Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Requested move

[[:Genesis creation myth]] → Creation according to Genesis — The article was the most Stable under this name, Secondly if the first thing we have to say in the introduction is a defense of how "it is neutral"; than odds are it is not neutral. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Notified Projects: Religion Atheism Christianity Judaism Islam Mythology Interfaith Admin Notice Board Bible

'In this Discussion Please dont use Straw man Arguments, they insult both the User writing them and the Users Reading them'

* Support The article was the most Stable under this name, Secondly if the first thing we have to say in the introduction is a defense of how "it is neutral"; than odds are it is not neutral Current title seems to be a POV-push of how it is just myth; whether or not it is a myth or not in academia. It is unacetable to label something held as sacred to half the world (Jew+Christian+Muslim), This is not Censorship but common sense. The instability of This article since i think an acceptable middle ground would run something like

"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,[1] and has religious significance for Christians and Jews."" (AFA Prof suggest two months ago)

Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE "Creation according to Genesis" implies reality, it is inaccurate and in disharmony with other articles about other creation myths. This article is not religious propaganda. We have already discussed this at great length and we will not have a small minority of editors force their ideology down everybody's throats. · CUSH · 18:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

According to Genesis is just what it is. if people want to take Genesis and take it as literal fact that is their prerogative. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cush, I think you're shying at shadows - does anyone think "Creation according to the Rig Veda" would imply acceptance of the Vedas as history or fact? PiCo (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - It's high time this POV-pushing sham of a title was put out of its misery and restored with something more sensible and less partisan. The current title was only chosen for the sake of its offensiveness value. I think the few editors who insisted on this title have already received all the mileage reward they're ever going to get, hope they enjoyed it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Why does Christian-judeo religious belief deserve special treatment? The genesis creation myth clearly meets the definition on the Myth page of wikipedia as a "sacred myth". We haven't gone around changing Greek Mythology to something like "Heros and gods according to ancient Greeks". Christian Mythology refers to this as one of a body of myths. Myth: "academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on its truth or falsity". Myth: "a myth is a religious narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form" -- the term is neutral from an encyclopedic perspective. If this is changed, then the Myth article needs to be changed to say something like "Myth means that the story is false". I don't think you'll find a source on that to use as a reference! Reboot (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, theologians have never agreed on a scholarly definition of "myth", and it is a complete fiction to pretend that they ever have. (Sources.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why that is important. I'm fairly sure anthropologists and archaeologists would use the term quite casually. What's your point? Reboot (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought your point was that this was a supposedly 'formal' definition, and my point is that there has never been any such thing as an agreed 'formal' definition. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The moved to Genesis creation myth first passed 7 weeks ago (Talk:Genesis creation myth/Archive 6#Requested move .28as a way to resolve every reasonable concern.29) and was reaffirmed in this exact same request 4 weeks ago (Talk:Genesis creation myth/Archive 6#Reinstate article.27s original and title.22 Creation According to Genesis). WP:LETGO Currently comes to mind. It's time that this discussion be left and everyone move on.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, Observe the Archives since beginning of of those 7 weeks the past seven weeks have generated more controversy than any all the other section of the archive combined.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I am aware. I went through the discussion and saw no indication that consensus has changed and frankly, I am really not a fan of seeing multiple move requests in a short periods of time. Its sets a poor precedence for people inputting request repeatedly until their desired result is achieved. You will find that my positions is quite consistent in such cases, wherein I will support moves if consensus has changed or been formed and oppose when move request are continuously hammered. I should note that I am certainly open to changing my position if consensus is clearly shown to be 'Creation according to Genesis'. My opposition is entirely based on a procedural motivation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You call this consensus? I'd hate to see a page you thought didn't have one!EGMichaels (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who makes the call one way or the other. All I can say is that two different admins, who are both extremely active in the requested move area, thought so.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the last admin had the same reaction I did -- there was no consensus and a third title should be found. I then tried to bring folks together to brainstorm for a third title and was gamed beyond anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia.EGMichaels (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I could support Genesis creation story. Yes, it breaks with the mold of most articles but I think it's a good compromise in alleviating the deadlock.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The move to Genesis creation myth was out of line with the umbrella content of the article and has proven to be highly disruptive and POV. Although I do see the benefit of a Genesis creation myth article as a study of Genesis in relation to ancient near eastern myth, within the literary genre of myth -- the very people promoting the title "Genesis creation myth" are the same people who oppose limiting the article to that genre. Since the advocates of "Genesis creation myth" cannot limit the content of the article to that subject, we should return the article to its previous NPOV title.EGMichaels (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support There was nothing wrong with "Creation according to Genesis." It's clear, descriptive and perfectly neutral. Why use the loaded word "myth" in the title of this article, where it will be misunderstood and viewed as provocative by many readers? The technical term "creation myth" should be introduced in the body of the article where its neutral scholarly intent can be made crystal clear.--agr (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support I've always been uncomfortable with the "myth" language. I would prefer "Creation according to the Book of Genesis" b/c I think "Genesis" alone is a little ambiguous. But the proposed title is better than the current title. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain—votes belong to sources not editors—I choose to represent Julius Wellhausen, who says Genesis 2 is myth and Genesis 1 is not. But Julius and I graciously conceed that a vote of Wikipedia editors is more likely to establish what will help readers better than stuff written in books. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But they're both Creation Myths (as defined as a religious account of the creation of life, the earth, universe etc...) hence why the title is appropriate. Nefariousski (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of Julius Wellhausen, I can pass on that he has changed his mind, he wrote in 1878 that Genesis 1 is "sober reflection" but that Genesis 2 and 3 are "marvel and myth", but he is willing to change his mind since Nefariousski must know better than he does. :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - "myth" carries a negative connotation. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support When terminology used by regular people and academics don't match, the rule on Wikipedia is to use the common term. All of the arguments that "myth" isn't dismissive of the account may be true, in an academic context. But that isn't relevant. Story and account are neutral terms, which do not have either a denotation or a connotation which favors one side of the question of the account's historicity. I would be willing to compromise with either Genesis creation account or Genesis creation story, but Genesis creation myth is intentionally and unnecessarily incendiary. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain—which has the advantage that one can do it multiple times—this time I represent the Oxford English Dictionary, which I'm reliably informed isn't permitted sufferage at Wikipedia, unless an editor chooses to give it a voice.

myth 1. A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena.

Alastair Haines (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines, i dont think any one hear is debating whether it is a creation myth, but whether it is necessary to be in the title. As an anthropologist i agree its the Genre but lets be it as the Genre and not as the title. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Weaponbb7, I am personally sympathetic to your proposal, but my opinion is irrelevant. I have simply attempted to give votes to the OED and Julius Wellhausen, who clearly agree with you that the current title is deficient. However, I'm still running around as fast as I can, listening to dead people who can speak intelligently to support your alternative title. Julius does call Genesis 1 and 2-3 "accounts" (at least in the English translation). Julius writes so lucidly and lyrically that I'm charmed away from listening to others. Must go, the dead are clamouring to be heard. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to a neutral name without a POV problem. Grantmidnight (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, with alternatives okay. "Creation Myth" is a standard term, with quite an anthropological pedigree. And it can be used for verifiable events, so long as it refers to a ritualized, collective imagination of how they happened. See, for example: "The scientific culture is no exception; we have our own scientific creation myth called cosmology" [1]. Still Genesis creation account or something similar sounds just peachy, too.--Carwil (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support-ish—grrr, I forbid anyone to count this as a vote—Genesis creation account, Genesis creation narrative and Genesis creation story seem deficient as alternative titles for this topic. Too many scholars doubt that what is being offered in the early chapters of Genesis is simply an account or narrative of creation. The Sabbath thingy, for one, has everything to do with what people actually do, rather than merely what might have happened. And some people still get married don't they? If people want this article to discuss creation in Genesis, then that is what it should be called (and it covers more and less than Genesis 1-2). If people want it to discuss Genesis chapters 1 and 2, then that is a rather odd division of the book, since chapters 2 and 3 are married to one another. Why Creation according to Genesis, when in is shorter than according to, and implies somewhat less? Alastair Haines (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, thanks for your vote. Seriously, though, how is "story" anything but neutral? If anything, it can be seen as meaning something made up. It certainly doesn't imply that it happened, even if you think "account" would. I think Genesis creation story is probably the best choice. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Noooo! Dat no vote! Yukyyy! The OED says: "Lisa is right, story is neutral, myth is not." The only problem is Julius Wellhausen and others think Gen 2ff are a story, involving borrowings from other myths, BUT (and it's a big but) Gen 1 is a "sober reflection". Not only that, "image of God", "Sabbath", "original sin", "marriage", etc. go beyond a mere alleged account of an alleged creation, in the view of many scholars. Perhaps, although Julius might not agree with Lisa, most other scholars would: "story" is a richer word than account, permitting "morality play"-type interpretations. Lisa may understand better than other editors here that Genesis is more about telling people how to understand the now rather than the then. I guess that does make it a story, but other editors might not be interested in those story parts, just the parts that are about creation, which they think are an alleged (and demonstrably false) narrative. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Strongly Support BOTH #1 Creation in Genesis; #2 Creation according to Genesis. But to my honored colleague Alasair Haines I must say, drat it! While you were writing your above thesis proposing the dropping of "according to," I was writing my below thesis supporting it. Why have none of us proposed Creation in Genesis 'ere now? It's painful to admit that it has never occurred to me.

