- November 20, 2009: Lies, Myths, and Yellow Journalism. "Because this editorial is based on deception (or, more charitably, bad journalism), it's not surprising that harmful myths about education reform are also woven in. The myth that spending more money on poor and minority kids is a waste ("some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most money on students"), the myth that vouchers help kids from low-income communities (they haven't worked, which is why they're off the table), the myth that strict accountability will close the achievement gap (it won't, although accountability with clear standards, and with more capacity to meet those standards will), and the myth that teachers' unions are the enemy (they have problems, but reformers need to work with, not against them).
- An ordinary Google search of Wall St. Journal + "myth" turned up these and many more. Please try the search for yourself on any of your favorite printed sources that contain OpEd's. We can continue to play ostrich and bury our heads in the sand, or we can stop trying to force "myth" with all its shades of gray down people's throats.
- None of us were around when the term "creation myth" was spawned by a group of the intelligencia who probably had at least a couple of years of Greek, so the choice of words isn't our fault. But we do have other terms that are not ambiguous, even terms that no less prestigious an agency than NASA has chosen, such as cosmogony. True, it's not well known, but since it isn't, that's the type of word that most of us WILL click on if it's blue. (I also like the suggestions that start with 'creation' and are followed by narrative or account or whatever. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia should favor one term or another (despite the sources) because...? This sounds like expert-shopping more than anything. You know what the word means, are you just worried that OTHER people won't? It's explained everywhere it appears. This sounds like the complaints at Talk:Muhammad/Images. --King Öomie 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- None of us were around when the term "creation myth" was spawned by a group of the intelligencia who probably had at least a couple of years of Greek, so the choice of words isn't our fault. But we do have other terms that are not ambiguous, even terms that no less prestigious an agency than NASA has chosen, such as cosmogony. True, it's not well known, but since it isn't, that's the type of word that most of us WILL click on if it's blue. (I also like the suggestions that start with 'creation' and are followed by narrative or account or whatever. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Creation myth/Cosmogony/Cosmology/Cosmogeny
This article has used the term cosmogony throughout-more than it does "creation myth". The cosmogony article and this one (which do not agree with each other) are now so hopelessly confusing that I can't tell what either one of them are trying to say. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is this flurry of words an attempt to bury the word myth? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it is. Ben (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thought so. These articles are just a mess. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- And the source given in the opening sentence doesn't even use the term "creation myth" once. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thought so. These articles are just a mess. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it is. Ben (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've started a user subpage with descriptions of these articles here. All are welcome to edit my subpage! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sources - Plagiarism - Cosmogony
The article has been completely dismantled, plagiarism twice now in the few sentences left in it, and I've caught several cases now where the sources failed to verify the claim attached to it. This article is about "creation myth". No, you don't get to change the term...that's what is. Creation myth. A creation myth is a type of cosmogony. One type. Stop conflating the two willy-nilly. And for those hunting through sources to find those that use "cosmogony" without "creation myth" or without an absolute, ironclad synonymous usage (and not all usages are synonymous) -- not going to fly. And cherry-picking through anachronistic definitions of cosmogony in 100 year old encyclopedias are a waste of time. Okay!? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- More plagiarism and playing games with the term cosmogony-this time in a single sentence.
- Hyers: "In a religious context, however, myths are storied vehicles of supreme truth which to the religion or society is the most basic and important truths of all."
- Afaprof01[28]: "In a religious context, cosmogonies are storied vehicles of supreme truth which to the religion or society is the most basic and important truths of all."
- Gone.
