Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Neutrality?

This article has a neutrality tag dating from December 2009, but no discussion in the talk page. What are the neutrality issues? If there aren't any to discuss here, why not remove the tag? Agathman (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw a recent edit that said Archives were reverted to show neutrality history, but I can't see where that has happened. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead

This lead does not summarize the body of the article as per our MOS on WP:LEAD. Can we fix this? Auntie E. (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the bits that were cut before by Lisa were misplaced, but the lead has remained truncated since. Maybe we can add a paragraph on the scholarly opinion on the formulation, noting the important distinction of monotheism that differentiated this myth from its influences. IMHO that should be stressed. Auntie E. (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Il faut le faire toi-meme.PiCo (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Creationism section

Someone has replaced the original section on Creationism and Genesis 1-2 with a much longer version. If the editor who made the changes would still like to argue for them, he/she is welcome to do so, but please come to this page first and set out the reasons why, in your opinion, these major changes are necessary. PiCo (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

I'm suggesting this for the first sentence: Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.

This avoids the word "myth" while still using the academic definition of myth. Given the popular interpretation of "myth" as "fiction", I think this is desirable.

Rossnixon in a recent edit changed it to this: Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's narrative explaining how the universe, world and life on earth came into existence. My problem with this is: (a) it's definitely a sacred narrative, as it puts God at the centre of the story; and (b) the idea of "universe" is a modern one - lots of planets and solar systems and galaxies whirling through space. That's not what the ancients thought of at all. Oh, I'll add (c): the Genesis story concentrates not just on how the world came into existence - it could stop at day 6 if it did that - but on how the new creation related to God: a day of rest and marriage. It's not just a story, it's a story with a message. PiCo (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not desirable. In fact it's in violation of the NPOV policy, in particular WP: RNPOV. I ask that you please review this section. Avoiding the term myth for the reason you've indicated is as silly as avoiding the term theory in scientific articles. Having said that, I prefer:

''Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis.

Or something along those lines. Obviously the creation myth article is highly relevant and should be included as such. Ben (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If we just say "myth" it tends to raise hackles and people react without thinking. On the other hand I have no problem with an embedded link to the article on creation myths. How about an embedded link: Creation according to Genesis is the Hebrew Bible's sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. PiCo (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, and as such I think your suggestion goes against some pretty hefty principles that any good encyclopedia should stand for. I don't care about some heckler on a talk page anywhere near as much as I care that an article is presenting knowledge completely indifferently to said heckler. In fact, an attitude of ooh, well this knowledge tends to raise hackles, so lets censor, hide or otherwise obfuscate it in some way is, in my mind, offensive, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, non-neutral. My suggestion is unchanged from above. Ben (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Tillman says on his Talk page that he is an atheist. I say on my Talk page that I am a Christian. Obviously, we both are committed to our respective views, meaning that it may take extra effort to not allow our worldview paradigms affect our edit views. I know that to be true for me. Numerous times I have had to forcefully lay aside my personal convictions to edit an article that contained views to which I am sympathetic, but which were not NPOV. I'm sure that's true of all good Wiki editors. But forcing the word "myth"—as if everyone knows that we are using a much lesser-known definition of the term, and it they don't, it's high time that they learn it!—doesn't seem to equate to NPOV. I guess Encyclopedia Brittanica must not know about the "pretty hefty principles that any good encyclopedia should stand for. " Many scholarly articles and books on this subject very successfully avoid "myth. " User PiCo has, IMO, skillfully avoided it in our article.

In Talk:Creation–evolution controversy, I have already provided a reputable source that points out how the word "myth" predisposes many readers of Judeao-Christian persuasion to be on the defensive before they read on. One reviewer (Justin Topp, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas-Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9038) has written of the book, Evolution and Religious Creation Myths: How Scientists Respond.: "The authors describe creationism and intelligent design as myth and unscientific.... Reducing, if not misrepresenting, ID (Intelligent Design) in such a manner makes it easier for the authors to argue against ID, but it clearly does a disservice to the movement and diminishes the integrity of the book for ASAers.... The issues noted and the other capable offerings available make it difficult to recommend this book."

Knowing that "myth" riles many readers and starts them off with a negative predisposition, why must "myth" appear in the very first sentence? Why in the very first paragraph? A matter of one editor's principle is insufficient justification. Should we trade liberal or atheistic preference for true neutrality in a really good article that we want people to be able to read with an open mind? Or to ask it another way: will anyone not continue reading the Encyclopedia Brittanica article just because the word "myth" does not appear in the first few sentences, nor anywhere in the article??? "Myth" in the lede biases many potential readers who are neither hecklers nor hicks: "Warning: if the writers of this article label not only "creation" but Genesis—and probably, then, the whole Bible—to be a "myth," there's no need to waste my time trying to sort out creation vs evolution. I can see from the start where "they" are headed. And if they knew that the strongest proponent of "myth upfront" approach so disrespectfully labels a fellow editor "some heckler on a talk page," not exactly in the finest tradition of Wikipedia etiquette, would that make them any more likely to trust the article's neutrality?

I strongly support PiCo's edits. I disagree that his edits "censor, hide or otherwise obfuscate it in some way." He just doesn't wave the red flag in the face of the bull. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Negative book reviews of a book that considers intelligent design a myth (nonsense, though it clearly has its roots in one) and unscientific (completely true) have no weight here what-so-ever. I've already cited Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible, and our policy WP:RNPOV. The WP:WEIGHT requirements of RNPOV are satisfied by the following:

David Strauss's claim that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship. -- Marcus Borg here.

As such, this matter is completely resolved by our policies and those accompanying reliable sources (more reliable sources can be provided, but unless you have a good reason for demanding more I doubt I'll go out of my way). Given that, I'll now restore the first sentence and ask you to note that the onus is on you to present a solid argument for it's removal that doesn't involve petty edit warring. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what Afaprof01 just did, he seems to have refactored other people's contributions in the edits just before Ben's above, or have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he just put a space in between my indent colons and replies, which may have confused the wiki a bit. I don't see any obvious changes in content so I don't think it's a problem. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Christian but I recognize that the formal definition of myth does not imply an untruth. (Should the article link to that definition?) Also, I would like to point Ben's attention to WP:WTA#Myth_and_legend: the language used surrounding the term "myth" should make it obvious that we use it in a formal sense, not the informal meaning of "a false belief".
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Creation Myth article to which the words link is well written and serves to broaden the subject from a cross-cultural viewpoint. Removing said words and link in the name of making one creation myth sound more "true" than the other creation myths would not do this article any justice and only spur further POV and Bias arguements. Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly with this. It should stay as myth. I'm sorry if it seems a red flag in front of a bull to some people but is no more that than removing SWT etc because of WP:MOSISLAM which also offends some Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the "Bible is myth" crowd's fallback argument, the one "Bible is myth" folks keep falling back on when all else fails, but I still fail to understand it. It sounds like some kind of emotional argument, or fallacy coming from your POV. Can you please elucidate further, so that others who don't share your point of view, might also understand it? How exactly is it comparable to removing SWT from Muhammad's name? It seems more directly analogous to the principle that we don't use offensive racial epithets to describe different races here. If you're ging to introduce a slippery slope argument, where do you draw the line? It's not a case of going extra miles out of our way or bending over backwards either to show respect (SWT) or disrespect (racial epithets, or calling widespread religious beliefs you don't share "myths"). It's a choice between picking a less offensive synonym, or a more offensive, POV-laden, and ambiguous one. It seems to me that a few editors preferring the more offensive and disputed term for whatever reason, is more a case of going out of our way to offend. The fallacy here seems to add up to "It just wouldn't be neutral not to offend, so instead we ought to go out of our way to offend - now that is neutrality." 71.253.143.203 (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you editing logged out by mistake? I presume you are, and are aware of WP:AGF. And, by the way, neutrality is not what we aim for, it is WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get an explanation of your logic here, and I'm struggling to understand how you can possibly describe your point-of-view as a "neutral" one. It doesn't seem at all like logic, seems like a complete throwback to a less tolerant era. Perhaps the fact that the offensiveness concerns other people's beliefs, rather than their ethnicity, is clouding your perspective. Try it like this: "People from Slobovia say they are offended by the term 'Slow-boes'. But they ARE Slow-boes, and that's what we should call them, because that's what they really are. Look, we have fifteen books that all agree that they ARE Slow-boes and that this is not offensive, and OUR books are right, while all the books that say this term is offensive, are just plain wrong, and were probably written by Slow-boe lovers anyway. So despite the fact that they don't like being called Slow-boes, wikipedia should definitely use this term, because it just wouldn't be at all NPOV to accede to their POV and call them Slobovians." 71.253.143.203 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's where you're right dear IP editor, we are falling back on "The bible is a myth" because that's how all creation stories are listed and identified on Wikipedia. And from an encyclopedic point of view it is a myth, just like the Norse myth of creation and the Hindu and the ancient Egyptian. It helps maintain NPOV that none of the creation myths are categorized differently from one another. So whether you believe the earth was vomited up by a giant turtle or hatched from a interstellar egg or was conjured up by a wizard in the clouds is irrelevant because an encyclopedia doesn't take sides or opinions nor should it cater to one group's religious ideologies or sensitivities over anothers. Nefariousski (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Refering to the Genesis narrative as a "myth" in the first sentence is definitely POV and a failure to maintain an impartial tone. Though there is a definition of myth where this is an accurate statement, one could say the same to justify opening the Bill Clinton article saying, "Bill Clinton was born a bastard on August 19,1946." Most readers will believe that calling the narrative a myth in the opening sentence is making an assertion that the narrative is false, because the most common usage of "myth" suggests falsehood. Certainly, at later points in the text, the term "myth" can be used if it is properly identified as an attributed point of view. See: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. When using "myth" to describe a religious narrative, it must be clear that it is being used in the formal sense. Usage in the opening sentence is ambiguous, and thus prohibited by the WP:NPOV policy.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would call attention to Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label which would seem to apply here. In particular, it suggests the following test: 'The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.' --agr (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue shouldn't be one of what this article labels the "creation myth" but with the creation myth article itself. If the term is deemed inappropriate then the creation myth article should be changed. Calling the biblical account a "Creation Narrative" while other faiths' accounts are called "Creation Myths" is where your WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV truly comes into play. When the "Creation Narrative" words link to "Creation Myth" article it defeats the purpose entirely. Go to Creation Myth and get that name changed first.Nefariousski (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Defeats the purpose" - What purpose - you mean to deliberately enflame and offend with an "outside word"? When there are clearly more NPOV alternatives? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose is to truly be neutral. Wikipedia does not view the bible story as a narrative while viewing the Koran as a myth or the nordic version as a myth etc... The article Creation Myth contains all of the various cultures stories regarding creation and to hold one above the others by labelling it a "narrative" on the surface while it still links to the creation myth article is dishonest at best and only masks your concern about the "myth" labeling. Articles link to other articles and should do so in the most transparent manner possible, your personal opinions and sensitivities aside. While I agree with you that "Myth" isn't necessarily the best word to use it is currently the article to which the link redirects and should clearly show as so. Users who are obviously skewed towards a religious belief (per their user profiles) only contribute to the systemic bias that is so common in bible related articles in english Wikipedia and as such their contributions and opinions tend to push POV. The only truly neutral solution is to label references to the article by the article's name and if the article's name is poorly worded then that article should be changed.Nefariousski (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give examples of these other articles where you say the scriptures of other major world faiths (such as the Quran) are defined as "myths". There's a good chance I'd oppose that usage just as strongly on those articles, because in most cases there is a good deal of opposition on the record against having the scriptures of any given religion labeled as "myth". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

how about the creation myths page?Nefariousski (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... i wonder how many users would feel more comfortable if that page were renamed "creation narratives"? Sounds far more NPOV, I'd say... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your colloquial examples of the word "myth" on your user page do not trump the formal meanings adopted by Wikipedia as a matter of agreed upon policy (once again feel free to read WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend). If you want to change the usage of the word "myth" do so at the source article and not the articles that reference said source.Nefariousski (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Says you. Somehow I don't think it's going to be that easy or clear-cut. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Says Me? How about Says Wikipedia Policy. I'm not pushing my opinion here, I'm just trying to make the article comply with already long debated and agreed upon policy. Nefariousski (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying there is "consensus"? Where? I'm confused - do you mean 'consensus' as some kind of doublespeak, or 'consensus' in the English language sense of "no significant opposition"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean "consensus" as in there is an already accepted Wikipedia guideline that clearly supports the use of the word "myth" in the case of creation myth. Feel free to read it here WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend. If you're not interested in reading through the article I'll quote it for you:

"Formal use of the word (Myth) commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed....

Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."

So to clarify, we can't call all other faith's beliefs about the origin of the world "Myths" and not the Judeo-Christian brand. It clearly says we need to be consistent and since the article creation myth is what we are linking to and it is a catalogue of all creation myths we need to be consistent. I hope you understand that this isn't a POV attack on any belief but an attempt to make this article more encyclopedic and increase it's quality per Wikipedia's standards. If you feel this is an affront or still do not understand the reasoning feel free to try and change the creation myth article's title or try editing a more judeo-christian centric creation narrative article of your own at Conservipedia. Nefariousski (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)This subject comes up over and over again. From what I recall, it usually is resolved by turning to the Reliable Sources. Theologians, scholars, etc use myth the same way that we are using it here. Whether or not a word is offensive is entirely subjective, and is an unreliable marker. In a collaborative project like this one, there have to be ways to resolve these sort of disputes, and resorting to reliable sources is one of the best ways that wikipedia has to do it.