(1) Both Creation in Genesis and Creation according to Genesis avoid unnecessary specificity such as "myth," "account," "narrative," "Gen. 1-2," "Gen. 1-11," etc.

(2) Weaponbb7 's proposal, "According to", still is a great choice. It is not even marginally POV. It is truth neutral, as is Creation in Genesis. It simply means "As stated or indicated by." The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene is a gnostic gospel not recognized as scripture by any Christian group; yet, no one objects to the prepositional phrase "According to" in its title. Christianity still accepts the title "The Gospel According to John" and it continues to be printed in many versions of the New Testament─even though many modern scholars disclaim its authorship by John. "Creation according to Genesis" is simply a good way of saying "Creation as reported by (or in) the Book of Genesis." It carries no connotation of validity. The "reputation" rests with the word "Genesis" and whatever the reader may believe about the creation narratives. But "myth" in any form carries a highly significant connotation of falsity─disclaimers notwithstanding. We collectively have wasted so much time arguing about "myth" and who has it helped? We are not writing a refereed academic journal article. We are supposedly writing for the "average reader." No one has been able to show that "myth" to the average reader does NOT mean "purely fictitious narrative."

(3) "Creation according to Genesis" was the title of the Wiki article until late 2009. It was when creation "myth" became an even more virulent Talk page issue that a very few editors decided not only to prevent any quashing of the phrase in the opening paragraph, but to put it into flashing neon lights in the "title" so that anyone offended by the term in conjunction with Genesis would be thoroughly outraged. I can think of no more neutral a title than "Creation in Genesis" with "Creation according to Genesis" a very close second.

(4) John Walton, Wheaton graduate professor of Old Testament and Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College, says: "We sometimes label certain literature as 'myth' because we do not believe that the world works that way. The label becomes a way of holding it at arm's length so as to clarify that we do not share that belief." That's hardly NPOV.

(5) This all started with a move to demythologize the article (dropping "myth" from anywhere but perhaps a footnote). I was among that group. My impression today is that the non-mythers have made a huge compromise and backed off from that stance, agreeing with "myth" being listed as an a.k.a., but not in the title. It would be so nice if the "myth group" would conciliate and meet halfway. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How very astute and irenic, good Sir! It's a pity we don't have your words on the very great quality of Lisa's proposal. If we are to extend some kind of literary classification to the title, "story" seems exactly the right word to me. But if we can't all feel that we have something good to say, perhaps it is best we say nothing at all. CiG or CatG would be the way to go: "creation" first word as some people are more interested in creation de re, rather than Genesis de dicto.

Perhaps I shouldn't throw even more dust in the air, but I'm not even sure "creation" is the best word. More precise terminology would be: "origins", "beginnings", brshit (Hebrew), "archeology" (Greek), "genesis" (Latin). "Creation" is inherently POV imo, because the English language assumes the monotheism associated with the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh. "Creation" implies an agent: "created by ..." Indeed, this is precisely what scholars identify as the radical demythologizing of Genesis 1: how is "the Beginning" to be understood? As the unilateral direct creative purpose and action of Yahweh. That is the first sentence of Genesis. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, now my dear academicians. Let's not overly confuse the fake scholasticism with real educated wit! ;-) Granted, bereshit is the title in Hebrew and not bara, but the subject matter of origins here falls pretty well into the more specific subject of "creation" rather than simply "beginning." I've been looking for that third alternative for a full month now, and Alastair has been the first to give one that avoids all the words both sides love to hate: I LOVE "Creation in Genesis." Bravo! Poli kala, ha chaver sheli.EGMichaels (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It's pretty much been stated before; I agree that "mythology" is a POV violation. It has been brought up that "Genesis" may also have to be unambiguated, so a possible title may be "Creation according to Book of Genesis" or something like that. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 01:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Backtable's proposal is a good condensing to a potentially workable consensus. Maybe I need to take a little away from other things I've proposed, though. Reference to the whole Book of Genesis might give a little too much scope, and dilute our focus. Creation in the prologue to Genesis is my best refinement of Backtable's excellent suggestion to disambiguate the Genesis part of the title. EGM's points are also taken on board here. "Creation" simply is an unavoidable term. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose': The term creation myth is the standard (and hence neutral) term. This has been demonstrated with reliable sources (many of Oxford's reference works like their Dictionary of the Bible, Encyclopedia Britannica, and relevant experts affirming what is mainstream as opposed to cherry picking sources that simply do not use the term) ad nauseum on these talk pages, including two previous Requested Moves. In light of that, allow me to point to the archives instead of retyping all of that again, though by request I'm happy to dig them out again. Some important notes: This RM presents no new information from the past two RM's. Editors who participated in the last two RM's should be notified about this RM. Many of the support votes above wreak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lofty "It's POV" claims (presumably a violation of a neutral POV) tied to support votes without supporting reason or reliable sources should be discarded as a waste of bandwidth. Ben (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter that it's the standard academic term? Wikipedia needs to be understandable to the average reader. Everyone understands "story". You know that the average reader doesn't understand "myth" the way academics do. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia needs to be understandable to the average reader." For once I find myself supporting Lisa - will wonders never cease. PiCo (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, the problem is not so much that "the average reader" doesn't "understand" myth the way academics do, but rather that the editors promoting the use of the term do not use it in the way academics do. In the archives are reams and reams of arguments on the falsehood of Genesis. When pressed to give any example on any subject in which the term myth would NOT mean "false", Ben slapped me with an ANI for being unreasonable! Even after I gave an example of how several academics (Tolkien and Lewis) used the term in a pivotal conversation (in which Lewis converted to Christianity precisely BECAUSE it was myth), Ben et al were still not able to follow my lead. Given that the editors promoting the use of the term "myth" are not only unable to use it in an academic sense, and even accused me of being unreasonable for requesting such an academic sense, they can no longer be taken as credible promoters of said "academic" sense. I do know that Alastair is capable of using the term in this way, as is Afa Prof. But then, they are academics in real life (and don't just play it on WikiTV).EGMichaels (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious, EGM, that's a very long way of saying "Lisa is right". I'm surprised at PiCo's surprise at supporting Lisa: she's made some of the briefest and best contributions to this discussion imo. But I'm new here, forgive me. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Lisa's not "right"; Lisa is "quite right." Just wanted to add a bit there! There is an irony here: those who can use "myth" in a non prejudicial way are also able to use synonyms instead. Those who demand to use the term myth, however, are clearly doing so because they are trapped in a prejudicial use. Those who claim an academic use, then, are clearly not doing so precisely because of their adamant refusal to consider anything else. This isn't the ASV, and we aren't stuck with some rigid concordance here.EGMichaels (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the editors here appreciate your speculation into their motives. --King Öomie 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