- Not only have these edits dismantled the page to the point where most dictionary definitions have more content, but none of the material put in its place has been supported by the refs. There have been at least four cases now now that were pure cut-and-paste plagiarism. I'm restoring this article to its original form. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you intend to do anything with the articles split from this one? The ones that go to great lengths to expel the 'creation myth' term? --King Öomie 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- And when Afa returns, he can feel free to explain why a technical split under WP:SIZE justifies a content change like a complete reversal in debated terminology- a change that he's well aware under normal circumstances would be reverted in seconds. --King Öomie 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm trying to work this out now. This article has never been in fantastic shape as far as I can see. Creation myths are a well researched topic. This article needs to focus on the study of creation myths, the key or recurring themes, the more prominent thinkers and archivists and the agreements and disagreements in their understandings of creation myth (Tyler, Bultmann, Lang,Levi-Strauss, Jung, Freud, Malinowski, Eliade, etc). The lengthy list of creation myths can go when there's more content, but we need worthwhile content. It wastes time padding it with content that doesn't check out.
- The sections that are now repeated in other subarticles still have problems-most of it isn't sourced, and now they're hidden away in obfuscatory article titles. "Cosmological beliefs" - no. These aren't "beliefs" - they're "myths". Myths have a specific definition-they are sacred primordial stories that belong(ed) to a culture or people. Not all creation myths are cosmological. Some of these terms will overlap, but they are not strictly synonymous. We find creation myths which aren't cosmological myths. (And note, not all cosmologies are myths! Creation myth and cosmology are not synomyms; a creation myth and a cosmological myth are types of cosmology.) This is an encyclopedia-carelessly lumping them as if they're all the same isn't helpful. The subarticle title names don't work, but I don't think article renaming is worth the effort yet because I don't think all of them make sense grouped this way in a single article anyway. I don't know what others think, but I think that keeping in one spot and cleaning up here first makes more sense than scattering them throughout several articles on the wiki before they're in good shape. I'd prod the others for now, and clean them up here then figure out which can be grouped in stand-alone articles. (Find sources, and clean up the copypaste that I continue to stumble on, raising serious copyright issues.) Professor marginalia (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well put. There seems to be a lot of POV pushing in this article. Especially towards the pro-religion side. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that there are lot of people on the Creationist side who don't believe in "neutral editing". They can't bear to see an article which fails to imbue their viewpoint with the imprimatur of acceptance. (Maybe they aren't very confident in their faith. ;-)
- A parallel problem sometimes also arises when people on the other side argue against giving Creationist ideas "equal validity". It's almost as if they don't trust the reader to read about both viewpoints and make up their own minds. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- You MUST be aware that that's actually Wikipedia policy. Consult WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE. --King Öomie 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- A parallel problem sometimes also arises when people on the other side argue against giving Creationist ideas "equal validity". It's almost as if they don't trust the reader to read about both viewpoints and make up their own minds. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Redirecting subarticles back here
I'm really troubled by how much content that I've checked out appears to be copyright, and much of it is so old that has already been moved several times making it difficult to find to check the histories for the dates when they originated here. I'm going to take it upon myself to redirect those new subarticles back here until these all get check out better. I think that's the easiest step at this point, allowing editors to spend more time on fixing the content than arguing over procedure. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Using the word Myth is NPOV
Myth might means mythology but it is a loaded word, and it is argumentative that evolution is taken as fact but the creation story is taken as myth. Very subjective stuff, since more people agree on a creator than people who believe in random Darwinian theory. Another name is needed to reflect a Neutrality to the subject. Cuz most humans believe in this "myth" so must have some truth to it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- This has been argued to death; please review previous discussion and the archives. Let's not start flogging that horse again. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- i SAW that after the fact. I guess i am not alone.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Alone? Definitely not. Wrong? Absolutely. --King Öomie 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Most people believe it, so it must be at least partly true"? Within the last two thousand years, hundreds of little tidbits of cultural knowledge have been completely rejected. Diseases aren't caused by magic (or sin), the sun doesn't rotate around the Earth, flies don't pop into being on rotting meat. All of these things, at one time or another, were a given. EVERYONE believed them. Now look at those and tell me that popular ideas MUST be true. --King Öomie 15:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am curious have the evolutionist yet proved that man evolved from apes? That to me also should be called a scientific myth. That randomist over a 100000 years produces life in all its diversity. Does that not also sound like the magical myths you listed?