For those who do not like the use of the word myth and would prefer something like "account" or "sacred narrative", it's up to you to go out, spend the 8 to 50 years it takes to become a recognised scholar in the appropriate field, publish texts (essays, papers, books, etc) that can be reviewed and critiqued by the relevant community, and then have someone use your text as a Reliable Source here, have it be discussed, let the community arrive at a consensus that, yes, the appropriate community has shifted from using "myth" to using your prefered term, and voila, there's your change.Quietmarc (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash. Readers are going to continue to openly rebel against this POV travesty being foisted by a few opinionated editors who are full of their own offensive POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil Til, and mind WP:AGF. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot AGF when it is already perfectly clear that some editors have an interest in using wikipedia to attempt to discredit the scriptures of a living religion, which is hardly NPOV, and more like POV pushing. As if all people who try to live by these various scriptures of world faiths, are going to be persuaded by the say-so of these opinionated wikipedians that they believe in "myths". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User Nefariousski seems to be taking some things slightly out of context in quoting the Wiki style manual, which first says, "it ('myth') may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." It also talks about referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context. Nowhere in this article does that happen. As editors of this particular article, we are not responsible for what other articles say unless we are editing them, or come across something that talks about one religion's beliefs and another religion's myths. At such point we may feel we have a duty to correct it. Please keep in mind that Wiki policy is not deemed as dogma. We found that out when the policy on "Saint" honoraries came out and some editors of the various apostles' articles "consensus-ed" that they didn't want to change it. The ruling from Admin level, to my surprise, was that it did not have to be uniform─that matters of style were not dictated.

User Quietmarc's "8 to 50 years" digressive sarcasm is typical of the mentality being expressed by the "myth" proponents. With few exceptions, the editors so passionately pushing "myth" seem to understand consensus to mean "Do it my way. I really don't care who is offended by this characterization in the very first few words of the article. Don't give me any reasons. My mind is made up. I'll do whatever it takes to keep "myth" exactly where it is. I'm not even open to moving down lower in the article than in the very first sentence!" There is no room for consensus because that would mean, "Come, let's reason together. Let's negotiate." Many of the earlier comments on this page indicate this is a closed-minded slam dunk. Bringing up the Creation myth article as a reason is only the latest ploy. It has no direct bearing on this article. The very fact that WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend acknowledges "'myth' may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing" is precisely the point. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Now now, lets not take anything out of context. The full sentence from WP:WTA#Myth and Legendstates "In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." the operative words being "In less formal contexts" which this article does not do. The example from WTA of "less formal contexts" is "For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue." None of which this article does. It simply references another article which very formally defines the term and the context in which it is used. If you don't like it then go try and get the creation myth article changed. Additionally you'll see that Creation Myth is a widely accepted term that has an actual definition[1][2][3][4][5] When I googled Define "Creation Narrative" there were no definitions or specific articles regarding the concept of "Creation Narrative" and a handful of the hits that came back on the first page specifically defined the term Creation Myth and used the words "Creation Narrative" in the discussion of the definition or encyclopedic article (not wiki) on Creation Myth. The burden of evidence is HUGE. We use creation myth because it is a real and accepted term to describe different belief system's versions of how the world was created.Nefariousski (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being a bit sarcastic, but while I'm not a theologian myself, I've spent years in the company of many people from a variety of faiths who have been. My own mother is a minister. I can go to her bookshelf and pull any number of texts that use "myth" exactly as it's used in this article (and next time I visit her, I may do just that so that I can add something more substantial to the discussion). My "8 to 50 years" point is that experts use certain words for a reason, and they dedicate a considerable part of their lives to the study of their chosen subjects. To arbitrarily decide to disregard their work and effort just to avoid being offensive to those who haven't bothered to do the research strikes me as wrong and careless.

I think any collaborative project has to set some sort of standard for inclusion. I'm certain that there are publications where it's been decided that the technical jargon is either too dense or offensive for their readers, and so they make editorial decisions that reflect that. Here on wikipedia, though, we've chosen to rely on what the sources say. In this case, the sources use "myth", so we should (in my opinion) use "myth".Quietmarc (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can you not be honest with yourself enough to admit the truth - that theologians and sources actually do disagree on whether or not any given part of the Bible meets any of the definitions of "myth"? That is, instead of blithely ignoring or rejecting all of those sources that don't match the circular-reasoning litmus test of your POV? If you are going to appeal to "theologians" for your logic, you have be honest and concede all that those authors who disagree are theologians just as well as YOUR theologians - no side has a monopoly, nor has any "agreement" been enforced, and it's pure cynicism to pretend there is agreement or consensus among theological sources. When sources disagree significantly, NPOV policy calls on us to outline each of the sourced POVs in neutral language, not to side outside with one set of sources based on their POV and share their hostility for another set of sources. Where exactly is your logic in calling that "neutral"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that within the academic circles there will be disagreement, but at the end of the day certain sources are going to be given greater weight than others. You seem to be arguing something like the fallacy of the false middle, where if person A says one thing and person B says the other, then the truth must be in the middle. That is not necessarily true. We have a situation here where the majority of experts are using one term in a certain way, and we have several users who have provided several lines of evidence (google matches, reliable sources, etc) of this. NPOV policy does not over-ride Undue Weight. I have no doubt that there are lots of sources that use other terms, but we need to give those sources appropriate weight. We can't just throw in what every Scholar X says, we need to evaluate the sources in the context of the scholarly community as a whole.

As I've already said, I myself am not an expert. I'm intrigued enough by this discussion that I'm actually going to go out and look at sources, including (but certainly not limitted to) my mom's bookshelf. I'm prepared to be convinced differently, and if you have suggestions of places I can start, I'm all ears. I'm not cynical, I'm pragmatic: even if the community is deeply divided, we need to use a term, and we need to evaluate which of the available terms is the best. Right now, based on what I've seen in wiki and according to my interpretation of wiki policy, Myth is the best. If my assessment changes, you can be sure I'll add that to the discussion. Quietmarc (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, be sure to read everything carefully on User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon. Contrary to the way they were summarily and off-handedly characterized by Nefariousski, most of the prominent theologians quoted on that page are specifically talking about academic (not colloquial) usage of the term "myth" - and why they feel it is still inappropriate for any part of the Hebrew Scriptures, by any definition. It's a fallacy to pretend there is artificial agreement, where there is no agreement. And it would be more in line with policy to describe each of the positions fairly, without endorsing any one set of opinions over another, as is currently being done. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose beginning the article with a sentence that everyone agrees with. There an easy solution! Everyone agrees that Genesis is an ancient text/story/narrative. After that we can say that most scholars refer to this as one of many creations myths, or similar statement. ^rossnixon 01:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Ross. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this. It's an attempt to try and polarize the article. X is Y, but scholars say X is Z. No thanks. This article is talking about the creation myth found in Genesis, scholars and associated reliable sources agree, and as such this article reflects that in the interest of neutrality. Ben (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That suggestion is akin to putting (Most scholars refer to this as one of many religions) next to the word Christianity or (Most scholars refer to this as an element) next to the word Oxygen. The term creation myth isn't up for debate. It exists, is universally used (even in theological circles) and is the proper phrase for a supernatural or religious story or explanation about the beginning of life/humanity/earth etc... The point of Wikipedia isn't to pacify everyone who gets upset about something that offends their personal views.Nefariousski (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What could be up for reasonable discussion is WHERE the term goes. There is no rule, except in some people's dictates, that it absolutely positively must go early in the very first sentence. No one has explained that. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While I think it's a little counter-intuitive to move the definition / categorization of a topic in the introduction I don't see any problem with moving it as long as it doesn't make the article more confusing. Why not put a few sentences regarding what the formal definition of creation myth so that we clear up all possible misinterp / contextual issues of using the phrase right from the start so that those of us who for some reason are dogmatically opposed to using the word are pacified that we're not using "myth" in the informal sense and the rest of us get to maintain the integrity of the link / formal meaning of the term in the article? I'd personally rather clarify the confusion rather than hide it further down the article or obfuscate it by changing the formal term creation myth into a made up term.Nefariousski (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is NEVER going to end just because you keep telling it to end, so long as a pushy minority of POV editors purposefully choose to go the offensive route. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reality isn't predicated on whether you are offended or not. Creation myth is an actual defined term that exists outside of this article. Here's the top results from a google search on Define "Creation Myth"[6][7][8][9][10]

If the word "Dinosaurs" offends somebodies religion they can't change any article that references them to "Jesus Horses" because that is not the academic term. The WP:Google test supports this unquestionably (feel free to check for yourself or read my above comments). The defined term "Creation Narrative" doesn't exist in academia, as a theological concept or in any appreciable sources that I was able to find nor does it have an article to reference nor does it serve the purpose of making the bible's account sounding more true since Narratives are often defined as possibly being fictional or unverifiable, similar to storytelling. 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From my view to take a neutral point that creation cannot be fully proved or disproved as a myth, I think the word myth shoud be replaced with belief as a compromise. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC Request for comments

WP:WTA#Myth_and_Legend says that "'myth' may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing"

As may be seen in both "Lede" and "First sentence" subsections above, there is considerable controversy among this article's editors about the insistence on having the word "myth" in the very first sentence of this article.

• Proponent arguments, where present, are largely based on the definition of a Creation myth and their claim that changing "myth" to something like "narrative" or "account" will do disservice to the integrity of the article.
• Opponents argue are that characterizing the Book of Genesis creation accounts in chapters 1 and 2 as a "myth" is an affront to both Judaism and Christianity in that it is part of their Bible which they consider sacred.

Various compromises have been suggested but never accepted through expression of consensus. One of those was to create a footnote to either "narrative" or "account," explaining the formal academic understanding of a Creation myth.

The matter is getting pretty ugly and we need your comment assistance─quickly, please. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not considerable controversy. In the previous section there is plenty of support and a clear rationale for the use of creation myth in terms of policy, guidelines (the first sentence makes it clear we're talking about a religious topic) and reliable sources, and then there are a few editors who just don't like the term. Starting an RFC because you don't like Wikipedia's polices and relevant reliable sources is nothing short of woeful. Ben (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Woeful indeed. The case for using creation myth is very clear and supported by precedent, academic and technical. Other very long standing wikipedia articles (the creation myth article itself), a google test, a review of sources (encyclopedic, academic and theological) while the case against it is no more than "those words offend me". WP:WTA#Myth and Legend states "In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing." the operative words being "In less formal contexts" which this article does not do. The example from WTA of "less formal contexts" is "For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue." None of which this article does. It simply references another article which very formally defines the term and the context in which it is used. Additionally you'll see that Creation Myth is a widely accepted term that has an actual definition[11][12][13][14][15]. When one googles Define "Creation Narrative" there were no definitions or specific articles regarding the concept of "Creation Narrative" and a handful of the hits that came back on the first page specifically defined the term Creation Myth and used the words "Creation Narrative" in the discussion of the definition or encyclopedic article (not wiki) on Creation Myth. The precident and amount of support for using creation myth is HUGE. We use creation myth because it is the real and academically accepted term to describe different belief system's versions of how the world was created. Nefariousski (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using "creation myth" in the first sentence, as per the way these things are normally done here on Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Some days ago I made this edit in an attempt to compromise between the two camps and to strike a balance per WP:JARGON. For what its worth, I don't think that the fact that some people misunderstand or even find certain technical terms offensive is any sort of argument against using those words, as long as our usage is in line with the correct academic usage of such words. Gabbe (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Changing a formal, technical term to a made up term to placate those whom are offended by the formal and correct term isn't the right way to go. I think the best way to keep the integrity of the intro and to calm those who dislike it would be to add a sentance or two explaining exactly what is the formal meaning of creation myth and to clarify context / intent of using the proper term. I'd like to also note that this is the same compromise that was agreed upon when the actual creation myth article was created and that article has been fairly stable for quite some time now.Nefariousski (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the arguments above that there is no due cause to remove the term "creation myth", however its replacement with the word "narrative" wouldn't be inaccurate. What I strongly disagree with however would be the replacement originally suggested by PiCo in which it would be described as a "sacred narrative". This would clearly be an inclusion of POV. Some people think the story is sacred and others do not. Wikipedia shouldn't advocate particular people's opinions.Chhe (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:RNPOV really leaves no room to replace the term Myth in this article. If you want to challenge that policy, fine, but do it there. WP:POV is mandatory for all articles in its entirety. There will be no small 'revolution' here to serve as a beachhead. This has come up 100,000,000 times at Talk:Creation myth, and as you'll notice, that page is still exactly where it's always been. It would appear that at this point all possible arguments have been exhausted and are beginning to loop back on themselves (though they all boil down to "throw the believers a bone, won't it be nice?"). --King Öomie 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL I can just picture King George III shrilly shrieking "There vill BE no small 'revolution' here...!" Uh, if something is manifestly and grossly unjust, and attitudes like yours are what are thrust in our faces, then of course many people who see this will rebel - it's called human nature. (Though you might have known something about that) When will you wake up and notice that self-described "Atheist" editors haven't accomplished anything, or persuaded anyone of their correctness, by getting their POV enshrined as "NPOV" on wikipedia; it's all been in vain - five years later, the issue is still just as strong as it was five years ago, as it probably will be five years from now, too. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, except no. This is not the proper place to discuss changing WP:NPOV to fit your need for religious vindication. WT:NPOV is. But feel free to compare me to more unsavory historical figures, Hitler. You ARE aware you're comparing the oppressed masses under a tyrant to volunteers on a privately-owned web site, right? --King Öomie 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and also. The tendency for logical arguments to... bounce off the heads of the religiously-motivated isn't a failing of the atheists. --King Öomie 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true that I do fail to see any logic in your arguments. If NPOV policy across wikipedia is that we do not endorse an offensive POV, but rather describe and attribute all POVs neutrally, how is it "logical" for the controversial subject of Genesis to be a magic exception to that? All I have really seen are illogical appeals to emotion from editors who describe themselves as atheist, but that are becoming difficult for many other editors to follow who don't share your perspective. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're being serious about Genesis being an exception to the rule, then you're letting your personal bias cloud your judgement. You don't care about WP:RNPOV. You're offended, goddamnit, and something must be done about it.

