Jump to content

Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rossnixon (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 15 November 2011 (but wait...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral


"Description"

The term "description" has connotations of empiricism, which the Genesis creation narrative certainly is not. Indeed, many people think that the account has a face-value of being plainly false. However, everyone can agree that this bible story is a "biblical account" of the creation of the world. I changed the first categorical descriptor to this more neutral umbrella term.

140.252.83.41 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)description[reply]

What about these edits?

I made these edits[1] but they were reverted. Does anyone like them or not and why? I thought they made the beginning of the article much more efficient. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the first couple sentences are subtle NPOV violations that do not follow Wikipedia:MOSLEAD#First_sentence. The first two sentences link the following terms: [[bible|biblical account]], [[Book of Genesis]], [[Hebrew Bible]], [[Scripture|sacred narrative]], [[biblical canon]], [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]]. It isn't until the third sentence that the characteristic of it being a creation myth is introduced. However, the manual of style asks for a concise definition in the first sentence. Jesanj (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My edit. Jesanj (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change "myth" to "narrative"

In the first paragraph, it says "creation myth." It should be changed to "creation narrative." They both mean the exact same thing and both link to the exact same article. The change would remove the obvious weasel wording and bias. It would also make it more consistent with the title of the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Narrative" is a weasel word. All it does is give the impression of plausibility when under our policies and in scientific consensus, creationism is WP:FRINGE. Since when did obfuscation fix anything? Should we start rewording all other creation stories from other religions and folklore as "narratives" just because some people actually believe them as literal fact?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Narrative" is NOT a weasel word; "myth" is, however. Just because you are an atheist, it doesn't mean you have the right to call something that 90% of the population believes, a myth. There is absolutly NO REASON whatsoever for me not to change it.Zenkai251 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That one earned you your first npa-warning, starting at level 2. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Do you care to explain that one, please?Zenkai251 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because you are an atheist'..." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was I mistaken? By the way he was talking, I assumed he was indeed an atheist. I meant no disrespect and it was most certainly NOT an attack. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on somebody's beliefs, race, ethnicity, etc. is considered an attack around here. Don't do it again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that was npa, no offense certainly taken. I'd appreciate it if the warning given is redacted as it only hinders discussion. Anyway, 90% of what population exactly? Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia, mind you. And your wording actually admits your primary intent - to differentiate it from other myths as with traditional western usage of the term "myth". Myth used to refer to any other religion's beliefs other than Christianity, to imply that it was not grounded on facts. This was a very arbitrary and a very biased position to take. To comply with NPOV and our adherence to the scientific consensus, all such stories are myths. No buts or ifs.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am only looking to neutralize the article. By changing it to "narrative", which means the same thing as "myth", would definitely make the article less biased. I see no negative outcome of the change. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please see WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:VALID. In some cases, a bias is necessary, especially for religion and pseudoscience. Otherwise every other religious article here in Wikipedia would be claiming to be the truth. We can not and must not proselytize on Wikipedia. Even a change as seemingly innocuous as this has the intent of giving a false impression of reliability. In this case, that is giving it undue weight. So, I'm sorry, the answer is no.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The change would not make the article "claim to be the truth", because the two words mean the same thing. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why change it at all? All of us are well aware that the two words have very different connotations.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need the change because one of the words makes 90% of Americans angry and the other word doesn't. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reasonable point to make. See the policies raised by User:Obsidian Soul. Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reasonable point. How else would we determine what is neutral and what isn't? Zenkai251 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to not offend anybody; the people who could be offended have already been accommodated by the article's title. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure on your figure? I doubt 90% of americans are creationists. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say 90% were creationists. I meant that 90% believe in the book of Genesis (this includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc). Zenkai251 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that matters because...? Again please read the linked policies before commenting any further.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because "myth" is not neutral. Something that angers 90% of the population cannot possibly be considered "neutral". Zenkai251 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia observes for such topics scholarly consensus as reflected in verifiable and reliably sourced material. The current wording is unproblematic in that it reflects the overwhelming consensus of the scholarly community. You are arguing an irrelevant point. Eusebeus (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider "scholarly"? It is very subjective. My point is valid. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if 90% of Americans believe in the book of Genesis, a highly doubtful claim, this is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian's argument basically seems to be that all belief in the Bible has been officially been determined by neutral arbiter wikipedia to be a FRINGE theory, no matter what proportion of the populace are thus branded as heretics suscribing to a proscribed belief system. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the number of adherents determines the validity of a belief? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am describing your view of "neutral point of view". We don't need numbers of believers or even religious bodies to determine validity of belief, we already have YOU to determine the validity of belief. And it seems you have already made a rather concrete determination - even if it would evidently exclude the beliefs of many millions of readers, editors, and other inhabitants of this world. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me? I'm flattered, but no. I suppose you need to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories as well. There are a billion Hindus in the world, yet we do not open our article on Cattle as: "Cattle (colloquially cows) are the most common type of large sacred domesticated ungulates.", do we? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go putting ideas into people's heads :) PiCo (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is the Hebrew Bible. You seem to be taking the position that all the millions of people, theologians and religious bodies that are adherents of the Hebrew Bible do not constitute a significant point of view on this topic because you view all major world religions based on the Hebrew Bible are in fact to be classified as fringe theories. This apparently also means only those sources who view it in the context of mythography can have any significant view on the Hebrew Bible, not any of the "FRINGE" groups that actually use it as their own scripture. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Till, you misunderstood. No-one's saying that Christians are a fringe-group. Those who believe in Genesis and the Bible literally are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Council of Nicea, the Book of Genesis is a canonical book for Christians and is authorized for them to believe in. I am not aware of any updates to this but it seems now neutral Wikipedia has replaced the authority of the Council of Nicea and has declared that all groups and individuals who do believe in Genesis are adhereing to a proscribed or FRINGE belief. And that would include people from many other religions beside Christians, Seb. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many times must I keep saying read the policy page? Creationism is mentioned there prominently, this isn't my personal judgement, as much as you'd want it to be, and I'm not the only one replying to the OP here, in case you didn't notice. It doesn't matter if it's talking about the subject, under no circumstances does that give license to the article to treat something that lacks reliable scientific and scholarly support to portray it as unvarnished truth. Nor does "neutrality" mean we present articles evenly, as explained in that page and WP:DUE and WP:VALID, both are subpolicies of WP:NPOV. Context and due weight. I would have expected an experienced editor to be aware of this already.
We are not a Christian encyclopedia, nor do we answer to the Council of Nicaea. We rely on objective science. If y'all can't stand not being able to proselytize, there's always the more Christian-friendly Conservapedia.
It is a myth. What's so wrong with that word? Is it because it's the same word used by Christianity to discount all the other religions in the past? See mythology, "A myth is defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form, within the field of folkloristics." The Abrahamic creation myth doesn't deserve a special treatment just because millions of Americans believe in it and get mad when other people disagree. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am only helping to explain to the original poster for his benefit the fact that Wikipedia officially considers belief in the Judaeo-Christian canon to be a "FRINGE theory" while hypocritically pretending itself to be "neutral". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Council of Niea assumed for itself the authority to declare certain belief systems proscribed. No, that wasn't terribly neutral. All I am saying is that wp has done exactly the same thing. It has assumed for itself the authority to declare certain belief systems proscribed. It has become the New Council of Nicea. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're going off into a completely different discussion. What the council of Nicea declared is quite irrelevant nowadyas; they'd probably say that most people who these days say they're Christian actually aren't. Those who are Christians by the definition of Nicea are indeed a minority, and they are therefore fringe. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably billions of people who would declare themselves to be Christian who don't believe literally in the creation story in Genesis. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Now, to get back to the actual crux here: In order to be neutral, we must treat every tradition with equal labels, and it doesn't matter how many or how few believe in it. It cannot be that Hopis or Polynesians are told that their stories are "myths" while (Nicean) Christians get to avoid the word just because they'd throw a fit or be offended. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you're well aware of the fact that every religion, every single last one of them, claims to be the absolute truth and everything else are lies and all who believe in them deluded and/or going to their version of their hell(s). In such a situation, where would you look for the most reliable sources then? Or do we declare all such beliefs to be equally true and open the way for promotional recruitment articles by various religions in our articles with each religion vying to declare itself as the best belief of all?
Like it or not, we operate on scientific consensus, it's not perfect but it's the closest to the an objective, self-regulating fact-gathering method we have as a species. That's what Wikipedia is about, for which I'm thankful for. No repeatable peer-reviewed scientific investigation has ever had results that even hinted that the Abrahamic creation myth might have happened, much less all the other creation myths out there. Given that fact, it is undue weight to claim or imply otherwise.
As for "neutrality", again it doesn't mean an equal treatment of all the different views as already mentioned. We always side with the most reliable sources, regardless of how many people disagree with it. Anyway, the discussion is fast derailing so I think I'm out.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of trying to tell readers what beliefs they may have and which ones are FRINGE, we simply and neutrally describe what everyone's beliefs actually happen to be without any bias or partiality for any one belief system? Is that a revolutionary concept or what? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All myths are treated the same way in Wikipedia - as myths. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Good, Till. And what would be the appropriate response then to the edit-request which started this thread? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, neutral doesn't really mean neutral when it comes to wikipedia. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read any of the above, did you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Did you? Zenkai251 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. I can only conclude that you're being deliberately dense. To repeat: How can you argue for calling Adam and Eve a "narrative" while Rangi and Papa remains labeled as a "myth"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do any significant numbers of people believe Rangi and Papa actully existed? Is there any significant level of objection to calling it a myth? In either answer is yes, I'd argue that it should not be labeled as a myth either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying majority rules and since white people managed to either decimate or kill off indigenous peoples that determines what we should call it? Interesting view, but far from neutrality as it supports colonialism and genocide. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a strawman fallacy if ever I saw one! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Maori are not extinct, nor is the Maori language, they have as much right as any UN residents to freely choose their own belief system. So their opinions on Rangi and Papa would qualify "significant" to that topic, as in what proportion of Maori today, if any, believes they were historical figures or if is the case, specifically object to their characterization as "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's been alleged there was something "contentious" with this edit of mine.[2] I thought it was a copy-edit. Do tell. Jesanj (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your edit that's contentious, it's the high emotional charge that surrounds these words "myth" and "narrative". I'm quite happy with this, and I'd like like other people's opinions: The Genesis creation narrative (the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis) is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. As a creation myth it bears close similarities to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook. PiCo (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, since I reverted it, I don't think it is an improvement. I don't understand your "high emotional charge" comment. Are you implying there is "low emotional charge" in putting the term creation myth in the second sentence, but "high emotional charge" results when it's in first? (Whatever that means?) Jesanj (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doug accuses me of being a believer of various sorts? Til will be pleased but astounded - usually the sight of my signature is enough to make him choke on his cornflakes.