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- You could have saved time and said "Fields of science I don't understand must be wrong". Suffice it to say that scientific evidence points to Common descent of Apes AND man from a "cousin" race that no longer exists (except in fossil evidence). It would sound like a myth if it were presented without evidence, but in fact, the evidence for the real-world versions of your straw-man points is comprehensive and irrefutable. You can find much of it here, but I suspect that you will not, and will instead consider yourself to be completely correct. --King Öomie 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wish i could get into this but i have to humor you. It is not that i do not understand, it is that is disagree with the conclusion. If GOD (scary word isnt it) is an artist, i would expect a certain commanality across creation. Some call it direct evolution, i think more like direct creation. All subjective. Who created the big bang is identical to who created God (so we are stuck in the same place).The original Porsche model and the new Porsche model are related but not by direct mechanism of evolution. i.e. the old Porsche car didn't growing new lights and new alloys and become the new 911.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reminder - this talk page isn't a public messageboard to debate God, logic, evolution, automotive design, the Big Bang, or anything else. Please review WP:TALK. If it continues down this vein, I'll refactor the comments. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wish i could get into this but i have to humor you. It is not that i do not understand, it is that is disagree with the conclusion. If GOD (scary word isnt it) is an artist, i would expect a certain commanality across creation. Some call it direct evolution, i think more like direct creation. All subjective. Who created the big bang is identical to who created God (so we are stuck in the same place).The original Porsche model and the new Porsche model are related but not by direct mechanism of evolution. i.e. the old Porsche car didn't growing new lights and new alloys and become the new 911.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- You could have saved time and said "Fields of science I don't understand must be wrong". Suffice it to say that scientific evidence points to Common descent of Apes AND man from a "cousin" race that no longer exists (except in fossil evidence). It would sound like a myth if it were presented without evidence, but in fact, the evidence for the real-world versions of your straw-man points is comprehensive and irrefutable. You can find much of it here, but I suspect that you will not, and will instead consider yourself to be completely correct. --King Öomie 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am curious have the evolutionist yet proved that man evolved from apes? That to me also should be called a scientific myth. That randomist over a 100000 years produces life in all its diversity. Does that not also sound like the magical myths you listed?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- i SAW that after the fact. I guess i am not alone.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Using the word Myth is NOT NPOV
":This has been argued to death; please review previous discussion and the archives. Let's not start flogging that horse again. " Too bad.
Well I am sorry but I argue the word Myth is very biased, the word "Account" is more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- From Merriam-Webster:
myth n. 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
- This has been discussed ad nauseam. In the context of this article's topic, the word "myth" is correct. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree and what's more important so does Mr Collins in his concise dictionary "a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs etc came into being". Abtract (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute as to whether "creation myth" is a neutral term.
I googled it, and here's what I read at Amazon about the first book that came up in my serch:
- Evolution and Religious Creation Myths seeks to educate and arm the public on the differences between myth and science, fiction and theory.
It seems the word "myth" connotes "fiction", while "theory" refers to a finding of science. I don't see, therefore, how myth could mean anything other than false, made up nonsense. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's because you're preferentially putting more stock in a definition you already agree with, above that of any of the others available defining a 'Creation Myth' as a supernatural explanation of creation, absent any judgement of truth or falsehood, perfectly neutral. --King Öomie 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- And you're also setting up a counter-argument yourself, using the colloquial definition of 'myth' alongside the technical definition of 'theory'. The colloquial definition of 'theory' isn't far from that of 'hypothesis'- unproven, and laughable to accept at face value. "It's just a theory!" --King Öomie 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- There may be an argument for renaming articles with titles such as Enûma Eliš - Enûma Eliš creation myth. But there is no reason at all to change the title of this one. Creation myths are a real life category - offensive to some or not we're not reinventing the English language here at wikipedia. The extreme oversensitivity about using this term in this article is absolutely 100% unjustifiable. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't own any stock in either viewpoint; I'm a longtime fan of NPOV. I'm just going along with what Evolution and Religious Creation Myths says: i.e., that there are differences between myth and science just as there are differences between fiction and theory. But the authors of that book also argue that evolution and creationism are not both valid theories and that they don't deserve equal attention.