The comparison to removing 'SWP' or 'PBUH' or whatever it was from instances of Muhammad in islamic articles is QUITE apt, despite your assertion (at least, I think that was you). Muslims find it EXTREMELY disrespectful to lay his name bare like that, without the honorific. Every week or so someone cries out on Talk:Muhammad/Images, demanding, for the sake of decency, that the images be removed. "What will it hurt?" they ask. "Please! You offend so many, and for what?" they plead. "You will not be safe until they're gone", they threaten (and I'm not joking). Pretty much your arguments (except the death threat). Creation Myth is the accepted, scholarly term, and thus it will be used. That's exactly how simple it is. --King Öomie 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation Myth is a term accepted by SOME scholars. Many others have specifically rejected its application to Genesis. There has been no grand unanimity-imposing council, where all scholars had to accept this, and all those who have rejected it were branded as "heretics". So explain to me one more time please, how exactly is it "logical" to pretend these scholars don't exist, and for us to go out of our way to use an inflammatory term, when a more neutral one would convey the same ostensible meaning? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

They are a tiny minority, and I don't really care what the think. In the same way that I don't care about the .0001% of scientists to advocate biblical literalism. --King Öomie 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I care more about what a published RS by a prominent theologian thinks, than I care about what you think - after all, you are just a wikipedia editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. I've given sources above. And not just sources that use the term, they're a dime a dozen. I have provided a source that explicitly tells us that the term is mainstream. The problem here is that you care more about what you think than what reliable sources say. You accuse others of POV pushing, but it has become blatantly obvious that it's you that is POV pushing. Ben (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've provided prominent theologians who explicitly disagree with your sources. The problem is that you are asserting some sort of magic priority for your sources and your school of thought, and refusing to acknowledge that other significant schools of thought even exist. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"4 out of 5 dentists agree that sugar-free gum is the way to go" now translates to "There is NO consensus that sugar-free gum doesn't infringe on the human rights of hypoglycemic individuals, so that's the view we should present" --King Öomie 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we use the word myth when the word story is much more used and less contentious? Most theologians use 'creation story' when writing for a non-technical audience (as we are). Myth is explicitly listed as a word to avoid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Because "Creation Story" also fails the Google Test which tells me that it is in fact much LESS often used than Creation Myth as a stand alone term. I found zero hits on the formal definition of the term "Creation Story" not to mention an decidedly Judeo-Christian slant on all the articles that did pop up in the first few pages while Creation Myth Returned a solid dozen definitions in the first few pages, academic articles, and no faith skewing since it is a faith neutral term. Nefariousski (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DJ, I would suggest reading the above thread and Talk:Creation myth. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

When I tried Google "creation myth" got 303,000 hits and "creation story" 391,000, including some Hindu hits on the first page. Which Google were you trying? The Google test is not about definitions, it's about usage. And what precisely is your objection to a 'Judeo-Christian slant' when talking about Genesis? DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DJ, We're talking about a formal term, not common usage. I googled Define "Creation Myth" in my test to see how often it is used as the formal term for what we're talking about here. If you do the same test against any other variant (Narrative, Story etc...) you'll find that none of them are, as a term considered the formal definition of a religious or supernatural account of how it all began. Not to mention if you type "Creation Myth" in google search and don't hit anything the drop down that shows the most popular searches tries to finish the term out with the following: Stories, Ideas, Greek, Similarities, of Buddhism, Definition, Of Egypt, of Hinduism, Lesson Plan. If you do the same test with "Creation Story" you get: Genesis, for kids, coloring pages, of hinduism, activities, bible, in genesis, for preschoolers, of buddhism, pictures. Which is decidely more slanted towards Judeo-Christian accounts.

Now let's execute both searches. Creation Myth comes up with the following article on world creation myths, A listing of world creation myths, another, Aztec Creation Myth, an analysis of various creation myths, Egyptian Creation Myths etc... you get the picture. Do the same with "Creation Story" and the first link The summary of the bible Story of Creation, 4 more christian websites, an article titled Hebrew/Christian Creation Myth etc... Looking at "related Searches" we find, "Creation Story old testament", "Creation Myth story", "Creation Bible Story", "Genesis Creation Story", "Adam and Eve Creation Story"

My objective to Judeo Christian slant is seen in WP:WTA#Myth and Legend which specifically states that we should avoid calling one faiths account a Myth and another's a Narrrative or a story or any other term. Additionally it's pretty clear that as a stand alone term Creation Myth actually exists and means something and has strong precedence here on Wiki and everywhere else while "Creation Narrative" and "Creation Story" alone and without context mean nothing as stand alone terms (hence their lack of any definitions as stand alone terms). Not to mention WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV dictate that we don't slant any articles towards any particular belief regardless of their content. I know it's hard for some editors to be objective when you have faith in a belief but that's what's required in this case. Nefariousski (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked the results of '"creation story" and about 1 in 10 were kids sites. Even if we exclude them, that still means there are more hits for creation story than creation myth. I don't see why finding more definitions makes a difference - maybe creation myth is a term that needs defining (because it's technical) and creation story doesn't.

I agree with your point about equal treatment for faiths, but that doesn't mean we should violate policy equally for all faiths. Myth is still a term to be avoided, according to policy, and I see no evidence that pairing it with another word somehow makes it less so. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add WP:NPOV to the above list of recommended reading. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the account of creation in Genesis 1 is a "myth" in a technical sense. And Roman Catholicism is a "cult" in a technical sense too. But outside of technical discussions, using terms like "myth" and "cult" convey emotionally charged and somewhat misleading ideas to lay audiences. Why not simply use the phrase "creation story" in the lead and then include a fuller discussion of the appropriateness of the word "myth" in the body? "Story" is fully capable of indicating a non-literal narrative, but it lacks the connotation of "bull-crap" that "myth" often carries in the popular imagination. Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My mum used to yell at me if I told "stories" and so I disagree with your assessment of the connotation of the words. Theory has negative connotations too, you know, but I don't see science articles worrying about this. In the technical sense, to use your words, theory is correct. Furthermore, your suggestion seems to fall foul of policy (WP:RNPOV). Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked WP:RNPOV, you seem to be right.Eugeneacurry (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate Déjà vu

This is in essence a Déjà vu and a repeat/replay of the debate about the use of the word "myth" within various Wikipedia articles, which has taken place elsewhere, and usually takes place around Easter every year on the Good Friday or Crucifixion of Jesus pages. Here is a link: Talk:Good_Friday#RfC_on_crucifixion_as_part_of_Christian_mythology_in_Good_Friday_article

There is clear precedent that the words "myth" and "mythology" are NOT to be used within religious articles in Wikipedia for that would render an opinion about the religion, making it POV. There is absolutely no point in pitting non-believing scientists against believing priests on this talk page for the debate will never end. Those interested in debates of that type should select a suitable bar/pub and continue the discussions there: Wikipedia is no place for it. The only way is to just say that: Book A on topic B says C. This debate is a waste of time and must end based on the precedents in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such precedent, and if there was on a single article talk page it would be in violation of our NPOV policy. Ben (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

THe problem at hand is "myth" vs the proper noun "Creation Myth". They don't mean the same thing. Creation Myth does not equal myth they have two very different definitions. Creation Myth is a widely accepted formal term that does not carry any of the negative connotations in the definition of "myth". Those against using Creation Myth base their arguements solely on appeals to sensitivity around the definition of "myth". This is as silly as saying the word assassinate is offensive because it contains the word "ass" twice. The fact that there is any debate at all on using the widely accepted and formal term Creation Myth in favor of replacing it with a non formal combination of words that as a distinct term mean absolutely nothing and have no unique definition in the name of preventing offence blows my mind. The concensus out in the real world among scholars and academia regarding the use of Creation Myth is so clear as to be undebateable. Nefariousski (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You can scream that it's "undebateable" til you're blue in the face, but it fails to account for all of the debate... not just here, but in the sources... not just now, but ongoing for centuries and unlikely to be resolved by mere chutzpah or bald assertion.. "Undebateable" my aunt fanny. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no debate in the sources. All of your sources criticize the use of the word "myth" which is distinctly different from a Creation Myth You can't pick apart the parts of a term and define them independently. The Electoral College is not an institute of higher learning because it contains the word college. Words have meaning and context, all of your arguements and "sources" are for the wrong context and essentially the wrong word. Creation Myth as a proper noun has to be considered as if it was one word with a unique meaning that is destroyed if either of it's component words are changed. Definitions about America or States are wildly different than the definition of United States of America. Nefariousski (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments with Til are likely to go in circles, so I'd save your keyboard. We have presented sources and cited policy in favour of the term creation myth, and the article is locked for three days. I suggest we stop taking baited comments like Til's and just address any relevant arguments, assuming they appear. If nothing relevant has been presented in three days then I think it's safe to assume nothing will, and we can archive this. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just making this an either/or debate

Rather than just making this an either/or debate, at this point, a third way should be looked at. Also note that Wikipedia:Explain jargon says, as its lead, "Words and phrases used as jargon by any profession or group should usually be avoided or explained." Consider the likes of this this:

“ Creation according to Genesis refers to the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis and the creation narrative (colloquially) or creation myth (formal term) found there in. ”

^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes

I'm not against compromise and in fact I like your suggestion for the most part. I'd prefer to just add an explanation of the exact definition and context of the term Creation Myth and not muddy the waters with a secondary term. WP:WTA#Myth and Legend is pretty clear that we shouldn't call one faith's account a Creation Myth whilst giving another faith's account a term to use like "Creation Narrative" not to mention the slippery slope towards wp:RNPOV when concessions seem to be given to one faith over others. The battle over the term Creation Myth has already been extensively fought on the Creation Myth page. I don't understand why we can't just take their solution (A detailed definition of Creation Myth so it's not confused with the informal use of the word "myth") and leave it at that. If it's good enough for the main page of Creation Myths there's no reason it's not good enough for one of the many faith specific pages regarding Creation Myth. Nefariousski (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to a footnote (though I dislike them being used this way), but I am opposed to Wikipedia trying to introduce new terminology and proscribe usage of it in articles. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• To some people Creation according to Genesis is a specific page related to the "main" page Creation myth, but to other people it is a specific page related to the "main" page of Bible, or Genesis, etc. Neither view is the one "right" view. What is more, readers of the "Creation myth" page are all the more likly to know already (or re-learn) this formal jargon of comparative religon, etc.
• A "detailed definition" of Creation myth unmuddies only if it is read (and not too long to overwelm the sentence it is in). "Creation narrative" is a perfectly clear gloss (short definition) that can be supplemented with detail in either a note or in the next sentence.
• Since the term "Creation myth" will not be understood in the formal meaning by many people (and be seen as POV by them, even if it is not according to the formal meaning), I would advocate the same solution for articles on any faith's account of Creation; there is not any unfair advovation of a faith or specific faiths over others. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is silly. We can't avoid terms like that. The term theory has a similar problem, yet is unquestioningly used in scientific articles regardless. Now, if you're worried about people seeing us as non-neutral since we use the term myth, what about the other side of the coin? People who see us as avoiding the term? Are they immune from detecting neutrality in the same way? In cases like this, we must fall back on reliable sources. In this case, myth has been demonstrated to be mainstream term, and avoiding it falls foul of WP:NPOV, in particular, WP:RNPOV. Attach a footnote if you think it really will help (though I would argue clicking a more prominent wikilink creation myth would be easier for the reader, and this use may fall foul of our "no disclaimer" policies). Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This would not avoid the term "Creation myth."

This would not introduce new terminology, as "creation narrative" is a description. So it is also not ment be used over-and-over to replace of "Creation myth" throughout the article. Likewise would also work to use a other descriptions, such as "account of Creation."