People do seem to use the word "myth" as weapon, a stake through the hearts of Til and his evil ilk, rather than as an intellectual category. Looked at neutrally, the first two chapters of Genesis are undeniably a narrative - they tell a story with a plot and characters and even dialogue. That's narrative. They're also a creation myth, in that they explain how the world began in supernatural terms. Do you have a problem with that distinction? (I know Til does, but it's rarely productive talking to Til). PiCo (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is just part of on ongoing but sporadic attempt by believers of various types to get rid of the word myth. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is definitely not an attempt to get rid of the word myth, since it's still in there. PiCo (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a vote gentlemen (although I vote oppose). The point here is what term is most commonly used in the wider literature. If you GScholar "creation narrative" and "creation myth", which seems to reflect more accurately the way in which scholarship discusses the concept? Which is more widely used? This is what needs to be addressed specifically and in detail, not the personal caprice of believers/non-believers. As for the distinction, it is subtle, but in academic terms narrative typically entails construction, built up from underlying cultural tropes, symbols and references. There is no doubt that Genesis is narrative in construct and design; but it is also more generically a creation myth, studied and considered alongside the creation myth constructions of many other civilizations. I have to say, Til's invocation of the Council of Nicaea made me laugh.... That's hardcore! Eusebeus (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pico, I really appreciate that you've demonstrated in spades that this is an issue driven entirely by personal emotional mileage and polemic rather than any actual logic, neutrality or sensibility, while making a number of facetious and silly assumptions about me in the process. You have out-Eulenspiegeled me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. A myth is a specific kind of narrative. The real issue here is that the proposal attempts to change the wording to make it sound as if the article has more factual basis than reality by giving it undue weight. After all, a "narrative" might or might not be based on actual events, while a "myth" is unambiguously a religious interpretation of the origin of humans and the world. PiCo's revision does the same thing even if it keeps the word 'myth'. Do you really think such a motivation is appropriate for Wikipedia? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we've been told by authoritative sounding wikipedians for years thata "myth" is acceptable because it might or might not be based on actual events. Now the argument subtly changes again and that becomes the reason why "narrative" is not acceptable. The truth is various authorities have debated for centuries exactly which parts of the Bible are or aren't myth, with some estimates ranging anywhere from 0% to 100%, and eveywhere in between rarely do two scholar seem to hold the same point of view of exactly which books or which parts of which books qualify as "myth" because it is entirely a question of point of view and polemical usage. Now wikipedia instead of describing this situation honestly and thoroughly, enters the game as a sort of Council of Nicea, arbitrating for itself which verses are officially parts of "myth" and whose widespread belief systems are or aren't to be officially rejected as being called anything else but "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you dislike Wikipedia's stances on the scientific consensus and neutrality that much, leave. The Abrahamic story of creation is not factual, as are other religious creation stories, and should be presented as such. That is the point of view authoritative secular science ascribes to and thus Wikipedia follows. No amount of appealing to millions of adherents who believe otherwise can change that stance nor the findings of different scientific disciplines. Vague claims of "authorities" debating this for "centuries", and even the baffling insistent inclusion of the Council of Nicaea as if these are reliable sources (yeah right, because everyone knows priests will reliably tell you if parts of their religions/sects are false) only make it abundantly clear that this is creationist POV-pushing. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, just as I thought. It's beyond deciding which sections of whose scriptures are "myth" with the pretense that "myth" is a neutral and non-judgemental word. It's now back to appropriating the authority to determining which sections of whose scriptures are rejected by "reliable" sources as FALSE - with no longer any need for pretense that "myth" doesn't imply false. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pray, do tell which sections of Genesis are factual? The fact that plants were apparently created before the Sun? That the sky is apparently just another ocean? That the moon gives off its own light? That menstruation is caused by Eve being disobedient? That snakes talk? What? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for me or you to respond to those arguments, several of which are strawmen. We have kilobytes of debate on all these arguments of interpretation that we could be using as sources for purposes of explaining and impartially describing what all the significant stances are in all of those controversies. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links please. To a policy page, if possible.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When discussion fails, you resort to forcing the revision. I have reported it to WP:3RRNB as warned. I will refrain from continuing this discussion or reverting the changes by the above three editors. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links please... Well, there's the very first ref in the article, to someone called Alter: Alter 2008, p. xii - "Genesis opens with a narrative of origins—Creation and the Garden Story—that is compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends ..." Who is this silly Alter person, who calls it both a narrative and a myth? If only he'd had the benefit of looking up Wikipedia!PiCo (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Hey, Til actually seems to approve of something I've done! He still doesn't approve of me personally of course, but we're making real progress!)PiCo (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er... I didn't notice anyone here denying that a myth is a narrative. I mean policy pages, dear sir. Discussions in Wikipedia that resulted in consensus wherein we might infer that religious creation stories should avoid being labeled as "myths", despite it being the most succinct description of the type of narrative it is.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is definitely not an attempt to get rid of the word myth, since it's still in there. (I haven't been here for a week, but PiCo's version of the 7th was neutral, so I've put it back to almost the same text.)rossnixon 09:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, unilateral changes to the article by a creationist that conveniently ignores the current discussion.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make if you perceive an editor to be a "creationist", a label you are using to demonize various people according to their firm beliefs, just because you do not share them? I've seen plenty of editors of ALL stripes exercising their right to "be bold" with the intro recently, I didn't know there were any categories of second class citizens on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Being a POV warrior, however, does matter. User:rossnixon has been intimately connected to the edit wars on this article in the past and have been involved in other blatantly creationist POV-pushing in Wikipedia articles. I'm supposed to just ignore that? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't exaggerate. I have restored a probable consensus version that includes your precious "This is a myth" statement. rossnixon 01:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't pushing my POV, I was pushing NPOV. If I was using my POV, the article would be named "Creation of the universe" and there wouldn't be any mention of or link to the word "myth"; I would say that the Genesis creation narrative was completely factual.Zenkai251 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@rossnixon: That's rich. A "probable consensus"? Look at the sections below. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article lead-section contain a link to creation myth? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there was already a stable multi-editor consensus here on the article lead for months after the last RFC, lasting until a few days ago in late October, when at least three competing alternative proposals suddenly started being bandied about and edit-warred over, beginning with that by User:Jesanj which tipped the previous balance. I doubt if all of the distinctions being argued over by various editors for various versions are summed up by the question above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes After much arguing about the title of the entry a while back, there was a consensus to have this title but also to link to creation myth in the lead. Is that the consensus Til mentions? This article attracts literalist Christians every few months who want to remove links to "creation myth" based on their personal religious views. Tough. Scholars, and indeed most other English speakers, including non-literalist Christians agree that among the ways to describe this narrative, "creation myth" factors prominently. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus I'm talking about is the longstanding status quo ante wording before Jesanj first changed it in late October a week ago, and was reverted by several others including you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK well I reverted to that version just now. I will fix the non Jesanj material that others had improved in the interm that has been lost. Don't worry about that. Give me a second.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article Lead could contain a link to creation myth but here the language used matters. I would formulate a sentence such as:
"It could be considered a Creation myth in that it is a symbolic story that presents an account of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it." Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. We do not require special wording just because this happens to belong to major world religions. Whether it is symbolic or literal is a subjective analysis that should not be pointed out as fact in the lead. The only thing we have a responsibility for is to define it as to how it should be defined in an objective context, taking into consideration the most reliable academic viewpoint (which is that young earth creationism does not agree with scientific findings in a wide variety of fields). It is a creation myth, and as with other creation myths (see List of creation myths) it's not any more or less mythological or religious. When you examine the list it becomes very obvious that the Abrahamic creation myth is the only one which seeks to distance itself from being a myth by changing the wording. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Raeky's post above, I think the article presently has the preferable title, but I don't think that is the question under present consideration. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's not but why isn't it? Strong feeling is that it belongs in the first sentence, then why not the name of the article? The reason the article is called Narrative is same reasoning here, and thus the objections for it's use in the article title is same objections here. Academically, it's a myth, and being an encyclopedia we should describe things academically. — raekyt 18:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is where WP:COMMONNAME comes into play. (Also encyclopaedias in general are not necessarily very academic, and while Wikipedia attempts to be more academic on academic subjects than on popular subjects, and makes an attempt at academic level of referencing, a mistaken belief that we are, or should be, like a learned journal in many other respects is a common misconception.) Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Simply yes Regardless of belief, this article should link to the article that is called "Creation myth". If, for internal consistency, we wan to pipe the link, creation narrative, than that is fine. If the article called "Creation myth" was at "Pan-troglodyte epiphenomena" we would still have to link to it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note - This RfC should be resolved now, since we already had a longstanding consensus compromise intro sentence that took a lot of hammering out, and we have now reverted to the previous agreed consensus version we had before all the new changes and disputes broke out. The specific question proposed by this RfC is not even central to the edit disputes in this case, so I propose closing the RfC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion there is no weasel wording or bias by using the word myth. On the other hand, Rich Farmbrough makes an argument above that you may sympathize with. Jesanj (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Beware pointless repetition ("...the biblical account of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible" - biblical account in the Hebrew bible in the book of Genesis?) PiCo (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Can a neutral encyclopedia consistently use "creation myth" for all cultures and religions except "creation narrative" for one? We should reexamine the current consensus, which is based on dubious claims, such as the semantics of a colloquialism ("urban myth") justifying not using a common name ("myth"). Keahapana (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more you research the history of theological objections to employing the term myth to the current scriptures of world religions (and not just the Bible, but also the Quran, Mahabharata, Book of Mormon or what have you) the more you will hopefully discover that confusion with thing like "urban myth" is a woefully inadequate summary of the all objections that have been sourced. But once again this Rfc question is actually a moot point, because it doesn't really relate to anything in the current consensus wording from the last compromise, which already links creation myth in the intro. The whole flare-up that precipitated this RFC started a couple weeks ago, when various partisan editors with a range of opinions started mucking about with the previous compromise, but hopefully that's all sorted now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and wrong question. I want to talk about the first sentence or two:
Current (now modified) Revised Rationale
The Genesis creation narrative is the biblical account of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. As a sacred narrative of the primeval history of the world (chapters 1–11), it is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity. The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of Abrahamic religions, described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. While not perfect, I see the revised version as a way to reduce the POV in the current version, as I explain above. The [[Scripture|sacred narrative]] pipe is weak and "primeval history of the world" and "creation of the world" are begging for a copy-edit.
Nobody here in this RFC is voting on Jesanj's proposal, and it is terrible and should not be implemented, it describes "the creation myth of Abrahamic religions" which is completely uninformative. It is canonical scripture for most, of not all, Christian and Jewish denominations. I don't believe that is the case for many other "Abrahamic religions" such as Islam or Mandaeism, etc. several of which may use different scriptures regarding creation. "creation myth of Abrahamic religions" is the most utterly oversimplistic and purposefully offensive mischaracterization of many people's firm beliefs that would be possible, and I am wondering if some of you have even read the rest of the article or have anything better to do with your lives and your encyclopedia editing time than try to re-open old cans of worms by inserting the most simple-minded POV labels that you KNOW are polemical to readers, editors and believers as near to the top of the article as possible with the most contorted arguments, just so you can be 'in the face' of others? How great can the reward for all this effort possibly be? Does anyone really think people are going to let WIKIPEDIA tell them "YOUR BELIEFS ARE ALL FALSE MYTHS BECAUSE WE AT WIKIPEDIA HAVE FIGURED OUT ALL THE ANSWERS"...? This RFC is becoming misleading as it doesn't propose any actual change to the current compromise. But some here are just bound and determined to revisit the acrimonious, extremely