King, take a look at that pointless ANI Ben hurled at me and see the repeated arguments that "well, it's not fact." And the "unreasonableness" Ben was accusing me of? Uh, asking for any example on any subject in which "myth" is used for something that is not false. That's not speculation on my part. It was hurled in my teeth on the ANI. You can't cram something down someone's throat and then accuse him of "speculation" when they gag on it.EGMichaels (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the sock puppet crap Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, whatever works, right? I haven't seen much of Deadtotruth after that. And to be honest, I haven't been so motivated myself.EGMichaels (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Ben Tillman-what case would you make for naming this article "Genesis creation myth" when neither of the sources you've listed above (Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible and Encyclopedia Britannica) refer to it by name as the "Genesis creation myth" or even contain the phrase? Although they do describe the story as a "creation myth" they do not refer to it by that name, and the reader entering that search term is "redirected" to articles with alternative titles. I've checked the Columbia Encyclopedia--same result: no use of the phrase "Genesis creation myth". Professor marginalia (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This article's topic does not have a name, so mainstream reference works will simply offer a description of what they're talking about. How exactly they phrase that description will obviously vary according to editorial constraints, preferences, and so on, however one thing the mainstream references do agree on is the descriptor creation myth. Our article title (description) must be consistent with other mainstream reliable sources (NPOV) up to terminology used, not word order. The current title satisfies this. As an added bonus, this article title is consistent with our other similar articles, including the main creation myth article, which is undoubtedly helpful to our readers and editorially sound. It's easy to find sources that use the exact phrase "Genesis creation myth" (I was recently reading Tree of Souls and it had no problem using that phrase), but this completely misses the point: this article's topic does not have a name. Ben (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't referred to as proper name, but it is commonly referred to by a handful of terms that are very close to a "name". The Tree of Souls probably isn't the best representative of "common usage". The book is about myth, Jewish myth, and every page in it talks about one myth after another taken from the Hebrew texts, almost none of them besides this one will have "myth" in the article here in Wikipedia. Using this book as a guide, why not Genesis flood myth instead of Noah's Ark, Myth of Enoch instead of Enoch (Biblical figure), Myths of the Messiah instead of Messiah, and the Exodus myth instead of The Exodus. (Notice again-no redirects because nobody talks this way. I will say that "Genesis creation myth", like these, is an atypical usage for most contexts--that makes it awkward to use in most sentences). Professor marginalia (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The present title is leading to confusion and instability. Incidentally, Genesis 1-2 is only one of a number of places where the Hebrew Bible deals with creation - it might be more inclusive if the title were Creation according to the Hebrew Bible. PiCo (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding PiCo's point, it's beyond the Hebrew Bible. For example, Gen 14:19; 14:22; Deut 32:6; Eccl 12:1; Isaiah 27:11, 40:28, and {{Bibleref2-nb|Isa|43:15}. Several New Testament passages also affirm the Genesis 1-2 creation narratives: Rom 1:25; Col 3:10; 1 Pet 4:19, and others. They are affirmed by Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew19:4 and Mark10:6. Not only is it a creation account, narrative, story, and anything creation myth might represent, Genesis is the beginning of the development of the doctrine of creation to the Christian faith. According to "The doctrine of creation" in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, "among all the theologies, myths and theories, Christian theology is distinctive in the form and content of its teaching. It is credal in form, and this shows that the doctrine of creation is not something self-evident or the discovery of disinterested reason, but part of the fabric of the Christian response to revelation." The Apostles' Creed, recited in thousands of Christian churches every Sunday, begins: "I believe in God the Father, maker of Heaven and Earth." That foundational theology comes from Genesis. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with PiCo's ability to both to modify his position slightly in response to other opinions, and more importantly to extend the proposal in a direction that allows key reliable sources to be recruited to help us give readers a complete picture. Like PiCo and AFA Prof01 I agree we could helpfully expand the article, without it becoming unwieldly, by incorporating scholastic analysis of the well-known Genesis passages alongside a substantial but very countable and finite set of "creation and myth" related passages in Hebrew Bible and New Testament. I lean more towards PiCo's suggestion, because extending to the New Testament means we'd be inclusive of Christians, but exclusive of Muslims and Mormons. Expanding to incorporate those movements would make this article cumbersome.

Perhaps some of the boffins here could allay any concerns the rest of us might have, by giving a list of the "creation and myth" related passages most pertinent to addressing the issues most readers would be interested in regarding the first few chapters of Genesis. I do remember once personally finding very helpful, scholastic examination of various Psalms and Job in comparison and contrast with Genesis and the surviving ANE literature.

I'm also particularly keen to hear back from editors opposed to the current proposal. I want to ensure that we have heard them clearly, that we are all aware of the sources they cite in support of their position, and that every possible attempt is made to reach a common mind, rather than a "lowest common denominator" compromise. If they're not very active, I may take up their cause, as best I can, to ensure we don't crowd out important sober criticisms in the current, apparently rather one-way direction this discussion seems to be going.

But to be very specific just now, AFA Prof01, Sir, how do you feel about keeping things to just the Hebrew Bible? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether the article discusses only references in Hebrew scriptures, or includes references from scriptures Christian, Mormon, Islamic or whatever should not affect the title. The primary subject of this article is still the account in Genesis. If there is an account of creation in the Bible that is not based on Genesis (and I am not aware of any) it might be mentioned as an aside here or have its own article if there is sufficient material for one. --agr (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.EGMichaels (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alastair and agr→I'm losing track. As far as keeping things just to the Hebrew Bible, aka Old Testament, are we saying "Creation in Hebrew Bible" (or something similar)?

I agree with agr that the primary subject of this article is still the account in Genesis─which leads to the question of how much of Genesis, but if the title does not specify quantity, then we don't need to deal with that today. I also agree that the subsequent biblical, and possibly qur'anic, creation references that are clearly based on Genesis can be handled in their own sections within the article, or in their own articles given sufficient material─also a future decision. In principle, I am amenable to most any title proposals that refer to Genesis or Hebrew, sans "myth" or any variation of that term. I also accept your concern about "creation" moving to "origin" or other more neutral synonym.

Re: New Testament. In re-thinking my initial objection and the comments that followed, I withdraw my objection to PiCo's idea. My hope is that the agreed-upon title neither demeans nor denigrates post-Genesis OT or NT references and quotes back to the Genesis accounts. Thanks! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE "Creation myth" can't be parsed out into "Creation" and "myth", electoral college doesn't equal a university where people study elections etc... Formal / informal etc... (it's all in the FAQ) Not to mention policy support is overwhelming for current title.

• WP:WTA#Myth and Legend

(relevent sections) "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception...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." Being that the usage of "Creation Myth" in articles (and their titles) about creation myths is near unanimous across different belief systems changing this convention for Judeo-Christian related articles violates the word and spirit of WP:WTA. A sample of the other articles are as follows:

Chinese creation myth

Sumerian creation myth

Ancient Egyptian creation myths

Pelasgian creation myth

Tongan creation myth

Mesoamerican creation myths

Creation Myth

Keeping in mind that this isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since WP:WTA makes a specific example for uniform usage and the usage of "Creation Myth" is clearly the dominant usage for Religious and Supernatural cosmogenical articles.

• WP:RNPOV

Usage of "Creation Myth" is clearly in line with this policy. The policy states "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." The latter three almost unanimously use the term "Creation Myth" while the first describes it as a historical fact (which we should not use for a myriad of reasons that I'm sure everyone reading this understands).

At best if any reliable sources can be found that are critical of usage of the term "Creation Myth" (not myth as a stand alone since the Electoral College can not be classified as a College any more than definitions of myth, particularly the informal/colloquial definitions can be applied to the term "Creation Myth") a section disucssing this criticism should be added to the article and the main Creation Myth article but shouldn't contradict usage of the term per "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction."

Per the section that states "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." editors of this article have, in good faith, created a FAQ, cited formal definitions, wikilinked to the main Creation myth article (which also has a detailed formal definition) and added a footnote to the the term "Creation Myth" to further clarify formal usage. All of which meet and possibly exceed the due diligence required to ensure that the formal meaning is understood.

• WP:UCN

Usage of "Creation Myth" in the title has been furthermore contested after the first article RM, another RM was started about a week later to remove the term from the title, that RM also was declined and closed (albeit with some arguement and complaint regarding it possibly being closed too soon). UCN tells us "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article", considering the vast majority of cited sources including archaelogical, scientific, historical and other scholarly/academic writings use the term "Creation Myth" as opposed to other colloquial variants the title meets UCN.

Furthermore the usage of "Creation Myth" abounds in reliable sources doing a quick google search shows that its use clearly meets the "common usage" section of UCN "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name"

UCN also tells us "Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. " alternatives such as "Story" or "account" imply value judgements regarding veracity one way or the other (Story most often being defined as fiction, account commonly being used in factual / historical context). Additionally changing the name causes a loss of precision (also discussed in UCN) since "Creation Myth" is the formally defined academic term and as such doesn't allow for any ambiguity (only one definition) whereas other alternatives do.

Some editors have brought up different variants of google tests that show "Creation Story" or some other suggestion to have more "hits" than usage of "Creation Myth" again we look to UCN for guidance and see "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." which tells us that accuracy should value accuracy above hit counts when colloquial and non-arcane formal terms are in consideration for a article name.

• WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

Using terms and phrases such as Creation account/story or Creation according to... Violate NPOV policy since they either provide a value judgement regarding the veracity of the creation myth in question or they assume that there is only one interpretation of the creation myth (in the account of "Creation according to Genesis". Being that even amongst religious circles significant interpretation and variation of Genesis exists usage of language like "according to", which implies a single interpretation invalidates alternative interpretations or opens the door for a myriad of alternative articles like "Creation according to Genesis (Mormon Interpretation)" et, al...

• WP:NOT#CENSORED

Included for reasons already stated and re-stated above

Nefariousski (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from UCN those refer to article content not title. UCN actually supports the move to a neutral title.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT move, per user agr and WP:UCN. A title such as myth is telling people what to believe, an encyclopedia needs to be neutral.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• oppose. There's nothing terribly wrong with "creation according to Genesis", but if people are going to write (and read) an encyclopedia they ought to learn what "myth" means in a scholarly context. The use of the word has nothing to do with whether the story is true or false. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Akhilleus — I don't think Wikipedia has a mission to promote "scholarly" terms. The purpose of a title is to identify an article. Within the body of the article is ample space to wax eloquent on the "scholarly" use of the word myth in relation to the subject of the article. But "myth" is not an indispensable term to the basic purpose of identifying the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: this title is neutral in that all creation myths share the same format. There is no policy-based reason for this one, or any of them, to be different. I see a lot of "I don't like it" and "it makes people uncomfortable" but no arguments based on policy. Auntie E. (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I've gone through the exercise of summarising arguments for and against. It seems to me that what is claimed above is close to the truth: we are getting to the point that there is little new information (see Ben's comment). The basis of conflict is clear and the relevant policy is cited by both sides and claimed in support of both positions: all points of view from the neutral point of view--WP:NPoV. The question, according to people who've posted so far, is: whether formal use of the word "myth" (see WP:WTA#Myth and Legend) in the title presents Genesis as "purely fictitious", according to the common usage of the word, which would certainly be PoV, or whether failure to use the word in this formal sense would introduce a PoV treatment of Genesis in comparison with the creation myths covered in other articles.