Creation myth has not been demonstrated to be mainstream term. It may be a mainstream term among religious scholars, but it is still the jargon thereof, and not a mainstream term/meaning for Wikipedia readers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Children's books, general references, etc, use the term without issue. It is a mainstream term. Just like the term theory. Ben (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So, on the last point, rather than defer to a community of experts on a topic that we're writing an article about in an encyclopaedia, we should adopt some amorphous "mainstream" terminology instead? That doesn't seem particularly clever. When I consult a reference work to learn something, I expect it to conform to the relevant conventions for that topic. If there are jargon issues that need dealing with, I'm happy to follow footnotes (or even hyperlinks to articles that explain the jargon), but I'd be nonplussed if different terminology was used instead. Especially if said terminology was not supported by hyperlinked articles in the same encyclopaedia. Among other things, using "myth" instead of "narrative" (which I, personally, interpret as "subjective quasi-fiction") provides an excellent learning opportunity for readers on the formal use of language by scholars. To do otherwise is akin to (shudder) "political correctness gone mad". --PLUMBAGO 10:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Underhanded tactics

RfC isn't a numbers game, Afaprof01. Calling in a bunch of buddies who offer the same easily refutable arguments only makes it look like POV pushing. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, they even have a term for it: Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking. Ben (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT canvassing, unless he tells people which way to vote. He did not say anything to that effect, hence no canvassing has taken place. History2007 (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been told which way to vote and I think it was quite thoughtful to get my opinion on the debate. As it happens I think on balance that "myth" or "creation myth" is ok and the right term to use. I think the mistake is to assume that "myth" is a bad thing - implying it's a fairytale or something. Instead we need to get into the head of those in civilisations long gone who understood the role of myth simply as a way to try and explain or deepen our understanding of an underlying truth or an unfathomable mystery. In this case the mystery of where we came from as humans. Myth can therefore be a beautiful thing if considered in the right way. Empiricism is important but trying to explain every part of what we are as human beings through empiricism alone can leave us unsatisfied. Myth therefore is an attempt to make us make sense or order out of what can seem to be pure disorder or randomness. It would be a mistake to see the creation of the world in 7 days as true. It isn't - it can't ever be true - we are too rational for that. But it's someone's attempt to demonstrate that God was in some way behind this strange event called creation; beyond human comprehension. The greek and roman myths serve a similar purpose. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Ithink what each of us believes is beside the point. This article should summarize the contents of the book, not pass judgment on it. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse Afaprof01 of telling people how to vote, I accused him of "an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." --Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that there was no canvassing, as the article there states. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, which article says that? The text Ben quoted is directly from WP:CANVASS. You don't have to tell someone "Oh, and vote this way" for it to be canvassing. He went out and tapped the shoulders of people who'd argued here and elsewhere for his side of the argument, and no one else. That's canvassing. --King Öomie 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, anyone can quote, e.g. the next paragraph says: Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. And I had participated in similar debates on Good Friday. So it was not canvassing in my case in any case. As was fo rseverla other people who had participated in similar debates. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He only alerted people who'd previously debated AGAINST including the term "creation myth". I don't know how I can be more clear. He did not alert anyone who'd debated FOR using it. This is the definition of vote stacking. --King Öomie 18:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No he didn't, he didn't alert me! I feel quite hurt. PiCo (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Only alerted ≠ alerted all. Ben (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did alert me, only it wasn't by posting on my talk page – he sent me a wik-email.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Two cents

I have contributed to several of the Creationism articles, and to this specific article over the last couple of years. Here are my two cents. I am not a young earth creationist, I accept that the Earth is 5 billion years old. Nevertheless I object to the unqualified use of the phrase "creation myth". This is a religious text that is regarded as a divine scripture by about 30% of the Earth's population. As such it does not fit into the same category as Enuma Elish and other dead pieces of literature. I do not see why it cannot be called a creation account or creation story. These are neutral terms that can be interpreted as implying fact or fiction by those who wish. The insistence of calling it a "creation myth" seems to me to be a cynical attempt to imply that the story is fiction. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It need not be unqualified. Suggestions have been made above that a footnote is added so that the use of the term is clear. Furthermore, we already hyperlink to creation myth, so any inquisitive reader can read up on the use of language here (and find out about all of the other, mutually exclusive creation myths that exist). Regarding your alternative suggestions, "account" implies something written by a witness (which even the YECs don't claim; or do they?), while "story" clearly implies fiction to me. Faced with this, and the fact that we're aiming to capture something of a scholarly subject here, we should defer to mainstream expert terminology. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't qualify with footnotes and hyperlinks to other articles that illuminate things further. Anyway, that's my two cents (which I seem to have spent many times over on this particular topic). --PLUMBAGO 10:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what each of us believes is beside the point. This article should summarize the contents of the book, not pass judgment on it. History2007 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Err, isn't describing it as a "story" passing judgement on it? You might think not, but I do (and vice versa, of course). Hence why I suggested just using default academic language instead of importing "mainstream" (whatever that is) language. I'm well aware that our views (yes, both of us) are beside the point. --PLUMBAGO 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let us just summarize the book without passing any judgment on it. Just say Book X says Y. As to whether Y is correct or not, we shall not judge. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but you persist in interpreting the use of "myth" as passing a very particular judgement when, as is clear from its academic definition, it is not. This use is merely describing the nature of the contents of a particular book, and is distinguishing this (yes, in a dry, academic way) from fiction, biography, etc. Said contents should be described as something, and since this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, I suggest that the scholarly "creation myth" fits the bill (not least because of our need to conform to WP:RS). Among other things, I say this because I do not anticipate any description (short of "the Truth") being acceptable to some readers. Anyway, it looks like agreeing to disagree is how this is going to wind up. --PLUMBAGO 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The public does not interpret it as an academic definition, but mostly views it as a term which means "untrue". Hence it is a label, assigned by one group. Best solution: No label, no judgment. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant even with citations. Policy is clear, we go with the academic term. If you disagree with that policy, argue against it THERE. Violating it here is just that- a violation of policy (and possibly WP:POINT). --King Öomie 14:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy does not say that at all, clearly or otherwise. In fact it says the opposite, requiring the lede to be written in non-technical language and discouraging the use of the word myth in cases where its meaning might be taken to be the informal one. Story, account and narrative are all much better terms here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV, the policy, trumps MOS:INTRO, the style guideline. The one that specifically points out that it will have exceptions. WP:NPOV is not optional. --King Öomie 13:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible." violates NPOV. --agr (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." -WP:RNPOV The bolded section represents the reason this argument is taking place ("Our religious sensibilities are offended, think of the children"), and its refutation. --King Öomie 15:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying the term "creation myth" should be excluded from the article. However nothing in the NPOV policy you quote says technical terms must be used in the first sentence of an article, while the LEDE guideline says they shouldn't. And as I've pointed out previously, there is scholarly debate over whether Genesis contains one creation myth or two, so the current version is inaccurate as well. --agr (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

People are saying that, and those that do are rightly referred to the NPOV policy. I disagree with your assessment of creation myth as a technical term. I think it's fine for this encyclopedia - at about the same level as the term theory, for instance. That the term is so fundamental and descriptive of this article is why I think we should use it straight up. That is, if I stumble across an article about a creation myth, I simply want to know that in the first sentence. In general, if I stumble across an article Y that is a representative of X, I want to know that straight away. Is this article about a book? A mathematician? etc. As far as the debate you're alluding to, you realise the version you quoted suffers from the same problem, right? Ben (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that some editor does want the term "creation myth" excluded entirely, but my understanding is that the current argument is about the introductory sentence. I poked around the last 500 versions of the article and haven't found one where the term "creation myth" did not occur somewhere. Perhaps a good example is this version [16], which is the last before the lede was changed to its current form. It says "The Genesis creation story is comparable with other Near Eastern creation myths." It's also in an info box and the see also section. I would support mentioning the term in the intro, perhaps after the textual summary, say, "Scholars debate whether the story consist of one creation myth or two." "Theory" has both a technical and non-technical meaning and this can cause problems in a lede. Note that our article evolution does not use the word "theory" until the fourth paragraph of the into and then treats it extremely gingerly. Finally, I would assert: {people who know what a creation myth is} ∩ {people who don't know Genesis contains a creation myth} = Ø. What does "the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible" fail to convey? --agr (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'current' argument morphed into the lede discussion, yes, after individuals realized they weren't getting the phrase removed wholesale (though some still fail to grasp this). --King Öomie 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked over the discussion page and I don't see that. Maybe it's in the archives somewhere. Perhaps this is a place where we can move forward. Can we at least all agree that the issue now is what the first sentence should say?--agr (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the wording from what it is now. The meaning of "Creation Myth" is self-evident, and per WP:RNPOV, the formal meaning is used. Changing it to something more... sympathetic would be nothing less than pandering. Confused or not, every single person who visits this page and sees "creation myth" knows what it means. (And no, that meaning is not "ATHEIST CRUSADE, RALLY THE TROOPS"). --King Öomie 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, your evolution example is not a good one since that article is not about a theory. It's why I chose the general relativity article as an example a few times - it's about a theory and it's an FA. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal

Let's be honest, I find the use of footnotes unwieldy. Let's not forsake simplicity and clarity. How about replacing the opening sentence with this (or some variation):

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars, and as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews.

or alternatively

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars, and has religious significance for Christianity and Judaism.

Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm,

General relativity refers to a culmination of ideas by Albert Einstein. The ideas are considered a scientific theory by scholars, and has scientific significance for people who like to debunk works of science fiction (damn you Phil Plait, damn you!!).

Yeah, I dunno, I think I prefer the current version. Look everyone, we're talking about a creation myth. This fact is indisputable and transcends the scholars (hello polarisation). The creation myth article is highly relevant and worth reading (and improving if you can) given that this article is a representative of that topic. Ben (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To make this a little more explicit, Wikipedia describes what things are according to WP:WEIGHT (another subset of WP:NPOV). As an example, we have general relativity. Another is the evolution article, which does not polarise itself by saying scholars think evolution is blah, it simply explains what evolution is per reliable sources. Nothing less can be expected from this article, and the sensibilities of a few editors do not make the slightest difference to that. Ben (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of this new proposal to remove the suggestion that says that peoples beliefs are wrong by calling it a definate myth. I personally would have been fine with the replacement of the word myth with belief. But ayway I personally will willingly accept this proposal. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Logical analysis

For the scientifically oriented, here is a logical analysis. We have several possible predicates as follows:

• Predicate P: Book X includes statement Y.
• Predicate Q: Statement (i.e. predicate) Y is provable.
• Predicate R: Statement (i.e. predicate) Y is semantically true.

The last predicate "R" (whether true or false) begins to step out into Model theory and is in effect a statement in the metalanguage:

In order to remain "neutral" Wikipedia articles should report on predicate P, but avoid the assignment of a truth value to predicate R.

There can, of course, be unending and cyclic debate about the truth of R, but that does not affect predicate P. Hence an article that "reports on what Book X says" is distinct from an article that reports on the debates about the truth of a specific statement within the book, based on some model of reality. The moment a specific model of reality is selected, neutrality regarding predicate P is challenged. Of course the debate article can be referenced with a link, but the link must remain separate from the report on predicate P itself.

Several examples exist in Wikipedia, e.g. Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, Jesus and history, etc. that focus on historicity and involve reports of debates. However, the articles on Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, etc. do not include long debates, but aim to "summarize what the books said". This article must follow the same principle and avoid the assignment of a semantic truth value to predicate R. It must simply include predicate P with a link to another article where debates on predicate R are reported. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you can help me out. The folks over at general relativity insist on using the term geometric theory in the introductory sentence. Can you give them the 'ole model theory 1, 2, and get them to change the introductory sentence to something along the lines of: Physics for Dummies includes the statement "General relativity is a geometric theory"? Thanks mate. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a professional model theorist who happened to come along here because of the RfC, and I am astonished to see my subject mentioned here in such a ludicrous, far-fetched way, as in an attempt to give authority to a weak argument. Here is my analysis of the situation:

• "Myth" has various meanings, including a technical one that fits here, and an informal one that implies falsity.
• As far as consensus in the relevant academic communities for the factual claims made in Genesis is concerned, there is no doubt that this consensus says that practically all the claims made in genesis are false. (In fact, I learned about Genesis as a creation myth and part of a more general oriental tradition in religious education. So far as I know there is even a consensus among German theologians that it must not be read literally.)
• There is a Wikipedia-wide consensus not to stress the scientific side in articles about religious topic.
• Therefore: "Myth" is correct here in both senses mentioned above, but only the first sense is appropriate in this article. Per WP:WTA#Myth and legend we need to contextualise the word. While doing so, we must take care not to imply an actual distancing from the second meaning, i.e. the contextualising must be done subtly.
• "Creation myth" is a more precise technical term than "myth" and fits perfectly. In fact Genesis is one of the most important examples of a creation myth. The second, inappropriate (in the present context) connotation of "myth" is practically absent in "creation myth".
• Nobody has suggested a better solution than simply saying Genesis is a creation myth. Making up new terms or using little used ones is not acceptable. If these terms are used only for Genesis, as seems to be the case, then that demonstrates the underlying POV conflict.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that this kind of careful analysis and weighing of accuracy against possible offence is already much more than what the Muslims get. The article Muhammad is full of merely decorative pictures of Muhammad (I just counted six). While one or two of them might be reasonable to prove the fact that through much of history Muslims had no problem with depicting Muhammad, half a dozen is simply not appropriate given the amount of offence it causes nowadays. Hans Adler 10:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A professional model theorist? What a pleasant surprise - a topic close to my own heart. A pleasure to meet you Hans, and Guten Tag. It is indeed refreshing to come across a model theorist in a world so dominated by the deep thoughts of supermodels on what to wear tomorrow. And I agree with your point that Genesis is getting an unfair treatment here, e.g. see:

• Book of Mormon
• Shiva
• Gautama Buddha
• Taoism
• Confucianism
• And many others...