time consuming and at times tedious and endless debates with hundreds of editors firmly weighing in. It's like they didn't get enough last go-round and are now ready for some more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support the idea of this article should be named Genesis creation narrative, while all other articles here are named as creation myths? I also started the article political myth. As you see, a political myth can be true or false. Doesn't that make you feel better? The current version of the article states: "The creation narrative from the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis—biblical canon to some in Judaism and Christianity—is, in comparative mythology, a narrative with similarities to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while it differs in its monotheistic outlook", for what it's worth. Jesanj (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that question is aimed at Til, it might be somewhat superfluous. I might entertain a change to "Hebrew creation mythology" or even "Biblical creation myths", since there's more than just Genesis 1-2 that mention Creation, and some of them are quite different. (For that matter, Genesis 1 and 2 are quite different from each other anyway - in Ge.1 Creation is "wet", with the waters of the Ocean of Chaos all around; in Gen.2 there's no waters, and Creation is dry. And Jesanj needs to do some serious reading :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course, and using the precise words "creation myth" as well because that's what it is according to overwhelming consensus of relevant experts including Christian theologians. The traditional use of "myth" in the sense "any myth that isn't Christian" is POV and does not appear to be current in academia any more. In fact, I support moving this article back to its old title Genesis creation myth if there is a real desire to discard the old compromise.
    It is very enlightening to compare the situation here with that at Muhammad, an article that has numerous depictions of Muhammad in spite of questionable relevance and strongly negative reactions by numerous Muslim readers. There, we are going out of our way to insult fundamentalist Muslims for barely a discernible (legitimate) reason. Here, we have made a concession to the sensibilities of fundamentalist Christians by renaming the article, and now it almost looks as if we are about to bend over backwards and remove well established key relevant facts in order to keep a certain type of people isolated from reality. Absolutely ridiculous. Hans Adler 08:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat here what I said above: I'd like to see the article retitled as Bible creation myths, because although nGen1-2 is the best-known it's by no means the only creation myth in the bible, and in fact comes from a rather late date (the 5th century BC according to current thinking). PiCo (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Myth neutrally describes what Genesis is — at least according to all dictionaries. Christianity having its creation narrative but other religions having their creation myths? Sounds very biased. For the same reason this article should also be renamed to Genesis creation myth. - DVdm (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should certainly follow standard naming conventions and if this is the only article of this genre to be labelled narrative, that certainly smacks of POV. It may be worth noting that from the scholarly perspective, there is indeed a Genesis 'narrative' which can be separated from the Genesis myth, insofar as it refers to the specifically Hebraic scriptural adaptation (Gen 1-2) of the Judaic variant on the larger creation myth form that has links to earlier versions. So the term has academic value. PiCo, I thought the dating of Genesis was from the 8th - 9th centuries. Has there been an authoritative re-evaluation? Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Eusebeus above, as well as others: each article stands on its own and apart from any other article that you may feel has a similar name, or a similar theme. There is little distinction between "myth" and "narrative" in this usage except that "myth" carries an additional implication of falseness while "narrative" does not. We should be cautious about the unintended point that gets made in titling the article "Genesis creation myth". That is a pointed statement in and of itself and should be avoided. Within the schools of thought that are more respectful of this subject matter you would not likely hear "Genesis" referred to as a "myth"—not even by those who might not believe a word of it. In the title the more neutral word "narrative" should be employed. In my opinion, to title the article "Genesis creation myth" is a contrivance designed to poke fun at that which has absolutely no support in the rational sciences. We already know that the story in Genesis is fanciful. To repeat that notion with the term "myth" in the title would be redundant. Taking perverse pleasure in poking fun at modes of thinking and using Wikipedia as a vehicle for that should be avoided. I think that is in the spirit of WP:NPOV. There is no big deal in pointing out in the Lead that "myth" is a term that has applicability to this sort of subject matter in certain schools of thought. Even if those schools of thought are the more rational and academic schools of thought, we should still exhibit the maturity to use language that doesn't have the drawback of potentially offending. This has nothing to do with censorship. We are here to convey information; our intention should not be to take "sides" on any issue. That is truly what "neutrality" is. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and title of article should be reverted to Genesis creation myth. The word "myth" itself does not necessarily cast judgement on the accuracy of the subject, and the word "myth" is more clearly meaningful in this context. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't and no it's not. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, without the silly "creation narrative" pipe to disguise it. It doesn't need to be linked in the very first sentence-or even the first para. More important, we just need to describe the story. The intro now chokes-beginning with the very awkwardly worded opening sentence which needs rewriting. The kinship to other Mesopotamian creation myths is of secondary importance-it doesn't belong in the first sentence. If "Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of Abrahamic religions, described in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis" was bothersome, Pico's alternative was fine, though I'd eliminate the parenthetical with something like, "The Genesis creation narrative is a biblical story describing the divine creation of the world and the first man and woman." Either one is fine-it's not so urgent that we say it's a "creation myth" in the first sentence, though it does belong in the lead. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Zenkai, when he's not calling other editors names, has taken the attempt to remove 'creation myth' from articles to Talk:Adam#Remove "creation myth". Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Given the basic definitions and usage....
narrative, n. (2. a) An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account. - OED, Third ed. 2011.
myth, n. (1. a) A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon. Myth is strictly distinguished from allegory and legend by some scholars, but in general use it is often used interchangeably with these terms. - OED, Third ed. 2011.
"The myth was a sacred narrative, whether true or fictional, which gave an account of, or ‘explained’, the origins of human life or of the community." - J. D. Crichton in C. Jones et al. Study of Liturgy. 1978.
...myth is more accurate. A title change would also be supported. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Narrative sounds about right. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note That's because calling any religion a "myth" is CLEARLY atheistic bias. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oh just shuddup. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. But you should. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling, if you keep throwing insults and accusations around, you're gonna find yourself at ANI or elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? You're the one who told me to shut-up. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to Genesis creation myth