The support case boils down to insisting on WP:UCN and the oppose case boils down to insisting on WP:WTA#Myth. Personally, I think WP:WTA trumps WP:UCN (Though it should be noted that WTA does say formal senses of myth are diverse and recommends "use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally", emphasis added). Were that all there was to the matter, were I closing this discussion, I'd close it as proposal rejected.

However, there is, in fact, a lot of information that has not been presented in the discussion above. If we allow the oppose case to stand--"myth" in the title is the formal usage--then the applicability of that formal usage depends on reliable sources having a unanimous (or at least consensus) agreement on the applicability of the word "myth", in its formal sense, to Genesis or to some identifiable part of Genesis. If reliable sources diverge, we cannot use the formal sense without favouring those who apply myth to Genesis over those who don't.

So, to close this discussion, we must turn to reliable sources of information. The support case will be upheld if it can be demonstrated that at least a significant and notable minority of scholars consider Genesis not to be formally classifiable as myth. The oppose case will be upheld if it can be demonstrated that all but a WP:UNDUE minority of scholars consider Genesis to be myth in the formal sense of the word.

Because of my day job, I happen to know dozens of reliable sources that think Genesis is self-consciously demythologizing literature. And that doesn't even count Genesis literalists, who I don't spend much time reading. Even excluding that--I would think--rather notable group, there is sufficient scholarly opinion that Genesis is "anti-myth" or "polemical", that Wikipedia would look ignorant or partisan were it to title this article as though they didn't exist.

I've interacted in this thread considerably more than I intended and now I will leave it. I think editorial opinion has gone as far as it can, and nothing new will come up. It is now up to people to actually turn to reliable sources to see how they can decide the matter for us.

If anyone actually looks, they will find plenty of (non-Genesis-literalist) scholars who do not think "myth" in its formal sense is a suitable description of Genesis. Anthropologically, for example, other things, but not creation, were ritualized in ancient Israel. The formal concept of myth is absolutely important in scholastic treatment of Genesis, because, in it's day, it was the mother of all myth-busters. If you can't find the scholars who say that, you're either not looking, or you're beyond help. ;)

Best wishes to all, Alastair Haines (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Alastair WTA is about article content so how can it trump UCA which is about naming articles?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How does WTA#Article and section titles lead you to that conclusion? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_and_section_titles (the correct link, can be used in support of the present name, which is both much less common and widely perceived as non-neutral. I accept that it can be used by scholars in a neutral way, but frankly some of the die-hard supporters of the current name have worn WP:AGF very thin indeed, if you have been watching trhe page for any length of time. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mention below, I agree with you John, the case for "myth" in the title is tenuous. However, I'm just trying to be fair. We can't write off WTA as dealing with content only. Also, I'm new to this discussion, so I couldn't express an opinion regarding WP:AGF even if I wanted to. Though I do find it hard to see how a vote or bad argument, offered in bad faith, needs any other treatment than being ignored. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Though Genesis creation story or "account" are both preferable. WP:COMMONNAME trumps the "myth" policy, and the current title is in fact strikingly rare in scholarly use as an overall term, though there is no shortage of sources treating the Genesis story as a creation myth, but that is a different matter. I won't repeat the statistics on this, originally produced by D Bachmann, but they're here. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think sources that treat Genesis as a creation myth count in favour of the current title, even if they don't show up in searches on the terms "creation myth" or "Genesis creation myth". But I don't want to frustrate people I agree with any more than I already have. Thanks for this input, John. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about the title. Creation myth should be mentioned very early on, and linked, but that does not mean we need it as the title. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose but .....yech..that "note" attached to the article name needs to go! According to WP:COMMONNAME the "neutral" arguments are irrelevant. What matters is the terminology most commonly used. Using that standard, and my several very ad hoc hit counts (scoping google, google scholar, google books, the handful of online reference libraries I have access to and printed sources I've collected on the subject) to gauge common usage in reliable sources (and without the wiki padding the counts), Creation according to Genesis is the clear loser. But first is "Biblical creation story", no "myth", or Genesis creation story. Next come Genesis creation account or Biblical creation account. Both versions using "myth" fall way behind. However Creation according to Genesis is very clearly in last place. The fact that neither "Biblical creation account" or "Genesis creation account" have redirects, even while they're far more often used terms than "Genesis creation myth", is telling in itself, but having witnessed I don't know how many edit battles over pipes like [[Genesis creation myth|Genesis creation] ], I will say both the pro and anti "myth" fiends are scratching their own private itch and need to put the guns away and defer to sources. Give It a Rest already. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose for two major reasons. First and most important, there is much academic work to support the current title for the article as legitimate and reliable. Second, the proposed alteration flagrantly violates the same policy that others accuse the current title of violating: WP:TITLE. We are told to avoid "pedantic" titles and I don't see how Creation according to Genesis (or another fanciful concoction like Creation according to the Hebrew Bible) is anything but a contrived title masquerading as an encyclopedic effort. It's not a common reference to the myth, story, or whatever you want to call it. You can't argue against the current title by butchering the very Wikipedia standards you ostensibly support.UBER ^(talk) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it strange then that there are so many more academic uses of the proposed title, and other alternatives, than the current one? See the stats. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know to which stats you refer specifically, but I do know that the word myth is used overwhelmingly in academia to describe creation accounts for cultures throughout the world.UBER ^(talk) 02:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary 1

The following is a summary of comments above, irrespective who offered the comments, or how many people did. Except for comments regarding points of order (or process), comments regarding the presumed motives or attitudes or alleged behaviour of other parties have been omitted.

• Proposal: rename (and move) article
• Main issue: word "myth" in current title
• Alternative titles:

1a Creation according to Genesis, also

1b Creation in Genesis (choice of preposition);

2a Creation in prologue to Genesis, and

2b Creation in Hebrew Bible (choices of scope);

3a Genesis creation account, and

3b Genesis creation story (choices of genre designation).

• Points made to Support move:

• "myth" is not neutral (implies "purely fictitious" OED, see also WP:NPoV)
• "myth" is PoV (e.g. Julius Wellhausen thinks Gen 2 myth, Gen 1 not myth, see also WP:NPoV)
• Sense of "myth" is not ordinary English usage (OED, see also WP:UCN)
• Article history shows "myth" to have destabilized content -- verification?
• Use of "myth" in title requires explicit disambiguation in text
• Technical use of "myth" is best introduced and applied within the article
• Many scholars believe Genesis (particularly chapter 1) to be deliberately demythologizing in an ANE literary context (WP:RS and WP:NPoV)
• WP:COMMON; the current title is much less commonly found in scholarship than alternatives [2].

Point of order

• Recent change of title to include "myth" based on poor process

• Points made to Oppose move:

• Absence of word "myth" from title implies Genesis is factual (WP:NPoV)
• "myth" does not imply purely fictitious (see Myth)
• "myth" applicable in anthropology when there is collective ritualization
• "creation myth" is an inseperable collocation, or standard phrase (no one was there at the time)
• There are lots of "creation myth" articles at Wikipedia (WP:NPoV)

Points of order

• This decision has already been made
• There is no new information in this discussion -- verification?

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

edit break 1

• Comment For consistency with religious cosmology, Islamic cosmology, Hindu cosmology, Buddhist cosmology etc. the correct title for this article is Judeo-Christian cosmology. Currently we have Biblical cosmology, which is not as complete and should be merged into this article, and Christian cosmology which is a redirect to Biblical cosmology. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  Nonsense. There is so much more to this article's topic than cosmology. This article is about the creation myth found in Genesis, that is all. Ben (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support change to Biblical cosmogony or Judeo-Christian cosmogony (after corrective moves) ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support change to Biblical cosmology, and merge content into that article. Excellent catch. Ἀλήθεια 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: cool new suggestion, though it suggests a survey of all existing Genesis-Creation-Cosmology related article titles currently at Wiki wouldn't go astray in helping people consider coverage with adequate information. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment for clarification: I would be glad to assume responsibility for any searches and/or corrections or redirects should this proposal necessitate it. I very much like the idea of Cosmo...(something). In strict usage, cosmology refers to the study of the universe as it is now (or at least as it can be observed now); cosmogony refers to the study of the origins of the universe. NASA had to struggle with the terms when it conducted the Genesis Mission. (Interesting that they report no struggle with the word "Genesis" and went forth with it.) It would appear that we have some Wiki article titles that might need correction. Here is what NASA has written about it:

Cosmology is the study of the structure and changes in the present universe, while the scientific field of cosmogony is concerned with the origin of the universe. Observations about our present universe may not only allow predictions to be made about the future, but they also provide clues to events that happened long ago when...the cosmos began. So—the work of cosmologists and cosmogonists overlaps.