Which one of these has "myth" in the lead? None. However, I still maintain that the use of that word will be rendering a judgment on the content, not describing them. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your list of examples is as silly as the completely unwarranted reference to "supermodels". (My subject and its name are of course older than this silly craze.) This is the article about "creation according to Genesis". If you find "creation myth" in the lead of Jesus, Moses, Christianity, Catholicism, etc., then just remove them. A proper list would have had articles such as Enûma Eliš, or the relevant section of Mithraic Mysteries. Hans Adler 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had always thought that was a funny joke - I studied model theory for long too... But The lead to the Gospel of John does not call the Raising of Lazarus a "myth" so this article should not either. History2007 (talk)

• "I studied model theory for long too" – I don't believe you, but that's irrelevant.
• "But The lead to the Gospel of John does not call the Raising of Lazarus a "myth" so this article should not either." – See WP:OTHERSTUFF for general observations about the quality of this kind of argument. And I have been quite careful to explain the difference between "myth" and "creation myth" so far as nuances are concerned. It's rude to ignore that, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hans Adler 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Ben, I had seen the general relativity page and it is exactly right. It discusses the Theory of general relativity, not the contents of a specific book. Please read the analysis above again very carefully, then it may become clear to you. And they use the word model in the context of physical model, not a logical model - that would involve an axiomatic definition, e.g. see [17]. Hence the word geometric model is exactly right there, and indeed, indeed, indeed, just today a new dimension opened up with the entropy force. Please read today's (Jan 20, 2010) issue of New Scientist [18] and profit thereby. Now that we are talking science, as another example, consider Entropic Spacetime Theory which is about a book just as this article is about a book. The article does not call Entropic Spacetime Theory a "myth" but just states what the book said. This article should just say what the Bible said, not pass judgment on it. So I think you addressed my argument by stating that you can not understand it. Anyway, it is interesting that so many of the people who critisize creation on scientific grounds can hardly follow the basic elements of modern science.... Oh well..... History2007 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that you have missed Ben's point completely? Many creationists like to attack the theory of evolution as "just a theory" making use of the non-technical sense of the word. Nevertheless scientists still use the word in its technical sense, and so do we. I am pretty sure Ben was alluding to this. Hans Adler 12:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "people who critisize creation on scientific grounds" sounds as if you can't tell the difference between science and religion. I guess this is part of the problem here: Some people are trying to push the long discredited idea that Genesis is an accurate historical account. Hans Adler 13:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am pushing the idea that no idea should be pushed, for or against. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks more as if, not content with the fact that science doesn't get undue weight in this religion article, you try to censor anything that can be interpreted as an allusion to scientific facts that don't fit biblical literalism. Hans Adler 13:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are coming to the heart of the issue. Do religious articles in general include scientific analysis? If so, why not the one on Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus? History2007 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not about including scientific analysis, although that does in fact become relevant once crazy people start claiming that their holy book is more reliable than scientific research. This is about whether the words in this article may be censored and optimised so as to fit a creationist viewpoint. They may not. Hans Adler 13:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly who claimed that this book is reliable? This article must summarize the book, not judge it. Hello? Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not OK to just summarise the contents. There is also secondary literature about the book, mostly by theologians, and in a complete article that needs to appear as well. That's where we get precise and concise summaries of the content from, such as "creation myth". The judging happens in your mind; apparently you are over-sensitive to any reference to the discord between the nice story told in this book and physical reality. Hans Adler 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant one model of physical reality. Hence a POV. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, the overwhelming consensus of the relevant academic community, where it exists, is simply true. Do you see any particular efforts at Elvis Presley to use neutral language, so as to not create a prejudice concerning the question whether he is really dead? I don't. On the other hand, no undue weight is put on the fact that he is dead. The corresponding fringe theory for this article is treated following the same principles. Hans Adler 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about science. Hence I do not agree. As for no undue weight is put on the fact that Elvis is dead please do not engage in puns about the dead. He may come back to haunt you in your dreams. Have respect for the dead, please. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"This article is not about science. Hence I do not agree." – Questions of correctness are not decided differently according to the article, only questions of weight. Evolution doesn't become "just a theory" here, and Genesis doesn't become "God's own words and therefore literally true", just because this is a religion article.

"As for no undue weight is put on the fact that Elvis is dead please do not engage in puns about the dead." – I was referring to the "Elvis lives" conspiracy theory, which is handled at Elvis Presley in much the same way that we need to handle creationism here: By stating the actual facts without stressing them unduly, and by mentioning the fringe theory with as much weight as its notability warrants. Hans Adler 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He said "Academic Community", not science. And I don't think Pun means what you think it means.--King Öomie 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• WTF? Are they bashing the deceased equine of trying to exclude the word myth again? As a practising Christian I want to go on record as saying that I have no problem with the (precisely linguistically correct) use of the word myth in this context. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

They're slapping a ragged stick against an old bloody stain on the barn floor, yes. At least one individual in this argument seems to think the usage of the word is a grand injustice that requires action RIGHT THE HELL NOW. --King Öomie 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad writing

I'd like to ask a different question: why is the current lede: "Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis" better thant the version that was fairly stable in the article for a long time: "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible."? The older version is direct, accurate, neutral and conveys more information about the subject. The new version is vague, using the phrase "refers to", and is redundant, like saying "Shakespearean history refers to historical dramas written by William Shakespeare. Explaining a term by employing jargon that means pretty much the same thing is just bad writing. The term "creation myth" can be introduced later in a proper context. It's hard for me to see the lede change as an improvement. --agr (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Creation according to Genesis refers to a whole lot more than the creation of the world and of the first man and woman. Whereas the current intro concisely and precisely explains what the topic is about - a creation myth. This conveys a lot of useful information straight up, but in the event someone is unsure of the term a wikilink to an entire article devoted to the topic that this article is a representative of is given. Finer details, including an explicit mention of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman that you like, are given in the text following. Ben (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the term "creation myth" should be introduced later. That would be like deferring the term "state" in the lead of France. However, I do agree that the first sentence is a bit clumsy. In trying to solve this, the fact that we needn't actually use the article's title literally might help. See WP:LEAD#First sentence: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." Hans Adler 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD#First sentence gives clear guidance here: "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." It also says "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Anyone who knows what the term "Creation myth" means learns nothing from the current version. Someone who doesn't is diverted to another article, which is bad style and completely unnecessary. Ben is of course correct that there is more than one way to structure the introductory paragraph, but that cuts both ways. The specialist term "creation myth" can be introduce later and placed in its proper, neutral context, thereby avoiding all this drama. --agr (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, "creation myth" is clearly not specialised terminology on this Wikipedia. You might have more success with such a claim over at Simple English Wikipedia, though. The German word for creation myth is Schöpfungsmythos, and the first of the 2600 Google hits that come up for that combined with Religionsunterricht (religious education) make it very clear that this is standard material in religious education in Germany, covered already in 5th form (age approximately 11). For background: Religious education in Germany is payed for by the state, but choice of teachers and control over content lies with the churches. So there is no infiltration by evil atheists going on. Hans Adler 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What the German state does is beside the point here. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. But the fact that in major Western country teaching units on creation myths are standard starting from the fifth form is very relevant to the claim that it's "specialised terminology". Hans Adler 13:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, a term such as light year has a special meaning as a measure of distance, but most people, including Joan Baez (listen to diamonds and rust) and NY Times articles think it is a measure of time. Those technical terms mean little to the public. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you trying to say that because some people lack basic science education and might be confused we should go edit the article on light year to include a section regarding it's colloquial use as a measurement of time and it's incorrect usage in folk music? The size of the FAIL in your arguements can be seen a light year away. This isn't Conservapedia, we don't sacrifice truth and accuracy in order to write articles that cater to the lowest common denominator. Nefariousski (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you made this comment on the right page? It does not seem to be related to anything else. Hans Adler 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One could ask the same question about your discussion of the German educational system. In an important part of the English speaking work, the United States, religious instruction is not permitted in public schools. In any case, we do not write our articles on the assumption that everything our readers learned in school is still familiar to them. "Creation myth" is clearly a specialized term. --agr (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet, policy. There's a forum to argue its merits, and it's not this talk page. --King Öomie 14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Creation myth" as a formal term is specialized terminology and should be avoided in the lede, in favor of a term whose colloquial sense is less likely to be interpreted as implying falsehood. It is contradictory to claim "It's a formal term, so it does not imply falsehood or POV" and "It's not a specialized term." I work in a top institution of higher learning where respect for various religious viewpoints is an important priority. Outside of an obvious formal scholarly discussion, referring to texts that are central to anyone's faith as a "myth" would be a quick ticket to trying to find a new job.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that academia and Wikipedia policy have many disparate policy points. The relevant texts are available for your perusal- WP:NPOV and WP:DUE amongst them. WP:RNPOV in particular addresses this issue. As mentioned above several times, "Theory" is a specialized term when used professionally, and this definition is abused day in and day out ("It's just a theory!!!"). Yet, the term remains in articles without an explicit in-line definition, because that's policy. To treat religious issues substantially differently would be inherently biased, wouldn't it? --King Öomie 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And to your other point, it's not Wikipedia's business to respect or disrespect various viewpoints. The relative span of reliable coverage determines the sentiment in the article, within reason (again, WP:DUE). If we were limiting ourselves to politically correct speech, there would be no images at Muhammad.

"Outside of an obvious formal scholarly discussion,"... Well, that's what this is. There's a lot of stuff here that's not conversational material. Try reading the article Nigger out loud at your next family gathering. --King Öomie 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the other policies King Öomie mentions that contradicts LEDE's imperative that the intro to articles should be written for non specialists. I don't think anyone is arguing that the term "creation myth" should not appear in this article. The question I raised is why the current first sentence is better than what was there before: "Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis" vs. "Creation according to Genesis is the account of the creation of the world and of the first man and woman as found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible." The current sentence defines the subject in terms of a specialized term (which could be inferred from the title), the second defines the subject in plain English with a brief summary of the content of the story. That's just better writing. I'd also point out that the current version isn't even accurate. Many, but not all, scholars say the there are two distinct creation myths in Genesis, not one. The plain English version introduces that possibility without taking a position. Again, better writing.--agr (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But writing is one thing, agenda is another. The agenda of the non-believers vs believers is to shape the minds of the innocent who read this article. The rest is decorative reasoning phrased in terms of Wikipedia policies. History2007 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the innocent. There's an appeal to emotion if I've ever seen one. I've maintained a single argument that has yet to be even ADDRESSED without strawmen- the opposition has been bouncing from argument to argument. --King Öomie 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we have some simple statements here:

1. Myth as intended here is a technical term, which policy says should be avoided in the lede.
2. Policy also says that the word myth should be avoided to avoid confusion with the informal sense, which is perjorative.
3. There is no evidence to indicate that myth is preferred usage when the Genesis story is being written about in a non-technical way.

What conclusions do we reach? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Off of your 1. myth is not being used here, Creation Myth is being used here. They mean two different things much like college and Electoral College. Policy clearly states in wp:WTA#Myth and Legend that even if we were using the term "myth" all by itself it would be acceptable as long as it's used in the formal sense and as long as it is universally used across faiths which the article on Creation Myths accomplishes.

Off of your 2. The policy clearly states that context is key in the usage of the word "myth" and with a link to the article Creation Myth and a multitude of sources that provide formal definitions on the term that context is provided and due diligence is done to avoid violating WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA

Off of your 3. There is an astounding amount of evidence to indicate that Creation Myth is the appropriate term used far and wide to describe a faith based or supernatural account of how it all began as seen in the half dozen Google Tests and dozens of reliably sourced definitions and articles already posted above. Nefariousski (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that a discouraged word should suddenly be encouraged because it is paired with another word. A creation myth is simply a myth about creation, and I know of no other definition. An electoral college has a specific definition (in the US at least) and is more than just a college that is about elections. That's why it's a special case.

In what way do you believe that the context changes the meaning of myth as we write here?

Someone above claimed that the Google test favoured myth. When I tested it the results were the opposite of what was claimed. (See my posts above). I see no explanation of the discrepancy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong, as cited dozens of times above there are formal definitions of Creation Myth that go into far more detail than defining the words seperately (see college vs Electoral College example. Additionally the google test regarding definitions was against definitions. This is done by typing Define "Creation Myth" and comparing the results against Define "Creation Narrative" or whatever other substitute. The results show that as a distinct and meaningful term Creation Myth is a defined, well recognized and widely used term while the others are not. I don't want to re-iterate the same thing over and over but if you scroll up and look for my posts with all the citations you'll see the google test results. Nefariousski (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The word is not discouraged. Here are the relevant sentences: "However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue. When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."

This says very clearly that:

• we must not use "myth" in its informal sense (we don't)
• when using it in a formal sense we need to make clear that we don't mean the informal sense, e.g. through one of the following means:
  • setting a mythology context (we do, since we say "creation myth", not just "myth")
  • setting a religion context (we do, since the first sentence makes it clear that this article is about a religious topic).