There seems to be a bit of support for removing "narrative" from the actual article title, a move which I agree in, so should we shift the conversation to doing this move? — raekyt 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The current title seems inconsistent and religiously biased. When it was changed back and forth to "Genesis creation myth" in 2010, there were lengthy "myth" vs. "narrative" arguments. We could avoid repetition if some neutral editors would summarize the archived discussions. Keahapana (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree! It has already been discussed multiple times in the past and "Genesis creation narrative" was decided on as the name for the article. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a compromise in the end, which involved renaming the article but keeping the words "creation myth" prominently in the lead. Do you support that compromise, or do you just want to cherry-pick? Hans Adler 12:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't start this crapstorm again? Unless I'm mistaken you two (Raeky and Keahapana) were part of the most recent prolonged and unpleasant bickering over this so please try to remember what happened. It was settled, and it was settled based on scholarship and not as some people like to claim, as based on a religious POV. I disagree with opening this can of worms back up. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strongly Disagree. Honestly, this shouldn't even be suggested. It's done. Narrative is a neutral term, and despite the scholarly use of "myth", it is not. Pushing to rename the article -- again -- is highly POV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Why shouldn't it be suggested? So your position is that we should rename the creation myth and all the pages at List of creation myths that use the phrase creation myth in the title too? Jesanj (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most entries that are fully about creation myths, primal myths and cosmogonic myths are not titled "creation myth" in fact. The list you are referring to is deceptive in that regard because what appears often to be entries with those titles are in fact redirects to sections of other entries that do not share those titles. So using that list as evidence is a bad idea. Please see my further related comment below.Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the list isn't a bad idea, as long as one is aware of the article titles, which one can see here. Jesanj (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson. Most of those creation myths are not held to be historically true by large numbers of people. So calling them myths may not be considered offensive. There is a difference. You may not like the fact that there are many, many people who consider the biblical creation story to be historical, but it is a fact. You can't use Wikipedia as a weapon with which to "smite the believers", so to speak. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think this is a campaign to "smite the believers"? Interesting. Jesanj (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)There are many, many people who believe a lot of weird things. But we still call astrology a pseudo-science, describe Power Balance bracelets to be found completely ineffective, and dare tell people that professional wrestling matches are predetermined. The number of people who hold the Biblical account to be historical (as opposed to either nonsense or allegorical) is fairly small. And the number of people who do not like some information should not and never be a reason not to include it. I don't like hearing about Camp X-Ray, or global warming, or the relationship between being overweight and health risks... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: there are many equally legitimate alternatives for naming of this article, and waywaywaywayway too much volunteer time has already been wasted at this project on this merry-go-round of changing the title, debating changing it, edit warring over it, and revising and re-revising the nearly 500 wikilinks found throughout the 'pedia pointing to it - round and round, over and over and over again. The amount of time wasted already revisiting this question again and again has been gargantuan. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I'd go with: "Q. Shouldn't this article be renamed [ blank ]? A. Are you crazy? To 'have it your way' will force you waste dozens of hours thrashing with editors who viscerally hate the change. And should you succeed, someone else will come along right behind you, start the nightmare all over again and change to something else." ;) Or we could just collect past attempts together and document what a neverending circus the issue has been in a single archive page. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step, I've listed the various renames that I could identify as actually ever used, even if for a short while. There may be more that I missed. But the fun part comes next: gathering together the zillion megabytes of high intensity "debate" arguing over the issue. I've posted the list here. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Professor. Your list provides a helpful chronological overview. Do you think it might be more useful if placed on this talk page? We agree about the absurd time already wasted arguing over mythiness. Reading some comments above ("one of the words makes 90% of Americans angry", "'narrative' … means the same thing as 'myth'") gave me an idea for possible timesaving. We could start by building a consensus to provide reliable lexical sources in all discussions about word semantics and usages. If someone claims "myth means X" but cannot provide support from a dictionary or other language reference, for present WP purposes, it doesn't mean that. Keahapana (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already found another one two. Here's a list of the alternatives I confirmed served here as the title for this one topic at some point in time:
  1. Creationism
  2. Creation
  3. Traditional creation myths of various cultures(subsection) Creation myths(main)
  4. The two creation stories in Genesis(subsection) Creationism(main)
  5. Creationism (theology)
  6. Creation (theology)
  7. Doctrine of creation
  8. Creationist (theology)
  9. Abrahamic creationism
  10. Bible-based beliefs(subsection) Creation myths(main)
  11. Bible-based beliefs(subsection) Creation beliefs(main)
  12. The stories of Genesis(subsection) Creation beliefs(main)
  13. The stories of Genesis(subsection) Origin beliefs(main)
  14. The stories of Genesis(subsection) Origins beliefs(main)
  15. Christian(subsection) and Judaism(subsection) Creation within belief systems (main)
  16. Judaism and Christian(subsection) Cosmogonic beliefs from Middle East(main)
  17. Creation accounts in Genesis
  18. Creation account(s) in Genesis
  19. Creation according to Genesis
  20. Genesis creation myth
  21. Genesis creation narrative
Some of these alternatives originated with content related forks and mergers rather than rename disputes. But NPOV disputes raged over the name in nearly every case (including over Creation accounts in Genesis for the plural). Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the titles listed above, like "Creation within belief systems", really don't still apply to the content of this article as it is currently constructed. Also, the various "creationism" titles are a bit vague for use in this particular context. I would submit that "narrative" is not in fact equivalent to myth, as narrative can also be used for any other narrative forms. And, honestly, as I believe we already have other articles for beliefs other extant religious groups which use the "myth" word, I have difficulty understanding why this particular article seems to deserve "special treatment" in that regard. However, maybe using something like "Genesis creation account," might be best, as "account" is, to my eyes, more neutral. I would still personally think "Genesis creation myth" would probably be the best, most neutral and informative title, though. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But everyone else is doing it, so why not us?