— http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/CosCosmolTT.pdf

• Support I don't think that "standard terms" are necessarily neutral. We say holocaust denial to indicate the widespread belief in the non-Islamic world that the Holocaust is real, and that the deniers are promoting a POV that is outside of the historical mainstream. Likewise, we speak of scientists disagreeing with the "consensus" about global warming indicating that their view is within the scientific mainstream.

• It would really help our NPOV policy if we would take pains to use neutral titles, as opposed to titles which imply support for a mainstream against a minority. Creation in the Book of Genesis is 100% neutral, in the sense that it makes no comment on whether the Book of Genesis is right or wrong.

• The whole point of neutrality is for us to step back editorially from presuming to evaluate the veracity of sources. We merely say that A said B about C. I thought this was settled way back in 2001 and 2002, but apparently there has arisen a "consensus" that we shouldn't be neutral any more lest we mislead our readers somehow into thinking that two opposing POV's have equal validity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In support of what Uncle Ed is saying above, I find at WP:AVOID: "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If "myth" were being meant in a non-judgmental way, there would be no need to retain it in favor of any other other neutral synonym (or in the case of "Creation in Genesis" no synonym at all).EGMichaels (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I support the move from Genesis creation myth to Creation according to Genesis. The title presently on the article gratuitously carries commentary. Titles should identify subjects and go no further. The phrase "creation myth" represents a characterization of Genesis that is not intrinsic to its identity. That other articles use the term "creation myth" may or may not be justified or represent the best title for those articles. Our responsibility is to get the title right for this article. We should not rely on what in some instances may represent missteps in naming other articles. The particulars of each article should be examined individually. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you want to promote biblical literalism, or protect the tender eyes of Christians, go to conservapedia. It's a creation myth not unlike all the other creation myths and we should not give it any special place of privilege by naming it in a way that falsely implies some rational basis for believing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. I don't know of anyone promoting the view you seem to oppose.EGMichaels (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The terms "creation myth" and "creation mythology" apply ex vi termini to all religious traditions. Presuming exceptionalism for the Book of Genesis will not change either common English usage or basic Wikipedia policies. Keahapana (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about exceptionalism, but about use. It is not the most common term, and in fact links in other articles require Creation according to Genesis in many places just to lure people into this article. If you have to hide behind an entirely different name just to pull readers in, why not use the functional name?EGMichaels (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these redirects, many of which I've corrected. Keahapana (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support This move was done in stealth without fair consultation with the religious WikiProjects who contribute to this article. It's obvious from the great deal of opposition to the move, that the reason for this is because the move couldn't have possibly occurred otherwise. It's time to change the title back. Masterhomer 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything stealth-like in a requested move. Given the request moves results in publication at WP:RM and any relevant projects through article alerts, a wide level of notice is normally provided.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I agree, this title change was a strange move, and that it's time to change the title back. I have been fully convinced by Alastair Haines arguments and his use of sources to hold up his position. SAE (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; those who think "myth" is pov are not familiar with the correct terminology. You might as well go argue for a move from Retraction to Changed my bullshit statement (per The Fugitive (1993 film) for those of you unfamiliar with that, as well.) Ignorance is no argument; nor is faith. This is not the Catholic Encyclopedia; nor is it Conservapedia - the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth, and the rationale for terminology is and should remain accuracy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: My primary argument would not be that myth is POV. My primary argument is that myth is extraneous. A title doesn't need added commentary. A title needs essential material. The purpose of a title is identifying the subject of the article. Adding the word "myth" to the title adds unnecessary commentary. No — no one said this was the Catholic Encyclopedia — except you. You are arguing against a straw man. Obviously there are those for whom the Book of Genesis is literally true. But they are not arguing for an indication of that in the title. The article is adequately identified by a title such as Creation according to Genesis. Yes — the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability. And there is adequate space within the body of the article for exploring all the verifiable material pertaining to Genesis as a "creation myth." Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a page about a creation myth found in an ancient text. Creation doesn't proceed "according" to a text, that's backwards. It's like calling Ragnarök something like Destruction according to Poetic Edda. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The phrase, "Creation according to Genesis," is not prescriptive; it is descriptive. The Book of Genesis describes its version of how creation came about. It is not telling us how creation should come about, or will come about. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think "The End of the World According to the Poetic Edda" is an interesting mental exercise that demonstrates Alastair's suggested title. "The End of the World in the Poetic Edda" simply shows a literary portion of that mythos, just as "Creation in Genesis" shows a literary portion of the biblical mythos. Readers, sources, editors, and article are completely free when discussing what the text says without embedding a value judgment within the title. Thanks for the example, Science! "The Poetic Edda End of the World Myth" is both unwieldy and unnecessary. It is more off balance than Thor's unfortunate mjolnir after Loki turned himself into a gnat and spoiled the forging of the thunder hammer. But "The End of the World in the Poetic Edda" is far superior. Perhaps we can make a small aside (while I'm offline for Pesach for the next two days) and explore the proper title for Ragnarok. OF COURSE "Ragnarok" is the best title, but only because it has such a snazzy name all to itself. Let's assume it didn't have such a cool name and come up with a different hypothetical title, using the same arguments we have been using about the present article. If a particular argument becomes recognizably silly (or unnecessary) for "Ragnarok" then we might see it easier. The first thing I would like everyone to notice, though, is that the title is not "Ragnarok myth". The "myth" is unnecessary.EGMichaels (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Poetic Edda eschatology would be the correct one since it incorporates the term in most common academic use. The parallel to something like Poetic Edda creation myth (or Book of Revelations eschatology for a needed article on the tales told in that particular book) is obvious to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)

• Support change. I am now convinced by the sound reasoning of Alastair Haines. It would be helpful to build out the new article on Biblical cosmogony. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Friend, I like your prefered title a lot. Cosmogony specifies which parts of the Bible we are interested in conceptually, without assuming location or literary genre, nor even the kind of cosmogony—a solo creator. Those specifics we can leave to the sources. I'm rather embarrassed you attribute any reasoning to me, personally. I've tried very hard only to present the views of others, and views from quite different perspectives at that. Reasoning is something we can all do and share, it doesn't belong to any individual. But thanks anyway. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The word myth is misleading to the average user - most are not academics. ^rossnixon 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think that Genesis creation myth is absolutely fine, as I explained in the previous section. Stop these misguided attempts to change the title.UBER ^(talk) 04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: SECOND VOTE Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is a vote on a different issue, or am I mistaken? That's the impression I was under. I cast the first vote in opposition to renaming the article Creation according to Genesis (or some other variant of that title) and the second vote in opposition to renaming the article Judeo-Christian cosmology or another similar variant.

Either way, this is not really a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. The reasoning behind my decision is more important than whether I said support, oppose, or something else.UBER ^(talk) 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to say "Comment" now.UBER ^(talk) 06:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - the name is entirely factual. It is a myth (in both senses of the word), relating to creation, contained within Genesis 1. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm pretty sure I've said why before - this is an encyclopedia, not a popular journal. The name is correct and we shouldn't be taking into account the sensibilities of some people, which is that the effort to make the change is doing. WP:MOSIslam is analogy where we don't cater to the sensibilities of another religious group. The article should also use some of the material in the Encyclopedia of creation myths By David Adams Leeming & Margaret Adams Leeming, if anyone can get hold of a copy. As for the average user, well, we explain it, that's what encylopedias do. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, for actually giving a vote to a reliable source of the PoV that Genesis contains a creation myth. Scholars of comparative literature have a voice alongside those of ancient languages, biblical studies and theology. What would help more, though, is a source that makes it clear that there is no other PoV. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Genesis is a very broad topic, and having one article on it will (and is) leading to edit warring. Better is to have a couple of articles: one focusing on the religious aspect (Book of Genesis) and one focusing on the literary/anthropological/sociological aspect of Genesis as a creation myth in the formal sense of that term. This article should be the latter. The current name seems very accurate, and although I understand that many readers may not fully appreciate the term "creation myth" that is no reason to change the article's name. --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The last title was clearly much more stable. This one is a mess. If someone wants to write on the current popular view of "Genesis 1 AS as Creation Myth" then please start your own article. This article began as a description of the creation on the world as Genesis interprets/sees it. As a source that is well over 2000 years old, I believe there is reason for analyzing it as it presents itself, rather than through forcing every reader to see it through a 21st century structure/outline/category. Leave it be, and start your own elsewhere. 76.253.104.255 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. So what you are saying is that Creation is real and only the view on it may differ. That is an irrational, unscientific, unencyclopedic, and hence unacceptable POV that has neither a place in the article nor in its title. The position that the creation tale in Genesis has whatsoever truth about the actual origin of the world is invalid, as it is completely detached from reality due to its source in faith and subsequently only in people's minds. · CUSH · 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You make absolutely no rational sense. Genesis is not my pov -- at all. Genesis is Genesis' own pov. don't shoot the messenger, I didn't write it. and don't get mad at me because some person/people 3000+ years ago did not feel the need to see or care whether or not Cush would vehemently disagree with their position or not. ha! fact is, genesis is a literary giant and it deserves to be analysed for it's opinion. Cush's views however, because they have not such wide renown, are just pov, no matter how much you throw your arms in the air and yell "irrational, unscientific, unencyclopedic, and hence unacceptable." 76.253.104.255 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as you just report what Genesis says there is no problem. But as soon as you make the claims expressed in Genesis the POV of Wikipedia you stop contributing to an encyclopedic article. · CUSH · 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you changing your vote Cush? "As long as you just report what Genesis says there is no problem." In which verse does it say it is a "myth"?