Hans Adler 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Setting a religion context" is the first good argument for keeping myth that I've seen. However I don't think we establish the context of the word strongly enough. The word is used before we mention religion, and its existence in an article about religious scripture is not enough, given that many take the document as also being a scientific one. However I could be persuaded that a footnote would be sufficient additional context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to make the religion context even stronger than it already is, because the words "creation myth", in this combination, refer (almost?) exclusively to the literary genre of which the book of Genesis is probably the most notable representative. But there is nothing wrong with rephrasing the first sentence and removing the schematic language ("[Title] refers to"), which we don't actually need because as I explained above we don't actually need to repeat the descriptive title in the first sentence. Instead we could have something like this: "The Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, begins with an influential creation myth." (I am sure this wording can be improved.) Hans Adler 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious articles

Hans said something that comes to the heart of the issue. Do religious articles in Wikipedia in general include scientific analysis? If so, why not the one on Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus or the Burning bush?

Is there a branch of Hindu dedicated to proving (using terrible science) that their faith is literally historically accurate? --King Öomie 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a question, not an answer. And this article does not aim to prove anything, but summarizes what the book says. Please read the P, Q, R predicates in the logical analysis section above. And I think the existence of Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus is as much subject to debate as this article. History2007 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have prefaced with "Let me answer your question with a question". But I was already aware that it was, in fact, a question. I was present when I held Shift and pressed "?". --King Öomie 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the P, Q, R predicates in the logical analysis section above. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read that section. I believe you missed the point with it, actually. We aren't debating the colloquial, informal use of the word Myth as a term used for something antiquated and incorrect. We're talking about the formal meaning, referring to an ancient faith-based belief, a definition which carries no intrinsic value judgment. --King Öomie 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's why you abused rudiments of logical formalism in a pointless way – it was some voodoo that supposedly turned a weak argument into an unassailable "logical" one. No, sorry, this method may work for a teacher in front of a class, but in Wikipedia you just don't get away with it. Hans Adler 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the misunderstanding. As most people seem to have guessed by now, I was in fact replying to History2007 and misindented. My apologies for the mistake. Hans Adler 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Strawman argument before you speak so eloquently from [REDACTED]. If I make an argument, and you refute a similar, but fundamentally DIFFERENT argument, pointing out the flaw in logic does not make me sneaky and manipulative. We've specified the definition we're talking about a good dozen times. I'm beginning to think this cognitive dissonance is intentional. --King Öomie 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you weren't speaking to me, in which case I apologize and instead direct my comment to those who continue to argue in this fashion. --King Öomie 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Hans was referring to History2007's Logical analysis "black box". Given History2007's last couple of comments above, it looks like he wrote it in the hope that no-one could swallow it and then use it to choke the life out any arguments he couldn't otherwise argue against. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unless you weren't speaking to me, in which case I apologize and instead direct my comment to those who continue to argue in this fashion."

Indeed, I realized from previous comments that he may have accidently indented too far. My anger at being accused of working logical Voodoo to pull a fast one distracted me from actually double-checking, and I apologize to Hans (though I don't know if he's seen it yet). --King Öomie 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Does your reasoning (which I do not accept) apply to Shiva or the Raising of Lazarus or the Burning bush? History2007 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They should absolutely use the same wording this one currently uses. Then again, they're written largely by a different team of people.

I will restate-

• We use the definition we use because of policy.
• This isn't the proper forum to discuss changes to it. WT:NPOV is, take it there.

Take your complaints about speed limits to the lawmakers. Showing your disapproval by speeding only gets you a ticket. --King Öomie 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us see what others have to say. Obviously you think Shiva needs a myth tag too. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now hold on, I mean in the context of a creation myth. I wouldn't go so far as to call Shiva a "mythical diety" in the article or some such (biased) nonsense. --King Öomie 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is your biggest lack of understanding History2007 the word "myth" does not have the same meaning nor is it used in the same context as the term Creation Myth. Wait.... That's already been explained in detail over and over again. Am I being punked? Is there a hidden camera somewhere. "It's not funny Ashton, come out from behind the sofa!" Nefariousski (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not agree with either use here in the lead. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It should certainly be reported in this article that some people claim the Genesis account to be an accurate scientific account of creation. Having said that there should certainly be some (not much) commentary on that claim.

Other cases are not exactly analogous. While many people claim that the Burning bush actually occurred, almost none claim that it was a scientific event - i.e. they would claim that it was a miraculous occurrence, outside of nature. There are a small number of people who do indeed posit scientific explanations, and some are discussed in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did someone say logic? or science?

Regarding, Ben's comment that: "It looks like History wrote the Logical analysis section it in the hope that no-one could swallow it" It was actually not my intent that way at all in the first case. At first I was just being the logician and clarifying it in logical terms, hoping it would make it clear that predicate Q would always be POV. But once you said general relativity folks in a tone that implied those scientists are above the fray and way beyond being confused with the book of Genesis, I answered in terms that made it clear that I know my relativity theory better than most people, for your question made it clear that you did not understand relativity. And given the accusatory tone (e.g. Hans saying "crazy people" who support Genesis) I think it is a good idea to make it clear that those who have read Genesis are not necessarily uneducated or ignorant as some comments here seem to imply. So the relativity material was perhaps hard to swallow for the layman, but you asked for it buddy. And I was in fact quite excited about entropy force today, so I brought that in. Believe me, it is an interesting idea. So if you do not like the scientific angle, I will slow on that front. How about the religious angle? I am going to pray tonight for many of you guys tonight so that God may shine his light of mercy on you and show you the path to peace. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've missed most points and failed to understand most arguments on this talk page. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you continue to argue against concepts not in play and take offense to things that were not said. You've added absolutely nothing to this debate. --King Öomie 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Path to peace? Nobody comes to religious articles on Wiki in search of peace :) PiCo (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And with your assumption that people who read Genesis aren't necessarily ignorant or uneducated it is reasonable and fair to think that they will perform due diligence in understanding the formal meaning of Creation Myth and not take any offense where none is intended. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That, or come here and complain for half a week about the same old thing. --King Öomie 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Touché Nefariousski (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I didn't notice that earlier, but you're right- we aren't calling the religious stupid. We're assuming they can read something and know what it means. I've been arguing AGAINST "Well what if they're ignorant to this meaning?" this entire time. --King Öomie 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point. Assuming that someone would take offense to a formally defined term that is long established and used academically etc......... means you have to assume said person isn't intelligent enough to understand the context in which the term is used. I don't think we should assume the average wiki reader or average person of faith is uneducated or too dense to take offense where any reasonable intelligent person would realize none is intended. I know that as a practice I personally look up the definition of any term I come across that I'm not completely familiar with instead of jumping to conclusions. After all isn't performing due diligence the the cornerstone of assuming good faith? Nefariousski (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Which comes back to my point several miles above- this dissent has nothing to do with policy, or editorial style. This has EVERYTHING to do with people being oversensitive and making trouble out of absolutely nothing. --King Öomie 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are in such a "heated agreement" with each other, I fear your keyboards may catch fire... But I do not agree at all. Deep down many opponents feel that science is King and religion is ignorance, even if that is not said upfront. Ben for instance, seems to have an amazing attachment to Einstein as a God the Father archetype. This may help set him free of that substitutionary archetype [19]. Anyway, it is beside the point really.... Your minds are set..... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to psychoanalyse the editors here. It is considered uncivil and a violation of policy. Your "advice" is unhelpful and I suggest you strike it. Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007, I disagree with the suggestion that you strike it. I see nothing that clearly warrants that. If the complainant wants to go through and identify potentially uncivil violations on this talk page, Auntie E. will find many to write about. Singling you out like this, given the wretched environment that has been created by such clearly offensive ugliness approaching gutter talk is not appropriate. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy? What an interesting user name.... Shall I psychoanalyze that?... Maybe not today, she has not insulted me yet. The person I talked about was Ben and he called me a fool only twice so far... but what do I care? As for me being singled out, maybe it is because I am just an ignoramus religious type with a PhD and over 50 science publications... but an ignoramus religious type according to some views I guess, so I get singled out.... I think I will go away and cry for some time now.... Makes me laugh... And Hans (Mr professional theorist) came out and flatly said that he does not believe that I know model theory... By the way Mr Hans professional Model Theorist, which way did C.C. the MOST famous model theorist of all time part his hair, right or left? His picture is not on the web, so you would have had to have met him to know... so which way was it? If you do not answer, there may be some analysis.... just kidding... History2007 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to sound completely unhinged? You're not talking about the issue at hand anymore. You're talking about the individuals involved. If you can't stay on topic, then I request that you leave us be to discuss it. --King Öomie 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The surface issue at hand is the statement that it is not enough to summarize the book, but that it MUST have a "judgment from science" attached to it. The surface reasons given quote WP:X for a wide range of X. Yet the actual discussion is based on what I said above: the feeling among some that "science is King" and must trump religion within Wikipedia articles. You opened the door to the science discussion yourself above Mr King when you brought up "terrible science" referring to Genesis when I asked why Shiva is not classified as a myth, but Genesis is singled out for that purpose. you started revealing your feelings about it yourself.... Now, before I start analyzing your thoughts.... History2007 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Do you have anything to say about the term Creation myth?I have no interest in your other ramblings. I will say one final time: if you disagree with policy, DISCUSS IT AT THE POLICY'S TALKPAGE. --King Öomie 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you being sarcastic with "great" or serious. The term Creation myth is the predicate Q above applied to the book, it does not summarize what the book says, but attaches a judgment to it. Simple. Now why isthere no judgement attached to Shiva, again? History2007 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Predicate Q" is complete nonsense, and has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not 'creation myth' is a scholarly, well-supported term (spoiler: it is). We're not talking about the word "myth". We're simply not. We're talking about "creation myth".

If he Shiva article talks specifically about that god's part in creation according to Hindu tradition, then yes, that section should certainly use the term "Creation myth", and not "sacred canon" or whatever else. No one here is advocating calling Shiva himself 'mythical', nor god in this article.PLEASE get this through your head, as I'm tired of explaining it. --King Öomie 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incredibly silly. In the first sentence of an article about a novel we say that it is a novel and who wrote it. In the first sentence of an article about a creation myth we say that it is a creation myth. This is not about a "judgment from science" at all. It's about saying very concisely what kind of literary genre we are dealing with. History2007, you are making it a matter of science by trying to censor the correct term based on possible science-related overtones. But being only overtones they don't present a weight issue, and the associations being actually correct according to everybody but a few fringers they are not misleading either. Hans Adler 12:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tying this off.

I'm sorry to start another thread, but I need to ask a couple of quesitons:

1. Is there any valid objection to archiving the threads about the introductory sentence? The discussion seems to have reached a point of no return - the way "C.C" parts his hair - so I don't think leaving them open is going to be constructive at all.
2. Are we agreed there is consensus for the term creation myth in the opening sentence? If so, I suggest we create an FAQ at the top of this page outlining the "creation myth" question with a link to the previous discussion in the archives.

Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is ABSOLUTELY no agreement on the term creation myth in the opening sentence. Not even a nice try, but there is no agreement at all. Indeed the discussion has just started, e.g. why is Shiva not a myth? No one even tried to answer that yet. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We may have overlooked what appears to be a very well-thought out compromise. User:Tonicthebrown, an evolutionist by self-description above. I hereby propose that User:Tonicthebrown's suggested wording become the first paragraph of the article.

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a creation myth by scholars,[4] and as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews."

— User:Tonicthebrown, "seconded" by User:AFAprof01

Rationale: It is not what I would write if I owned the article, but it's something I agree to live with since it deals with all major objections except for

• (a) omitting myth altogether, which I don't think is going to happen; and
• (b) putting myth immediately after the article title, which is the most objectionable possible place to put it. There is no practical way to move it any closer to the top, the place of greatest emphasis, viability, and notability.

Nothing is going to be either perfect or totally pleasing to everyone. One practical definition of a consensus is "a proposal we can all live with." As has been pointed out, there is a lot of rather obvious insisting on getting one's own way, and an accompanying unwillingness to negotiate or compromise. There is suggestion that some are using this as a form of amusement to insult and belittle others both personally and ideologically, not unlike the truculence that might accompany one who "picks wings off of flies." In society we honor competent, productive people of good sense, folks who understand that for a society to thrive, its people need to care for and cooperate with each other. Should the duty of Wiki editors be any less?

Respectfully, User:AFAprof01

Seeing as someone has brought up my earlier proposal, here's a small modification of it that may be more acceptable to the majority:

Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text has been identified as a creation myth by scholars, and has religious significance for Christians and Jews."

(By the way, I would not identify myself as an evolutionist. I am neither a young earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist.)