Because it is not common in scholarship. How many times does that have to be repeated before people will hear it. A lot of confusion comes about because of the fact that different scholarly contexts will utilize different terminology for the same subjects. So if a creation story is almost entirely dealt with by scholars of mythology, ancient history and comparative literature, what you end up with is a "creation myth," so named. If, on the other hand, the story is not usually dealt with in those contexts you wont see that term used very often. That is the case with the Genesis story. Another factor, whether people like it or not, which is related to the scholarly context issue, has to do with what the cultural context of the story is. If it is ancient, and part of a dead tradition (whether or not it has been revitalized through a contemporary pagan movement) you'll see "myth" used often. This is also true for living and dead traditions described by anthropologists working in the field, and especially in earlier periods. Does that last fact reflect a bias, especially in the early days of anthropology (e.i. colonialism, etc.)? I'm sure it does, but if you consider that true, understand that it's the "myth" label, applied to "primitive" groups that is problematic in that context and not the "narrative" label applied to a Western tradition. So to make a long story short, there are reasons why the literature isn't the same for the labeling of all creation myths, but that's a reality we need to live with. I'll be happy to explain the situation surrounding this particular myth in more detail if anyone asks (because its pretty justifiable IMO), but for now I don't want to make this post to long.Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we generally do X doesn't mean we can't use Y to retitle. If in scholarship the Genesis creation narrative is more commonly (what, 55%, 65%, 75% of the time?) called a narrative, rather than a myth, then I understand this argument. Even if this is true, however, we can still rename the article. WP:POVTITLE states "the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" (my emphasis). The existence of the creation myth and the List of creation myths articles mean that that naming is the neutral WP:COMMONNAME (unless we have those page names wrong). We can rename this article. Jesanj (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should not rename this article both because narrative is more commonly used, and because using myth would be pushing a POV. Look, you think using narrative is POV. I think using myth is POV. Frankly, I wouldn't mind changing the article's title to "Genesis creation account". The problem is that there were people who considered that to be POV on the site of it being historical. "Narrative" was chosen as a compromise. If you're going to push for it to be renamed to Genesis creation myth, I'm going to go back to pushing for Genesis creation account, and we'll just wind up compromising with Genesis creation narrative again. Why don't you spare us the drama and drop this. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Narrative" is not most common in usage, "story" is by far most common. "Narrative" was the compromise decision. I actually pushed for "story" myself, and there were others who agreed with me, but "narrative" is what we settled on.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think Genesis creation narrative and Genesis creation myth are both neutral titles. I just think it's silly that some think we have to keep this title when creation myth is the common name for the phenomenon, as it is used exclusively in other article titles here. If you don't think "account" has a chance, please don't pursue it. Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether user Jesanj has ever tried to push something here (—I don't see any evidence for that—), but, Lisa, this sounds like an extremely wp:POINTY and highly disruptive thing to do: "If you're going to push for it to be renamed to Genesis creation myth, I'm going to go back to pushing for Genesis creation account." - DVdm (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly not my intent. My point is that the only reason I was willing to back down on account was the compromise. If the compromise no longer holds, I'm going to push for the title that I think is most correct, which is Genesis creation account. I have never stopped thinking that account would be a better title. But for exactly the opposite motives that WP:POINTY refers to, I've chosen to go along with a title that I don't think is good. For the sake of consensus.
It seems abundantly clear to me that some editors want the word "myth" in the title precisely because it carries a dismissive connotation. I have no evidence that Jesanj is one of these, but my objections to the renaming stand either way. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was not your intent, it is one of the pointiest things I have seen here since a while. What seems abundantly clear to you, could be wrong, and inspired by lack of assumption of good faith. - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation myth is commonly used in wikipedia (scholarly as it is); just because this is religious myth changes nothing ... get real it's a creation myth (whichever definition you use). Abtract (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't whether or not it is a creation myth and please remember that we are clear about the identification as a creation myth in the lead. The problem is whether or not it isn't also something else and whether or not because of that, and because of how that has effected relaible sources, we ought to title the entry to reflect those facts. People who argue for myth seem to consistently argue from the false position that if we aren't titling this with the word "creation myth" we are kowtowing to the religious belief. Well I have news for you. If we were kowtowing to the religious POV this entry would be titled Creation, not "Genesis creation narrative." The current title says specifically that this is a story about creation found in Genesis. In some contexts, especially the ancient context and the comparative mythological context "myth" makes sense, but in other contexts it doesn't. I'm a social scientist, and if I were to conduct empirical research on a religious group that found this story meaningful in some way, starting from the premise that it is a myth (in the scholarly sense) would be extremely counterproductive and may indeed be completely misleading. What this story is above all, is a story. Period. And I'll repeat myself, scholarship is on my side here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy note: Consensus can change.