"As soon as you make the claims expressed in Genesis [you adopt its] POV". So you'd be in favour of distancing the article from its subject by use of a phrase like "according to Genesis" (i.e. not according to Wikipedia). Alastair Haines (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis IS a creation myth. Creation myth is the term for a story of the origin of the world by supernatural means. Don't tell me that the opening chapters of Genesis are anything else. Why don't you just take a look at the Creation myth article and then tell me why exactly Wikipedia should treat the Judeochristian creation myth differently from other creation myths. Would you do that? · CUSH · 13:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cush, I like you. I had a real go at you. You didn't bite back. Instead, you asked me to READ something ... much more constructive.

Impressed by that, and feeling that reading is a responsibility necessarily fulfilled before speaking I did look at Wikipedia's Creation myth article. I was a little disappointed, but hardly surprised. At least it could cite Encyclopædia Britannica for its own definition of "myth". However, Britannica has a less assertive, more precise and clear definition of "myth": "Symbolic narrative of the creation and organization of the world as understood in a particular tradition."

I'm not that interested in what Wikipedia articles say about things, because many of them depend on the opinions of Wikipedia editors rather than reliable sources. Wikipedia content is produced by a years-old ceremonial edit-war called a "proposal", at which editors cast votes rather than actually reverting one-another. Whichever side gets the most votes is deemed to have won the edit-war, unless an administrator with a different PoV jumps in to close the "discussion" first in favour of her or his own opinion. Fortunately, Wiki policy forsees this as a problem and makes it clear that Wiki itself should not count as a reliable source.

So, let's use Britannica as the basis of our original research instead. Yes! Genesis 1 most certainly is a "myth" under the definition provided by our reliable source. In fact, I particularly like Britannica's phrase "symbolic narrative". As a biblical scholar and theologian, I can confirm that this is precisely the way I understand Genesis 1. Is it now acceptable for us to retain the current title because Cush and Alastair Haines applied the Britannica definition to Genesis 1 and found a match?

Well, unfortunately it isn't, because you and I haven't published our opinion. That's not too much of a problem, because other people have published precisely the same opinion. But, the main problem is that party-poopers like biblical scholarship's own "Darwin", Julius Wellhausen have published views that distinguish Genesis 1 from myth. Partly that's because myth is being used in a slightly different way to the Britannica definition. In fact, myth is a bit of a slippery term. There's more to the story of what myth means in technical usage than Britannica can adequately summarise in a single sentence. If that were not so, why bother writing the rest of the Britannica article? Britannica provides a general all-purpose definition, trusting readers to exercise judgment in how rigidly they apply it. They are interested in giving a good description of the concept of myth, not in giving a good description of the content of Genesis.

How good is myth as a description of Genesis? We need Genesis experts familiar with myth, just as much as we need myth experts familiar with Genesis. The former actually carry more weight, because this is an article about Genesis, not about myth. Indeed myth is very much a part of understanding Genesis, according to Genesis experts, but it is a problematic term to use to describe Genesis.

To conclude. Alastair Haines agrees with Cush that Genesis is a myth (in Britannica's sense). However, because several scholars (whom I've read and some of whom I've cited), who know much more than me, see Genesis as "sober reflection [as opposed to] myth", "anti-mythological", "demythologizing" and "polemical", I can only conclude that they would not vote in support of the current article title, which means the current title reflects only one strand within scholastic description of Genesis. It is a PoV. So, unless this is to be a PoV fork article, it should not retain the current title. As mere editors, I don't think we get sufferage, so any "vote" I cast here is merely a proxy for those to whom WP:RS actually limits sufferage. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But does your Julius Wellhausen (whom you so inadequately call "biblical scholarship's own Darwin", which is creationist-speak) give the reasoning why Genesis is not a creation myth like all the others? How is Genesis symbolic? A symbol for what? And how can a text that so obviously recycles other creation myths not be a creation myth itself? You still fail to convey the actual arguments why the tale in the opening chapters of Genesis is not a creation myth. What exactly is there more to the story that distinguishes it from other creation myths? It's a deity performing incantation. How is that special among the plethora of stories about the deeds of gods? · CUSH · 16:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you're talking Cush! Questions, questions, questions! Great questions! Questions addressed by thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of sources. Questions that have different answers and different rationales in different sources.

This is not WikiAnswers, though. It is an encyclopedia documenting questions asked by scholars and their analyses of the issues. You're giving us an outline of the sub-topics we need to cover. Superb!

But, the best of your questions, imo, is "how can a text that so obviously recycles other creation myths not be a creation myth itself?"

The key words in that question are "obviously" and "recycles". Is recycling obvious to an untrained eye? Or do we need sources? Do they all agree?

Alastair is obviously recycling Cush's words. How can Alastairs obvious recycling possibly be saying anything other than what Cush has already said?

Alastair Haines (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The recycling might not be obvious to the untrained eye, but then the person with the untrained eye is not supposed to participate overmuch in an encyclopedia article, right? We want experts to be our sources. But how far does expertism go when it comes to the mythical and ultimately the supernatural? What experts and reliable sources are there for the supernatural? Really hundreds of thousands? I suppose we both know the answer to that.

And as for the recycling itself, we both know that the Bible extensively recycles tales that are classified as myth in this encyclopedia and in academia. So it is only logical thet the biblical tale is itself myth, or do you assume that myth suddenly turns to something else, namely an accurate historical account, when it is told by the biblical authors?

What it comes down to, is still the question whether Biblical Creation is real. That is the only criterion that would set the Judeochristian idea of the world's origin apart from other ideas of the world's origin. · CUSH · 16:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2001 the Conservative Movement of Judaism released a commentary stating as follows:

The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling.

So from that significant perspective, Genesis is not recycled from Gilgamesh, but parts of both go back to an original tradition. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, Til. This is like saying that humans are descended from chimpanzees. They are not. Both are descended from a common ancestor.EGMichaels (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Have I said anywhere that Genesis were some kind of textual copy of Gilgamesh (to use the example) ? I have not said that nor even hinted at. I say that the way that YHWH is described creating the world in the opening of Genesis bears resemblance to much older traditions that the authors of Genesis have certainly read of, namely Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths. I am not so stupid as to suggest any verbatim copying, rather a copying of concepts and general stories. The Flood story is another example. Of course the details are different, but the idea is the same (and even parts of the overall story).· CUSH · 17:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to understand that Genesis is its own species here. If we insist on too close a copying from Babylon we may miss parallels to other traditions, such as Egyptian.EGMichaels (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of the Genesis stuff derives from Mesopotamian traditions. Most important of all, the biblical characters until and including Abraham are all Mesopotamian. Also, the Genesis text was assembled during and after the Babylonian Captivity and was subsequently prefixed to the Exodus material.

In the Ancient Middle East a constant and extensive exchange and mingling of ideas, beliefs, rituals was going on, so there was no cultural or religious isolation as many people erroneously assume today. The root is in fact Sumerian, even Egyptian tradition derive from that source. · CUSH · 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Although Mesopotamian accounts are the oldest preserved in writing, that does not necessarily give them precedence. Campbell, for instance, argues for an Egyptian primacy for most oriental mythology. I have not yet read his volume, however, on occidental mythology. I think it's important that we editors don't take our pre-existing knowledge for granted. We are not the ultimate sources here, and need to do research in which we learn as we go, rather than merely plop down whatever we can cherry pick from our own backgrounds. In other words, Wenham and Campbell both give Egypt more credit than you do, and I suspect they may be better sources than either you or I.EGMichaels (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush, I'm not sure you're using "myth" in the way that Alastair or myself are using it. "Myth" is a literary desgination as much as anything else, involving symbolism. Santa Claus is a "true myth" (as a metaphor for parents). Those are real presents being left under the tree. While "Santa Claus isn't real" is a great sandbox conversation, after a certain point people start to see that it isn't a lie, and they grow up to tell their own children the same myth. There are three approaches to myth, then: 1) believing it as literal, 2) not believing it as literal, and 3) believing it as metaphor. We need to move beyond 1 and 2 and get to more interesting things.EGMichaels (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, save us your symbolism talk. Myth is just a story involving the supernatural or the mystical, there is no requirement of any symbolism. Fables include heavy symbolism and they are not necessarily myths. If a deity says "let there be light", what kind of symbolism is there included?