I think Afaprof has made a helpful comment, namely that none of us should behave as if we have ownership of this article. It would appear to me, having read much of the interaction above, that certain editors who support the existing lead are behaving in this way. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It has not been overlooked since I replied to that proposal above. Honesty really does seem like a foreign concept to you Afaprof01. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat myself here, so if you want to reply to my comments above then do so, and I will reply there also. Ben (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For sure there's no consensus on using the term "creation myth" in the first line. I remember predicting that this would happen, so it's just as well I'm not the sort to say I told you so. Though I did. But I'm not saying it. As for Tonic's suggestion, it's not really a starter I'm afraid - "Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the book of Genesis"? It doesn't refer to those chapters, it is those chapters. This isn't a definition, it's a tautology. PiCo (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pico and I would observe that whenever Ben feels pressured, he insults people, as he insulted Afaprof01 just here.... He will make an interesting subject for psychoanalysis. I wonder if he fears that I will pray for him... some people fear that... Anyway, who wants to "own" this article? Not me.... it is in a neighborhood with too many insulting people. But I think if you are to propose that Afaprof the order must certainly change, namely: "This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as creation myth by some scholars." Since we can not be sure that all scholars agree. Pico, would you like to rewrite that since you know how? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence History2007, but I'd rather stay out of this hornet's nest - like you, I don't like to hang around unpleasant people. (And just for the record, I'm a secularist and an evolutionist) PiCo (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Copying the above proposed paragraph into the article. It's the closest we have to consensus. AFAprof01 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current intro has consensus sans minor wording changes that have been discussed above (Hans comments come to mind, for instance). Changes like this one that go against policy, as I've explained above, will be reverted on sight. Ben (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tonic's revision directly above seems acceptable. Bugs et al., to say that some people here insist on referring to the Biblical account as "fairy tales" sounds a bit like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The point has been made here countless times that the term "creation myth", based on the real definition of the term, implies no such thing. Additionally, saying lots of people might think "untruth" when they see it might be overlooking the possibility that readers might exercise due diligence and check the linked meaning of the term before assuming what it means. Those opposing "creation myth" should notice that the rest of us are not saying those words should necessarily appear unqualified; indeed, the fact that those words link to a definition of the term (which explains that the idea of "untruth" is not intended) completely removes any apprehensions I might have had as a Christian. As such, I hereby state my support for the term "creation myth". As it applies to me personally, I wouldn't care if it were called a narrative/story/account/whatever, since I do believe it to be factual – but the term "creation myth", as defined here on WP, is not incompatible with my beliefs, since it sounds plenty neutral to me. And that's all I have to say.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Ben. He has been on the verge of an edit war for long. History2007 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben has an obsession with characterizing the Old Testament texts as fairy tales. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions & unbalanced treatment of topic

I have several questions to which no answer has even been attempted. As a start, again, why does Shiva not have a scientific label "myth" attached to it? How about the Qur'an. It seems clear to me that Genesis is singled out here, perhaps due to specific agendas. In any case, this issue goes to the heart of unbalanced treatment of the topic. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, each one of those articles has their own talk page. You've wandered so far into irrelevant territory that I'm not even going to bother replying to your comments any more unless they're directly relevant to this article and in line with this projects policies. Ben (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, as usual. But the question is highly relevant. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben doesn't care about the other religions. His need to call religions a fairy tale is limited to the Bible - as he demonstrated many months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They're all listed under the Creation Myth article as Creation Myths Genesis is not being singled out. On the contrary not listing it as a Creation Myth does single this article out and thus violate WP:WTA#myth and legend. This has been explained over and over and over. Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discuss other article here. See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And Bugs, please focus on the topic, not the editors. Auntie E. (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you must not be aware that Ben has been pushing this viewpoint in a number of related articles, for quite awhile now. This article does not exist in a vacuum. This is a common theme across multiple articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're calling this a viewpoint, then I can only assume you're ignorant of the topic at hand- that is, the scholarly acceptance of the term "Creation Myth". --King Öomie 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You know Mr King, regarding the insult you handed Baseball_Bugs now by calling him ignorant, there is an old saying/joke in legal circles: "If the facts are against you argue the law, if the law is against you argue the fact, if both the facts and the law are against you, call the other guy a schmuck". So I guess both the facts and the policies must be against you to keep calling people ignorant. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignorant \Ig"no*rant\, a. Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware. If I'd meant to insult him, I would have kept typing and called him an ignoramus. But I didn't, so I didn't. Stop trying to stir up trouble. --King Öomie 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm talking about Bugs- If you're only here to talk about other editors, and have no actual input for this discussion, I'll ask you to... discontinue that activity. History2007 has that ground covered. --King Öomie 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have disinvited me from this page more often than it has rained in Seattle. But no thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At last count, once. --King Öomie 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

resolving the larger issue once and for all instead of piecemeal

Seems to me this same "myth" argument already happened at Creationism. Some of you here are well aware of that because you participated in that discussion as well. This can go one of two ways: We can have the same arguments and edit wars again and again across every page related to creationism, complete with blocks and page protections being handed out left and right until ArbCom gets involved and there is a months long WP:TLDR discussion and half of the involved users quit Wikipedia in disgust, or ya'll could have one, centralized discussion on this topic, establish a consensus for what descriptive word is to be used in all creationism-related articles, and abide by that decision whether you agree with it or not. The choice is before you now to take the high road, or the road that leads to ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth is the proper description by reliable sources, and some don't like it because they feel the connotation is negative. Since WP:CENSOR is policy, and there is no WP:OFFEND to point to, these discussions end with the M-word being accepted by consensus. So that idea may not be acceptable to some. The minority will wish to replay the argument again and again. See Talk:Muhammad/Images. (It's a page I watchlist, and I couldn't reasonably refute those anti-image people's arguments while simultaneously accepting the anti-"myth" ones.) Auntie E. (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You and Ben are hiding behind one technical definition of "myth" to promote the point of view that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales, as that's what the general readership understands when they see the word "myth". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I don't consider the Bible to be fairy tales, not at all. I consider it's truth to be undeterminable. Which is what the definition of myth means. Auntie E. (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the general public knows that "myth" means "fairy tale". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV. Dictionary be damned, they know what it means. --King Öomie 01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The primary usage of "myth" by the general public equates to an untrue story. Wikipedia is not written for "scholars", it's written for the general public. And when the first sentence says "the Bible is a lie", it's going to reinforce the perception that wikipedia has a liberal bias. That does not serve the interests of either the public or wikipedia well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This + this is a massive failure of WP:NPOV. Ben (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And for the 40th time this debate, someone argues against policy HERE, rather than at the policy page. Bugs, are you seriously debating that it is improper to use scholarly language relevant to the topic at hand? I think you're looking for Simple Wiki. --King Öomie 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "scholarly" encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia written by and for the public. And insisting in the first sentence, that the subject of the article is a lie, is not a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is doing that. Per RNPOV, worries about how many people know the technical definition of a term are irrelevant. If you disagree, argue there. --King Öomie 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why they (Bugs in this case) never apply exactly the same logic to the term theory? As soon as you consider how the logic applies to other terms in the English language it's patently clear that it's a non-argument, and very likely the reason this is mentioned in the WP:NPOV policy. Ben (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use the very first sentence of the article to label the Bible stories as lies, fairy tales, folk tales, whatever. That's a POV. The first sentence as it reads right now is totally neutral and totally factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I implore you to look up the definition of "creation myth". Please.

"It's a lie! A farse! Fiction, I tell you!" <- This isn't it. Stop presenting it like it is. We're only talking about Genesis, which contains the judeo-christian creation myth. Which is what scholars call it. And thus, so do we. --King Öomie 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already covers the "creation myth" scenario in spades. The problem is that you want to ram it down the readers' throats, in the very first sentence, that the Bible is a pack of lies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like Theory of evolution jams the same sentiment down reader's throats, right? I mean, everyone KNOWS that's what Theory means. I guess Wikipedia has a conservative bias? --King Öomie 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Theory of evolution" is a well known expression. Calling the Bible a myth is the same thing as calling it a lie. It's a POV-push. The first sentence should stay the way it is, as it's the only neutral way to present the facts. And FYI, since you accuse me of bias, you don't have a clue as to what my true opinion is on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, don't deflect. "Theory of evolution" is well-known, but not its meaning. MANY people (typically southern Americans) think "It's just a theory!" is a legitimate argument, because they have no idea what the word means in a scientific context. This is the same issue, despite your protest. --King Öomie 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement that I consider it's truth to be indeterminable is the first logical statement I have heard from the opposition here. The Wikipedia page on Indeterminacy is alas poorly written, but a statement along those lines may start to bring logic into this discussion, although the introduction of the term indeterminable into the article may be too much. I could type 20 page son indeterminacy, but maybe not today. However, as a member of the general public I had never considered myth and indeterminable as equivalent, and my understanding of myth was what Bugs stated, i.e. a fake and untrue story used to achieve a goal. But then maybe I am just an ignoramus scientist anyway and everyone else is smarter than me .... History2007 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead text

Currently it reads "Creation according to Genesis refers to the text found in the opening two chapters of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible. This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars." To me, this is worded perfectly. The first sentence describes in totally factual and NPOV terms what it is. The second sentence describes how it's regarded by true believers and scholars. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to push the "myth" POV in the first sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is talking about a creation myth, and as such should state this in the lead sentence. It's really that simple, and no valid argument has been presented against doing so. Ben (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, the definition of Creation Myth is a religious or supernatural account of creation. Aren't we being redundant? Nefariousski (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is about the start of the Bible. As the second sentence makes clear, the "myth" part is a matter of opinion, not fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact, and there exist citations for this fact (and the mainstream acceptance of this fact) in the text above. Ben (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Ben at all. Simply stating it is a fact 1000 times achieves nothing. And I do not see the big deal here. In fact, I think BeebleBrox's comments were very much to the point. And I think BaseballBugs has said the right things again and again. However, if Arbcom needs to settle the matter so be it. I am ready for the long haul. Moreover, I think the reasonable comments BeebleBrox made to Ben on Ben's talk page were a good piece of the lecture Ben needed. A fee more such lectures by Admins will be in order. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I did more than simply state something, I referenced this fact and the fact that the mainstream consider it so. Ben (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007: Baseball Bugs has ignored the arguments to discuss the motivations of the editors "again and again." Not surprising you may think that is good argumentation, since you engaged in the same thing above.

I think using the term "creation myth" with a bit of a definition is infinitely preferrable to the inline attribution of "Scholars consider" which actually gives the wrong idea about the definition of the term. Many Jews and Christians also consider it a creation myth because they aren't ignorant of the definitions of the term. So Bugs' lede is not accurate. Auntie E. (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already thoroughly covered. But Ben's not satisfied with that. He wants to insist, in the first sentence, that it's a fairy tale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Insist" would be an appropriate middle name here my friend. And he also insisted that he was not close to the 3revert line. But we all learn... some sooner than others.... History2007 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Auntie E. makes a good point. Saying "Scholars consider" kind of makes it sound like scholars don't believe in the story of creation, but christian and jews do.Chhe (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point. It's saying that only the ignorant consider the Bible to be "true". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, it's not OK that you also engage in this disruption now. There may be parts of the Bible whose literary genre is that of a fairy tale, but I doubt it. (I guess I would know about them.) The literary genre of this particular part is that of a creation myth, and there is no reason to censor this fact, just like there is no reason to censor the fact that communism is an ideology or beer is an alcoholic beverage. Hans Adler 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, infinitely preferrable is an interesting term, but involves someone who does the preferring, of course. Hence a point of view. As I have said above much of the discussion here is decorative reasoning used to achieve an agenda (by both sides). Until that is accepted Arbcom is at the end of this tunnel. However, I think your point about "not all Jews and Christians" is valid and a modifier of some type may be in order. AfaProf is probably the person to craft the modifier. History2007 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Auntie E and King Öomie on this. ArbCom doesn't decide content issues, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "myth" has at least two meanings. First, the formal academic one, is "a religious account explaining how the world came to be as it was". The other, informal and colloquial, is "a false story". That means that the text This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a creation myth by scholars is to be interpreted as either

This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a religious account of creation by scholars.

or as

This text is regarded as a religious account of creation by Christians and Jews and as a false story by scholars.

The first interpretation is repetitive. The latter interpretation is outright false. Scholars do certainly not consider the creation account to be false. Geologists/biologists/Catholics/etc. say the Genesis shouldn't be interpreted as being literally true, but that doesn't mean that they say it is false. Either way you chose to interpret the word "myth", that sentence is horribly misleading. Gabbe (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At last some logic. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The second sentence of the current, protected version is not acceptable at all. Fact is that the text is regarded as both a religious account of creation and a creation myth by almost everybody, including Christians, Jews and scholars. Let's look a bit closer:

• What does "religious account of creation" mean?

1. Mainstream reading: It is a religious story about the origin of the world. No particular claims are made about whether the "truth" of the story is to be found on a literal or a more metaphorical level.
2. Minority (creationist) reading: It is a historically and scientifically accurate description of the origins of the world.

With the mainstream reading, saying without further qualifications that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is accurate but misleading, because so does almost everybody else including scholars. And the continuation of the sentence suggest that scholars contradict. With the minority reading, saying that "Christians and Jews" regard it that way is seriously misleading as it implicitly states that most Christians and Jews are creationists, which is simply not true. Cheap rhetorical tricks such as playing with the two possible readings of a phrase to promote a fringe theory have no place in Wikipedia.

• What does "creation myth" mean?

1. Normal reading: It's a literary genre, see creation myth.
2. Minority reading: It's a myth in the colloquial sense that talks about creation, thus roughly a synonym for "creationist myth".

With the normal reading of "creation myth" most Christians and Jews actually agree with the scholars that Genesis starts with a creation myth. (As I explained previously, putting the creation myth in Genesis into the context of contemporaneous creation myths is standard material in Christian religious education at least in Germany.) The opposition Christians/Jews think vs. scholars think, however, suggests the second reading. But this is not at all OK according to WP:WTA#Myth and legend: We are not supposed to use "myth" in this sense at all. We only use it in a technical sense, and then we must make it clear that we mean the technical sense, no go out of our way to suggest the non-technical sense.