I wouldn't want our use of myth in an article title to make the reader think that every "myth" is likely to be a "fiction". --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- The argument then is to those in the real world that termed this category of stories "creation myths". It's probably been the proper usage for couple thousand years beginning with the Greeks-and it's certainly the name given in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources today.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently contributors feel a need to distinguish between (A) scientific cosmology, i.e., scientific theories of creation (cosmogony) and (B) religious cosmology. I'm sure we can come up with terminology that suits all parties. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure Mr. Lurquin will be surprised to learn his text has become the leading authority on religious scholarship. Again, the term Creation Myth does not assign truth or falsehood to the story it represents. It merely states that a group of people believe/believed that it is/was literally how we/the earth/the universe came to be. --King Öomie 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Side note-not all "creation myths" involve supernatural beings or forces either. The introduction to this article is terrible, imho, but I'm currently pulling together a body of good sources to use there. Many of the best known of the creation myths come from peoples who had no concept of separate realms between nature and supernature. Their creation myths describe beginnings initiated and guided by what they viewed as natural or "innate" properties and forces. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree these words have loaded meaning, Myth in language might as well mean fiction. And Supernatural sounds like something on the X-files. Esp the abbreviated for of Myth. If there is so much disagreement CHANGE IT. isn't that how Wikipedia works. clearly it is a problematic word.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- VERY PROBLEMATIC. In no way is it neutral, nor can it be when the most prominent meaning of "myth" is fiction, hence untrue fantasy. Do a Google search on "myth" on any major newspaper in English. There will be many hits, and I have yet to find even one that implies truth. Why do these writers and editors use "myth" so often in their headlines and titles? It's straightforward when one glances at the article. The editor or writer is claiming something this being misrepresented or falsified, hence is a myth. They don't have to worry about any technical understanding of myth occurring to even a single reader.
- I disagree these words have loaded meaning, Myth in language might as well mean fiction. And Supernatural sounds like something on the X-files. Esp the abbreviated for of Myth. If there is so much disagreement CHANGE IT. isn't that how Wikipedia works. clearly it is a problematic word.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Side note-not all "creation myths" involve supernatural beings or forces either. The introduction to this article is terrible, imho, but I'm currently pulling together a body of good sources to use there. Many of the best known of the creation myths come from peoples who had no concept of separate realms between nature and supernature. Their creation myths describe beginnings initiated and guided by what they viewed as natural or "innate" properties and forces. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure Mr. Lurquin will be surprised to learn his text has become the leading authority on religious scholarship. Again, the term Creation Myth does not assign truth or falsehood to the story it represents. It merely states that a group of people believe/believed that it is/was literally how we/the earth/the universe came to be. --King Öomie 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently contributors feel a need to distinguish between (A) scientific cosmology, i.e., scientific theories of creation (cosmogony) and (B) religious cosmology. I'm sure we can come up with terminology that suits all parties. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
LONDON TIMES:
- January 3, 2010 "What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth"
- January 2, 2010 "Over 7000 women a year get false breast cancer alert. We debunk the myth behind the headlines...."
- April 20, 2010 "Exhibition explores the myths behind artist Paul Gauguin. They will depict a strikingly modern artist: a monstrous, exploitative, lying self-publicist and instead focus on “the tendency towards myth-making, in his work and his presentation of himself”.