And how the heck is Santa Claus a metaphor for parents? You keep throwing around words like allegory, symbol, metaphor, and I am really not sure whether you are clear what these words in fact mean. · CUSH · 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Apollo doesn't literally drive chariots through the sky, but the sun does move. Santa doesn't literally leave presents under the tree, but there are presents there.EGMichaels (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? · CUSH · 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus.EGMichaels (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move, the title is accurate and neutral and in line with academic sources. We already know that some people think Genesis is literally true, that is their issue not ours. They can find a title more to their liking at Conservapedia. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I think you have it backwards. Those promoting the myth title do so because they believe the text to not be literally true, while refusing to accept the academic use of the term "myth" as a "symbolic narrative." Had my "symbolic literary structure" phrase been affirmatively promoted by the "myth" side in the Words to Avoid guide, I would have easily sided with the "myth" side of the discussion.

The problem, then, is that the "myth" side is INSISTING in a "literal" take on the narrative -- a take neither accepted by the "non-myth" editors nor by academic sources. Ironically, it is the "non-myth" side that is open to academic use and not the "myth" side.EGMichaels (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy the current title is not in line with academic conventions at all. This text is most certainly a myth, and it is conventional to consider it a creation myth, but it is not conventional to use the phrasing that currently makes up this title when referring to this narrative. It does happen, to be sure, but other options are much more common. Those who keep on claiming this phrasing is the academic norm, despite being presented with evidence to the contrary appear to have little knowledge of what is "in line with academic sources". I'm sure there are patrons of Convservapedia and other biblical literalists who would be happier to see creation myth taken out of the title, but what the heck does that have to do with this? This sounds like guilt by association. "If you don't agree with my view of this you must be one of them ... one of those 'others' who by definition are incapable of contributing neutrally to an encyclopedia." I think its time for some people here to realize that there are a lot of good faith efforts going into this discussion on both sides of the aisle as well as a slew of people who really don't seem to be on either side of the proverbial aisle in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary 2

Many of the points noted in the first summary were supported by editors posting both in support of or opposition to reverting the current article title to the prior one. Only new (or substantially rephrased) points are included in this second list. It is noted that the 7 day period mentioned in the proposal header expired some time ago. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal: rename article
• Main issue: word myth" in current title
• Main new alternative titles:

Genesis Cosmology (universal world-view)

Genesis Cosmogony (theory of universal origin)

• Two proposals for a content (PoV?) fork: e.g. Genesis 1 as creation myth

• New points made to Support move:

• cosmology and cosmogony reflect technical descriptive usage without the ambiguity of technical usages of myth
• cosmology and cosmogony are neutral with regard to the truth-value of the theories they describe
• cosmology and cosmogony are attested in the titles of Wikipedia articles, similar or related to the current one
• Note: one editor offered to do the work necessary to generalize this terminology to article titles deemed appropriate

New point of order

• clearly no consensus for current title, should revert to last title

• New points made to Oppose move:

• removing "myth" from the title advocates the biblical literalist PoV and censors a PoV offensive to Christians[3]
• religious literature purporting to address universal origins is everywhere mythological and should be noted as such without exceptions[4]
• ignorance of the meaning of myth is no defense under the law of "Wikipedia is not censored"[5]
• "Creation according to Genesis" means "Creation proceded according to the description in Genesis"[6]
• Genesis has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Creation Myths[7]

Alastair Haines (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you our great summarizer now? You still fail to explain why and how the Judeochristian creation myth is different of should be treated differently from other creation myths. · CUSH · 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the summary, feel free to change it. I provided it as a service, not as a statement of my own opinion, nor as any claim to authority. Only reliable sources have authority at Wikipedia. Though there are certainly plenty of urban myths here to the contrary of that.

Regarding why this topic might need different treatment, there are sources quoted on this talk page that answer your question, Cush. Though I agree with you, those arguing for a change of title have not addressed that objection explicitly. I can't know for certain, but that might be because they don't see it as a particularly strong objection. Are all religions the same, in all aspects? Are they in this one? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Observation by Jimbo (Transplant From Jimbo's Talk Page)

I would say it is clear that you do not understand neutrality - and if there is anything on that page which creates this misunderstanding, it needs to be fixed. Neutrality means that Wikipedia should not take a stand on any controversial issue - it is absolutely the case that we should factor in whether or not people would be offended when working on an article title when that offense stems from the title making a controversial assertion with which they do not agree. The goal is not to "not offend people" but rather to ensure that Wikipedia is not taking a stand. Give the facts in the body of the article, give them in a manner that everyone can agree with, and name the article accordingly. "Genesis creation myth" is blatantly and obviously not neutral on the key question of whether or not this story is true. We should not, equally, choose a title which suggests that the story is true, for example "Creation" without a qualifier would be a bad title for this article. Or How God Created The World - very bad. But "Creation according to Genesis" or similar does the correct thing - it avoids drawing any conclusion about that bit. The key here is that there have been produced, as far as I have seen, no arguments against that title that have been persuasive at all.--User:Jimbo Wales

Clearly I respect the opinion of our founder, but I'm also very skeptical about what he's saying here. For example, Wikipedia takes decisive and brutally honest stances on "controversial" issues such as Evolution and Global warming, which are both among our best articles. We don't say "Climate change" or some other such hogwash that politicians have been recently publicizing in lieu of Global warming. We call it like it is: the Earth is warming, so the article is called Global warming. The current title does not take a stand on the issue; its title and its content reflects the information found in reputable sources. No one is trying to be offensive here, and it's really difficult to predict how any given person is going to react to any random Wikipedia article. People take offense at very unexpected things sometimes. Our job is not to worry about who we might "offend," but rather to worry about accurately presenting reputable sources. This policy gets amended a little bit when we're dealing with living persons, but even then we can report "controversial" information if it's found in reputable sources. I just fundamentally disagree with the rationale of Mr. Wales.

But here's what's also funny: even if you agree with Mr. Wales, the argument he presents appears to advocate removing the word myth from any and all articles that currently contain it. If, in his opinion (and not, by the way, in the opinion of academia), the word myth could somehow refer to the falsehood or veracity of the account, then all those other articles also violate WP:NPOV and need to be retitled. Like I said, I don't agree with his reasoning, but I'm trying to flesh out the implications of his ideas, which reach far beyond this article.UBER ^(talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Please explain why you object to Genesis creation myth, but not to Chinese creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths. In what way is the Judeochristian idea of the world's origin less a creation myth than the others?

As has been discussed here at great length before "Creation according to Genesis" is not neutral language. "Creation according to A", "Creation according to B", "Creation according to Genesis" implies that Creation is real and only its description varies. · CUSH · 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to side with Jim here. Genesis 1-2 contains a creation myth/sacred history/allegory/foundational religious document/metaphor/a dozen other things you can call it. Mythologists will argue that it borrows from Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian sources, while biblical commentators will often as not argue it is an anti-mythological polemic. While the subject of Genesis as myth and in relation to myth certainly must be addressed, the title should be worded in a neutral manner. I'd add that the title should be worded in an accessible manner. The "Genesis creation myth" title has spawned at least a half dozen other forwarding titles because no one would think of looking for the subject under that title. While I do regard it as a creation myth, it would never occur to me to look for the cosmogony of a living religion under a title normally used for an extinct religion. If you have a title so bad that you need a bunch of forwarding titles to get you there, why not just use one of those forwarding titles?EGMichaels (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cush -- as far as I can tell those are all extinct religions. The terms "myth" and "religion" are often used to differentiate between dead and living belief systems. It's not really a value judgment so much as a historical designation. It's not really neutral to call a living religion a myth because there is always someone to argue about it, but all the proponents of a dead religion are, well, dead.EGMichaels (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there are always some people who still adhere to "extinct" beliefs. Second, it is a fallacy to assume that present beliefs are somehow less mythical than past beliefs. And it is a pretty arrogant self-righteous position also. Sumerian or Egyptian religion were certainly more beautiful than the modern one-dimensional abrahamic ideology. And to call King Solomon less mythical than, say, King Arthur is simply ridiculous. · CUSH · 11:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're connecting on the term "neutral." To be, er, bland, "neutral" is that place you and I aren't arguing before we even begin an investigation of a topic.EGMichaels (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