Hans Adler 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So the long and short of it Hans? How will you say that some Christians think X and Scholars think Y. The opposing sentence wants just the scholars and no mention of Christian and Jews. So suggest 3 sentences please. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the single sentence as it stands. --King Öomie 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My question was to Hans. I know what the "Ben and the King" duo wants. I would like to hear from other editors now, e.g. Hans and Aunt Entropy if they want to come up with suggestions. I would suggest that each suggestion have two components X and Y that address the religious and scholarly issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Break

Let me try to recap the above debate, if I may. I think most of us agree that:

1. The word "myth" could mean both "false story", and "sacred narrative explaining how the world came to be". Lets, for the sake of clarity, call the first meaning myth¹ (="false story") and the latter myth² (="sacred narrative").
2. Christians, Jews and scholars all agree that Genesis is a creation myth².
3. WP:WTA#Myth and legend suggests that we should not use the word myth¹ at all, but that we may use the word myth² when appropriate.
4. Describing Genesis as a myth¹ in this article is inappropriate.
5. The question is: When we say "Genesis is a creation myth", will casual readers of this article interpret this as

1. the offensive "Genesis is a myth¹", or
2. the truthful "Genesis is a creation myth²"?

Am I right so far? If so, isn't there some way we can use the word "myth" in the article's lede to clarify that we mean to say that it's a myth² without saying it's a myth¹? Gabbe (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. Our point is that WP:RNPOV specifically states that the final question you posit is irrelevant, and that the formal meaning (myth²) is ALWAYS to be used. --King Öomie 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"...editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." --King Öomie 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, and that if they disagree with that reasoning, that WT:NPOV is the forum for that discussion, NOT this page. --King Öomie 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Gabbe has a logical train of thought. However, as I stated above, I would like to hear what other opposing editors beside "Ben and the King" (whose views are well known) suggest as two sentences X and Y each addressing the religious and scholarly issues. It would be best if we just get their suggestions first, sans endless debate, then see where that leads. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Making a false distinction is not encyclopedic. The sentence that has been fully protected in the page is absolutely inaccurate, and even worse than leaving out the words CM all together. I will accept an in-line definition of "creation myth." Let's take this opportunity to enlighten those on the meaning of this phrase instead of demanding they stay ignorant. (On Muhammad, we give the opportunity for viewers to turn off the images. We don't delete them, no matter how many times those offended beg, plead and threaten.) Auntie E. (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from debate, I was asking you to suggest a new lead and different lead on your own. Then we see what happens. It will cost nothing to suggest. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Except time, copious amounts of which have been wasted by you rehashing the same arguments. The lead, as it was, had no issues.Two statements are not needed to deliver the same information- the sentence there now is unambiguous pandering to Christian sensibilities. All christians and jews see Genesis as a creation myth- the term does not imply falsity. To present it otherwise is purely disinformation. --King Öomie 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant "pure disinformation". History2007 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the lead did have style issues. "[Long descriptive title] refers to ..." is not a good format for a lead at all. It's Wikipedia-speak of the worst kind. But it should be possible to fix this issue without giving in to creationist POV pushing. Hans Adler 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean that it wasn't the sneaky, horrible atheistic conspiracy that's been presented. --King Öomie 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. And I am quite surprised by the strategy that is being tried here. So far I have only heard of repeating "[Those guys who are really on our side but not extreme enough] are far, far on the other side and shouldn't be allowed to continue because they are so extreme!!!" as a strategy of the US right wing. It's the first time I see this thoroughly unethical strategy applied on a talk page. Hans Adler 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting more annoying at the tactic of completely glossing over points they can't refute, and instead focusing on a separate issue that hasn't turned against them yet.

• "It's offensive!" Not so much.
• "Policy is against it!" Demonstrably not so.
• "....Let's all post suggestions for changes to the sentence with no problems!" --King Öomie 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for suggestions

I would like to ask willing opposing editors to provide a different suggestion each for the lead, to see what happens. Please provide your "suggested lead" without debate just as a paragraph. That will cost nothing, and it will be best to just obtain ideas first to hear what people think on their own. Please use a different suggestion each to get your own thoughts into the picture. Please just provide what you would like to see, regardless of the justifications. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made such a suggestion. Not sure why it was ignored. You are free to copy it here. Hans Adler 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry this page is so long I am not sure where it is. Could you please just type it here, remove my comment and yours and just leave it here as a starting item for a list. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"regardless of the justifications."

This is counter-productive. --King Öomie 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the Creation Myth (Defined as a Religious or Supernatural story about the beginnings of life, the Earth and or universe ) found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of suggested paragraphs with comments

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation myth found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- Barring stylistic changes to the presentation of the article title, but the back half of the statement is perfectly fine. --King Öomie 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible. For Jews and Christians the text is highly esteemed with religious authority, though interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Scholars frequently refer to the account as an example of creation myth in their attempts to pinpoint its proper literary genre, though the commonalities and differences with other creation myths are much disputed. ─AFAprof01 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• You can't be serious. --King Öomie 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Firstly Creation Myth Isn't a literary genre and what are the disputes over commonalities and differences? Isn't the Biblical Creation Myth a religious or supernatural story about how everything was created? I'm pretty sure there's universal agreement by all parties on that one. Nefariousski (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• You can't be serious. It is really tedious to have to keep explaining the notion of "myth" and "creation myth" to people who couldn't be bothered to look it up on their own. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab, that debate has taken place, N times on this page, with N growing rapidly. Now I am just gathering paragraphs from different users to show the wide range of opinions. Please let users suggest paragraphs for a day or two, just to see what they "like to see". That may just provide a better idea of user perspectives, which are obviously diverse. History2007 (talk)

No more policy discussion? Done with literary deconstruction? We're down to OPINIONS now? Irrelevant. I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you're presenting this debate as continuing ad nauseum. --King Öomie 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy and other discussions can take place all over this page of course. This list can grow in parallel - no extra charge. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Creation according to Genesis refers to the Creation Myth (Defined as a Religious or Supernatural story about the beginnings of life, the Earth and or universe ) found in the first book of the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Genesis. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

why was this article protected?

If the stable, established revision is under attack, just let them run into WP:3RR. If there are serious suggestions, let people seek consensus before editing, under WP:BRD. I will certainly assist in rolling back misguided edits such as this. --dab (𒁳) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The page was previously under protection at the beginning of this debate. When that expired, History2007 and Afaprof quickly moved it to their version, and ran to ANI, insisting that the edit war was back in full swing, and it needed to be protected RIGHT NOW (as in, on their revision, which is demonstrably factually inaccurate). --King Öomie 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

King speaks with forked tongue. AFAprof made no such request. AFAprof01 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forked tongue is a bit harsh. I stand corrected- you did not, in fact, post at Wikipedia:ANI#Protection request. I just sort of assumed based on your track record for agreeing whole-heartedly with History2007. --King Öomie 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this page is just a myth anyway... Maybe we are all dreaming.... This could not be reality.... This page is a myth.... History2007 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I won't go as far as to say AFAprof01 is party to some sort of conspiracy with History2007 the evidence is pretty clear that he did change the contested content mid discussion and then History2007 shortly thereafter sought to have the article protected again [20] Nefariousski (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow.... what are you going to suggest next? That the Pope was in on the cospiracy too? Were any of the Swiss Guards involved by any chance? History2007 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "Suggest" anything. I made a completely unemotional and non accusatory statement based on facts which were cited and verifiable and beyond question. You took it personally and tried to undermine the issue at hand with nonesense. So... more or less business as usual for the past couple weeks here...

Nefariousski (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that you haven't made a single constructive post to this page in 24 hours. Nef just specifically said "No" to any mention of a conspiracy. --King Öomie 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so no Swiss Guards and no one on the Grassy Knoll. Great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the accusations of gaming the RFC system didn't do a whole lot to help build consensus one way or another. Multiple guidelines and policies, factual accuracy and scholarly / academic sources support one side, appeals to sensitivity support the other. Nefariousski (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a creation myth and also about a myth that is untrue

This is an article about the creation myth contained within the Book of Genesis. I do not understand why anyone would dispute this. In the arguments above and archived, all I see from those opposed to calling a spade a spade is that they are afraid that someone coming to this article and reading that the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth will think that Wikipedia is saying that the creation story in Genesis is untrue - even though that's not what the text "the creation story in Genesis is a creation myth" actually says. However, the creation story in Genesis is both a myth and untrue. So even the unintended consequences are okay. If someone comes away thinking that creation according to Genesis did not actually happen that way, that's good because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the natural history of the Earth or the universe corresponds to this myth. So what's the controversy about?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the side of this debate with a foot to stand on. --King Öomie 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already hard enough to get certain editors to understand concepts like Proper Nouns, Wikipedia Policy, the concept of "context" and that sometimes words mean different things when combined with other words. While I appriciate and value additional comments let's try not to make too many inflammatory remarks. This pot does not need further sirring. Nefariousski (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To wit, I've been staying away from the Science side, myself, as it's really not needed, and only serves to fuel the debate (as one more thing to misinterpret). As with any creation myth, science doesn't need to disprove it for it to BE a creation myth. --King Öomie 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims, we should not focus on the scientific inaccuracies in Genesis at all. However, what I'm saying is that the unintended consequences of not knowing what the definition of a term is and instead using a different definition align with the fact that the story contained in Genesis lacks basis in empirical fact (similar to the creation myths from other cultures and religions). So it seems to me that, perhaps unique among these sorts of arguments, the unintended consequence of calling this story a "creation myth" is actually a positive outcome in view of our goal to write an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia. Huzzah! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nefariousski, which part of my remarks are inflammatory exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The question at hand isn't one of "truth" since there is no doubt that this article will ever state that the story in Genesis is undenyably false (that's not the intent of the article). In fact the article shouldn't make any judgement regarding whether this particular (or any) Creation Myth is true or false. I just don't want this to turn into a proxy debate for evolution v. creationism since those articles do the job just fine on their own. The goal here is trying to reason with everyone to gain consensus that accurately describes the story in Genesis by its proper term as a Creation Myth and further polarizing the debate only pushes us further from that goal. Nefariousski (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the lack of scientific support for this particular creation myth is incidental to the article itself, the fact that the unintended consequence that those opposed to calling this story a "creation myth" are citing is actually in line with the self-same lack of scientific support should be viewed as a positive feature rather than a problem. I'm actually proposing that the people arguing against you are in fact giving another argument supporting plain language description of this story as a creation myth. I don't think that this is particularly inflammatory. Though I will admit that some people find facts to be upsetting, I don't think that pointing out those facts is inflammatory. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for being less than clear. I personally don't find your words inflammatory but I guarantee that there are those who will only further intrench and drag this out because they do. Furthermore we've done a good job of holding true to WP:RNPOV by expressly not making a judgement or veracity call one way or the other regarding this or any other Creation Myth and classifying them all the same as opposed to on their individual merits. Nefariousski (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean "no chance" instead of "no doubt"? Just checkin.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not read WP:RNPOV as saying that we should not make any judgment or veracity call in Wikipedia. In fact, treating any topic that ways flies in the face of neutrality (see WP:ASF). I do, however, agree that the simple fact that the literal account outlined in the mythology of Genesis is contradicted by scientific evidence is not all that relevant to an article trying to describe the mythology of Genesis since the intention of the ancient authors and many, if not a significant majority, of the religious adherents was/is not to align their account of creation mythology to modern scientific evidence. It seems to me that those arguing against a plain categorical statement that this topic is a creation myth are arguing from the perspective of a "protected belief" in the literal veracity of the account since we often use the term "myth" in a colloquial sense to distinguish empirical reality from imaginative storytelling. But that's just it, the very protected belief that these people are arguing we must consider is itself contradicted by plain facts. Thus, we have a very problematic current version of the lede using a completely indefensible particular attribution of the term "creation myth" to "scholars" when, in fact, there are no reliable sources on the subject of Genesis 1 and 2 contradicting that categorization. While the article itself may not necessarily touch on the veracity or lack thereof associated with particular features of these myths, to point out that the stories are false is simply another data point in the discussion and shouldn't be avoided just because some wrong-headed editor might become "entrenched" in an indefensible editorial position. Either we're writing a serious encyclopedia or we're not. I'm not going to pussyfoot around uncomfortable facts just to accommodate people who believe things that can be demonstrably shown to be untrue, especially not when the fact that those beliefs are false is directly relevant to arguments the other side presents. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to create a section on the criticisms of Genesis then feel free to WP:BEBOLD and do so. The only thing I ask is that we focus on one outstanding issue at a time and not muddy the waters. Seemingly simple logical arguements are confounding some of our editors here and they're taking offense where absolutely none exists. I'm not advocating pussyfooting around or placating anyone but on the other hand consensus is the cost of doing business around these parts and there's no IQ test or other prerequisite requirement that has to be passed before taking part in building said consensus so lets keep this simple, linear and deal with one outstanding issue at a time before moving on to more. Nefariousski (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with criticism sections as a general rule. The waters, in my opinion, have been muddied by people trying to accommodate people who have demonstrable agendas which run counter to the goal of writing a verifiable, neutral, and well-sourced encyclopedia. Look at it this way: a bunch of editors are complaining that calling Genesis a "creation myth" without particular attribution might make readers think that Wikipedia is asserting that the literal account of Genesis is not true. The question I have is, "why is that a bad thing?" I'm not saying that this is automatically the interpretation one must take, but even considering these opponents at their word leads us to outcomes that we should be happy to have at a reliable, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Trust me on this one, there has been no accomodation, the edits to the current language were completely unilateral just prior to page protection. Nefariousski (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)