L.A. TIMES: April 5, 2010. "Myth-busting polls: Tea Party members are average Americans, 41% are Democrats, independents." "It has nothing to do with the myth of left and right. It has to do with democracy versus corporatocracy (formerly known as plutocracy)." ...and the list goes on and on this way. Absolutely no one is going to FIRST think of "Symbolic narrative of the creation and organization of the world as understood in a particular tradition" when they see "Genesis" and "Myth" together in the same phrase. It defies reasonable expectation, particularly in view of the fact that there are many who believe Genesis or even the whole Bible is "a fictitious narrative presented as historical but without any basis of fact"─which was, by the way, a recent SAT's "correct answer" for the definition of "myth." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because the first thing I think of when I think "Wikipedia" is "Atheist plot". Well, after "Illuminati". --King Öomie 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- The most prominent meaning of "creation myth" is not "untrue fantasy". (This article hasn't done a good job of saying what it does mean yet, but I've got it in the queue to make improvements in that area.) The long and short of it is this: it's a real topic, well known and well covered from a variety of domains, from children's books, ancient history, anthropology, mythography, classical scholarship-themes from myth also frequently appear in art, sculpture, cinema and architecture, and real encyclopedias do not reinvent, they describe. Encyclopedias such as Britannica and Grolier do it, and wikipedia does too. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- For the love of...Creation Myth is neutral. It's an accepted and official scolarly term used to describe a specific type of story found in various cultures. Each entry on this list meets the criteria to be described as such. Using the term is not a violation of NPOV standards, avoiding it simply to defend people's sensibilities would, however, be such a violation. And let's be honest here, that is why the change is being proposed as noted by the very phrasing of the arguments for change, including "Other people might not be aware that myth doesn't imply falsehood in this context" and the repeated reference to the creation, strongly indicating that the objection is not so much to the term (which again is an official scholarly term for these kinds of stories, applied to those of both modern and past religions) as it is the fact that their belief is being grouped with them. The request to change it is as ludicrous as suggesting that the title of Atomic Theory be changed because the colloquial usage of "Theory" denotes a uncertainty. The request doesn't work at all. 74.240.68.101 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is there is a problem. How do we know? because look at the energy going into this debate. Solution: Work on a solution. U have a point, I have a point. But they are pointing in opposite directions. Myth is a problem, as the above writer says. Language changes, and technical terms and terms in common usage do not always marry up. look what happened to feeling gay.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your point is bunk. Let me put it this way, there was a lot of time and energy put into the Galileo Affair, that doesn't mean that there was good cause for labelling heliocentrism heretical. A lot of time and effort is put into holocaust denial and claiming that the moon landing was a hoax, that doesn't mean that there's any validity in either claim. What matters here are the facts. And the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day the usage of the phrase "Creation Myth" is not a POV issue because that's the term used in scholarly discourse, and in fact the insistence that it should be viewed as such because so-and-so doesn't like seeing the word anywhere near their own belief is far more of a POV issue as it insists that we ignore the official terminology purely for the sake of appeasing certain individuals (read: Favoring a point of view to the extent that we ignore facts). The term "Creation Myth" is accurate for the subject matter, and that's the long and short of it and the only thing that matters in encylclopedic entries. 74.240.68.171 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. The term is accurate, anything else is almost certainly going to be pov pandering to various interests.
- So the scholarly discourse out weights the religious discourse? Because i think most humans subscribe to it not being a myth. Either way what you are saying is that as long as a minority of scholars (clearly not religious scholars) use the term it is valid. Finito. The "discovery" myth i.e. Columbus discovered the Americas is still used in most school systems around the world. SO i guess we just go with the majority on that one to. republish a lie because some Oxford scholar and friends use the word. Wikipedia NPOV rules apply outside of what so-called scholars say. Myth in english means fiction. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Scholarly discourse does outweigh colloquial discourse. That's the term they overwhelmingly use for this and thus the most accurate. Your inability to understand how the term is used means less than nothing, especially considering that the facts that a) that in scholarly discourse the term is used to describe the story type rather than it's validty and b) you've acknowledged as much in the history of the discussion and then started arguing that the article be renamed because of the colloqual usage of the word "myth". Again, what you're suggesting is akin to renaming Atomic Theory because the colloquialization of "theory" denotes far more uncertainty than is attributable to the model. You don't like it? Deal with it. The reality of the situation is that the term Creation Myth is used to describe the type of story, not the validity thereof. Your lack of research into the matter does not change this fact, nor does your dislike of the term 'myth' have any bearing whatsoever on it. Here's a piece of advice: Look up how scholars use the term myth before you do anything else. This would be a good place to start. 