Some articles go through extensive editing and discussion to achieve a neutral and a readable product. Similarly, other articles are periodically challenged and/or revised. This is a normal function of the ongoing process of consensus. It is useful to examine the article's talk page archives and read through past discussions before re-raising an issue in talk – there is no sense in forcing everyone to rehash old discussions without need.
However, consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.

Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues at Adam

There are some editor who think that creation myth should be removed from the lead. I think it would some more contributions to the discussion would be good. I think the issue is apropos to the debate here.--Adam in MO Talk 02:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on this page I didn't want to remove it, I simply wanted to change "creation myth" to "creation narrative". Zenkai251 (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the RfC above, and elsewhere on this page, consensus has been clear that linking creation myth is appropriate. Right now you're edit warring against that consensus, which is disruptive. Please stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't quite reach a consensus on whether or not to change "creation myth" to "creation narrative". Zenkai251 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was fairly clear, but even if it were not, then consensus hasn't formed to change the article to narrative. As such, editing (and reverting others) to reflect that change is disruptive. If you believe consensus will decide to change the lead to "narrative", then it can wait until the discussion is settled. Please don't edit war in the meantime.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Adam" article is not the "Genesis" article, so I think the treatment of material, if sourced, should be handled differently at the two articles. There can be justification for addressing the characterization of Genesis as a "creation myth" earlier in this article than at the "Adam" article. A problem at the "Adam" article is that there are editors insisting on baldly stating in the first one or two sentences that "Genesis" is a "creation myth" when this view is not universally held nor is the article even on "Genesis". Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bus Stop that the content of the Adam article differs rather substantially from that of tis article. While I disagree about his point that the use of the phrase "creation myth" should be universally held, the scope of the article includes material other than Genesis. The essence of my disagreement with him is that, even in some areas of rather clear-cut science, like say astronomy, there will be at least a few "fringe theories" like those of Emmanuel Velikovsky, The DaVinci Code, and some others who might be described as "religious fundamentalists," which are held by at least one or two sources of some sort. WP:FT and other policies and guidelines to not demand that we cover every theory held by every religious community. Factually, for faiths like Christianity and Hinduism, where there are a variety of sometimes directly contradictory beliefs of one or more groups which are sometimes all rejected by academia, that would be clearly impossible. I believe that this may well be another example of that type. The fact that some individuals express religious belief in an idea is not necessarily grounds for wikipedia, which is supposed to be based on the best reliable sources, to emphasize such. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography section

The bibliography section was full of books that aren't used in the article. I've gone through and deleted quite a number, as the purpose of these sections is to help readers verify the information in the article by checking its sources. PiCo (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PiCO can you explain this edit summary,"Unfortunately, Leeming is not reliable?" Not reliable for what? The Oxford series of reference works are of course reliable sources, and Leeming is of course a prodigious scholar in the area of world mythology, particularly for tertiary sources. So what do you mean there and why did you remove him?Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he's not correct in what he says. He's accepting outdated scholarship as if it were still current. For example, he says that the documentary hypothesis is the accepted explanation of the way in which the Pentateuch was written, and that it's generally accepted that J dates from about 950 BC. Both statements are untrue - not untrue, perhaps, since who knows what truth is, but certainly outdated. I could go into details for you if you wish, on your personal talk page. PiCo (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I'll explain why I feel uneasy with Leeming. First, he is, without question, an eminent scholar. And yet, I find him making statements which I know to be not so much untrue as outdated, in terms of current thinking. In his 'Creation Myths of the World" (the link should open at page 124) we find him saying that the Hebrews entered Canaan from Egypt in the late 2nd millennium. This is not the current scholarly consensus, which is that the Israelites were originally Canaanites and never were in Egypt. It's based, of course, on Exodus/Joshua, and the current scholarly consensus on these books is that Joshua dates from the 7th century BC and Exodus from the early 6th, and that they are in no way a reliable guide to history.

Any competent scholar should be aware of these developments in scholarship, even if he doesn't agree with them. But Leeman isn't disagreeing - he's simply ignorant of them.

It continues. "We know that at the end of the 11th century BCE the Hebrew clans united behind a monarchy." (Page 125). In fact we know no such thing. This is an uncritical reading of the Book of Samuel. If Leeming had bothered to check with Bill Dever or anyone at all (except perhaps Kitchen or Hoffmeier) he would have found that the current understanding is that there was no kingdom in the highlands until the 9th century, and that it was centered in Israel/Samaria, not Jerusalem.

This ignorance of history extends also to his understanding of the formation of the Pentateuch (i.e., the question of how Genesis came to be written). On pages 125-126 he clearly believes that the documentary hypothesis is still the explanation accepted by his peers in biblical studies - in fact it's been old-fashioned since the 1970s, and voices like RE Friedman are definitely defensive rather than mainstream. His characterisation of the sources is also old-fashioned. In fact old-fashioned is the dominant impression.

Leeming is, without doubt, a prestigious scholar. That leaves me puzzled as to why he's writing in this way, as if he hasn't read anything written by biblical scholars since about 1970. I can't begin to answer that.

However, there's a way out. Leeming is only quoted once in our article, and in fact what he says is perfectly mainstream: "To the extent that this myth (Genesis 1) was influenced by Mesopotamian concepts, it can be said that it purposely establishes a monotheistic creation as opposed to the Babylonian polytheistic one." That's in a footnote to the main text - in fact it's the very first footnote. It's followed by two more quotations saying exactly the same thing, in different words. That's not surprising - this is mainline opinion among biblical scholars (even Wenham says it, and he's an Evangelical Christian). So what this means is that we don't actually need Leeming - we don't need three quotes saying the same thing. For that matter we don't need two quotes, one will do. I'd go for Alter, he's authoritative and he says it best: "Genesis opens with a narrative of origins—Creation and the Garden Story—that is compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends ..." PiCo (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We know that at the end of the 11th century BCE the Hebrew clans united behind a monarchy." - That idea is (or will be) making a comeback. Sorry PiCo, no ref off the top of my head yet. rossnixon 03:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative&oldid=460719593"