74.240.68.95 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- My research shows that scholars of religion are far more numerous than your so-called scholars. unless scholar means secular scientific. Prove the point with sources showing that scholars (in the broad sense of the word) agree that it is myth. Encarta has rules, wiki has rules. If Encarta trends are valid then delete the page and just redirect to the likes of Encarta. Consensus over rules your claims of weight. I wonder if I look at all the religious schools in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity if the word Myth is used to describe creation. Now all of these schools have scholars. Because I have just glanced at the Iranian school for religious studies and I didnt see the term Myth in use. So unless you want to change the definition of scholars you have home work to do. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- You and I both know that you've done no such research. What you're referring to here is your presumption that the world agrees with you when the actuality is that you have done little to nothing to learn about the subject matter, as is overwhelmingly evident by your ignorance on how the term "myth" is used by religious scholars, as explained in the link above, in the Encyclopedia Britanica link in the introduction of the page we're discussing, repeatedly cited multiple times on the page about Mythology from multiple sources there, though if you'd prefer more, I could also cite the introduction here and this right here. Incidentally, I am using the term scholars correctly. The difference between your usage of the term and mine is that I refer to theologians, who use the term myth without the ire or presumption you're attributing to it. 74.240.68.95 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- 74.240.68.95: I can understand why you choose to remain an anynomous IP user. That's apparently so you can hide in a cowardly manner and be rude, crude, and ignore any intelligent discussion of User:Halaqah's attempt at logical and informed discourse. Disappointing from someone supposedly intelligent, scholarly and civil!─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- So wait, let me get this straight...all of the edits attributed to me are on this page, over three responses (well, four including this one) over a period of less than 24 hours and because I dared to say that Halaqah was arguing a point based on his own ignorance of a term's usage, you declare that I am rude, crude and don't have an account because I'm a coward (which honestly makes no sense as so long as I sign an edit I'm ostensibly just as open to public criticism) instead of adopting the more rational and actually supportable belief that I lack an account because I don't do a lot of wiki-editing? Incidentally, while I'll fully admit to being prone to bluntness, how you managed to get "crude" in that personal attack is beyond me (with rude additionally being subjective, though far easier to understand where you're coming from). Frankly, after a quick review of your history I'm rather distressed that you're so quick to jump to conclusions. 74.240.68.95 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- So the scholarly discourse out weights the religious discourse? Because i think most humans subscribe to it not being a myth. Either way what you are saying is that as long as a minority of scholars (clearly not religious scholars) use the term it is valid. Finito. The "discovery" myth i.e. Columbus discovered the Americas is still used in most school systems around the world. SO i guess we just go with the majority on that one to. republish a lie because some Oxford scholar and friends use the word. Wikipedia NPOV rules apply outside of what so-called scholars say. Myth in english means fiction. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. The term is accurate, anything else is almost certainly going to be pov pandering to various interests.
- Your point is bunk. Let me put it this way, there was a lot of time and energy put into the Galileo Affair, that doesn't mean that there was good cause for labelling heliocentrism heretical. A lot of time and effort is put into holocaust denial and claiming that the moon landing was a hoax, that doesn't mean that there's any validity in either claim. What matters here are the facts. And the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day the usage of the phrase "Creation Myth" is not a POV issue because that's the term used in scholarly discourse, and in fact the insistence that it should be viewed as such because so-and-so doesn't like seeing the word anywhere near their own belief is far more of a POV issue as it insists that we ignore the official terminology purely for the sake of appeasing certain individuals (read: Favoring a point of view to the extent that we ignore facts). The term "Creation Myth" is accurate for the subject matter, and that's the long and short of it and the only thing that matters in encylclopedic entries. 74.240.68.171 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is there is a problem. How do we know? because look at the energy going into this debate. Solution: Work on a solution. U have a point, I have a point. But they are pointing in opposite directions. Myth is a problem, as the above writer says. Language changes, and technical terms and terms in common usage do not always marry up. look what happened to feeling gay.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)