To call past beliefs myth while you imply your current belief is something else, is not neutral whatsoever. Any wording that sets one religion over another is not neutral, no matter how extinct you think a religion is. If you take the position that YHWH has a different reality to it than, say, the Greek pantheon, you leave the neutral position. · CUSH · 11:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep acting like I'm personalizing this in some way. I'm not. Islam is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Mormonism is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. I most certainly do NOT believe ALL of these religions; I merely recognize that people do. At one time the Norse beliefs were a religion. While one could argue that all religions are mythologies, not all mythologies are religions (see Religion#Myth). Tolkien's mythology is not a religion because no one believes it. Therefore, one could see a "religion" as a specific subset of "mythology" in which adherents still exist.EGMichaels (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but once the religions that have adherents today were contemporary to religions that have in the meantime fallen out of popularity. A religion is a concept and as such is timeless. Also, I see no structural difference between current religions and past ones, especially since current religions derive from past ones. Judaism is so pumped full with Zoroastrianism and Christianity with Mithraism it is just dishonest to draw any dividing line as if there were a substantial difference between adherence to myth and religion. Religion is just the ritualized adherence to the mythical. Time is irrelevant when it comes to the alleged supernatural. · CUSH · 12:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is made in what is a significant viewpoint nowadays. The argument of ancient religions being followed today seems out-to-lunch. I've seen absolutely no evidence of any significant population of followers of ancient pagan beliefs, who take the Greek myths seriously today, or who specifically object to their being agreed upon as "myths" by everyone. (If there is, show it) That's why currently-held widespread and significant POVs are treated so different from extinct ones, and that's a complete red herring analogy. On the contrary, the one neo-pagan group that has even a barely noticeable size, Asatru, has specifically issued statements that they do consider the Norse myths to be myths, and do not take them as true, nor object to their being called myths. So we can say that there is no demonstrable POV objecting to the Norse sagas being treated as myths; but the same cannot be said for the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, or the Sutras which are all currently widespread. So I have to agree with the other posters that Jimbo's right on this one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the founder of Wikipedia, furthermore I move that we change the article back to its original title "Creation According to Genesis" on April 5 since there have been no persuasive arguments presented for the current objectionable title. Deadtotruth (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This new RM and the archives are full of persuasive arguments: any reason attached to an oppose vote was obviously persuasive to the person giving it. Ben (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguments based on false information and invalid logic typically have pursuaded not only the person who offers them, but frequently others as well. But so what? A polite critic might not come right out and say "that's false and illogical," but rather "that hasn't pursuaded me and won't pursuade others." I fail to see how the personal convictions of editors at Wiki are relevant to establishing content, or resolving conflict. Indeed, that's been argued by the oppose voters several times: we don't make decisions based on protecting people's feelings. The supporters of the move have agreed with that point. We must decide whether to move or not to move on the basis of reliable sources, policy and reason, whether people feel pursuaded the move is right or wrong is not really relevant to the decision. It is nice if everyone feels pursuaded it's right, but the only way to maximise those good vibes is to have sound sense which produces con-sensus. Sometimes people refuse to accept reason, or simply can't follow it. Those difficulties should and must be dealt with personally, but cannot be allowed to influence decision making.

That said, it's really nice to hear you caring about people's feelings, Ben, and I for one am right behind you in that. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is so much to read on this talkpage, that I am only now catching up with the discussion this morning below, when Cush suggested the compromise title "Biblical Creation", and several editors agreed that it is fitting. So now let me add my 2 cents to everyone else who said that this is a surprisingly good title. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben, it should go without saying that 99% of the comments here were actually believed by the person making them -- but conviction is not the same as persuasion. I could be convinced that Jesus is God or that Jesus is not God, but a simple statement either way would not be persuasive.

Further, to be persuasive one must be on point. Most of the arguments I've seen in favor of the myth title fall into several unpersuasive categories:

• It IS myth. Sure it is, but that isn't a reason to have it in the title.
• Every scholar says it's a myth. First, NOT every scholar says it is a myth. And second, the veracity of it as "myth" is not an argument to have it in the title (see first bullet).
• Everyone opposing the myth title must be a raving literalist. As pointed out in the "Evolutionists only, please" thread, the vast majority of those opposing the current title accept the status of the passage as myth and accept the fact of evolution. The argument is unpersuasive because the ad hominem is misdirected.

While I share your conviction and assumptions, I have not found your arguments regarding the title to be persuasive. Neither, apparently, has Jimbo. Can we all agree that neither "myth" nor "fact" in the title is seen to be "neutral" by all parties? And can we at least agree to EXPLORE a third alternative that would actually be neutral?

My own choice of title would be something that a normal rational speaker of English would think to search for if he were trying to find the subject we are discussing. I'd rather have a title I didn't like that people could FIND than a perfectly esoteric one no one would look for. Charles Schulz positively LOATHED the title "Peanuts", but that was the only title he could get a contract for, and the rest is history.EGMichaels (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to echo Til's admiration for Cush's "biblical creation." It's a fine title.EGMichaels (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

edit break 2

• Oppose. The proposed title implies that creation happened and that Genesis documents it. This falls short in the NPOV department. "Genesis creation myth" is a correct, common, scholarly and neutral term for this creation myth. I might have not bothered to oppose "Genesis creation story", though I think that too is an inferior title. And at the moment, it would similarly be special treatment for this particular creation myth (systemic bias). Also, creating requested moves until getting the "right" result is ill-advised and disruptive if the beating of a dead horse continues aggressively enough. The recent appeal to Jimbo was quite timely. The RM backlog certainly does not need to be expanded with the same proposals again and again. Prolog (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Sometimes I think I am at a Discovery Institute website... · CUSH · 11:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps we need a new proposal, and an extension of time. We want a stable title and perhaps neither the current title nor the previous one will provide that. Perhaps we need to settle precisely what scope of content is expected first, then find a title for that.

Perhaps that content genuinely needs two articles: 1. "the demonstrable falsity of the picture of the physical aspects of the early universe in Genesis 1 if taken literally" (which conservative theists like myself will support, with the exception of literalist creationists, who should still be documented as a notable PoV against); and 2. "the metaphysical/theological implications of the Genesis 1 text as understood in the history of interpretation". I'm personally interested in (2), and find it rather a nuisance that people want to hijack a very important, interesting, beautiful and complex set of issues in an ongoing discussion among biblical scholars, to address the very mundane matter of (1) instead. No doubt others are just as irritated to find convoluted discussions of Hebrew grammar and debates about metaphysical nonsense, when what really matters is people being clear that Genesis 1 is most unsuited to being a science text book for school students.

Perhaps (1) is already covered in other articles? Would it hurt for it to have its own, though?

(2) still needs to work out its own scope questions: whole Bible or just Genesis 1, Genesis 1-2, Genesis 1-4? It probably needs to be bigger than Gen 1, 'cause that has its own article already.

Please note carefully, I am proposing a content fork, not a PoV fork. I suspect a good deal of recent friction is due to mistaking content differences for PoV differences. Sort that out and we just might find stability is the result.

I don't know what the appropriate process is to "roll over" this discussion into a new proposal or proposals like those I've suggested. And I'm not sure whether it's necessary. I'd particularly like to hear back from Weapon on this. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur on the questions of scope, and I share your interest in item 2 and weariness of item 1. I feel like I'm attempting to engage in a discussion of the thematic structure of "The Godfather" only to keep hearing "but Al Pacino isn't REALLY a criminal in real life!!!" Oy! Yes, it's myth, great -- but that doesn't END the question; rather, it STARTS the question. "Myth" is a symbolic literary structure that makes a "tale" something meaningful. I'd like to explore what makes this a "myth" rather than a mere "tale." But those who use "myth" as some kind of slap are bogging down the rest of us who are actually INTERESTED in myth.EGMichaels (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As an outsider I read this on Jimbo Wales' web page, and initially the move sounded like a fair idea - but User:Nefariousski's logic changed my mind. We can't have Chinese creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths, Creation Myth, Uranus (mythology)#Creation myth, Earth-maker myth, Baluba mythology#Creation myth of Kabezya-Mpungu but Creation according to Genesis. It makes Wikipedia sound like it is only sensitive to the complaints of Americans and maybe some Europeans (which is true, but no need to make things worse).

I should add that if the current name is retained, it would be desirable to quickly qualify the term by explaining what a myth and a creation myth is in the non-pejorative sense, providing a Wikilink to an article about other such myths e.g. creation myth.

On the other hand, if a move is insisted upon, then the new name should be Genesis account of Creation rather than Creation according to Genesis for reasons of NPOV discussed, and because it is probably a more standard phrase. Note that the phrase "Biblical account of [creation]" is already used in the first sentence, which I assume has also been discussed in some depth. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The thought is appreciated, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. If you give reasons to believe the other page titles are legitimate the analogy might be useful, but then the same arguments might as well be applied directly to this article, so mention of the others would again be superfluous. You know?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this blatant novel synthesis. What kind of conceit is this? Sitting down to decide what esoteric term we can use that will be least offensive to the fundamentalists? Away with you. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! Can you offer anything constructive, Guy? In case you missed the point here, we're looking for anything to replace the blatant novel synthesis of the current title--an esoteric term designed to offend literalists of one kind, while leaving another complacent in their naivety. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy, the only people here who are taking Genesis literalistically are those who demand no alternative to "myth" in the title. In short, they are trying to disabuse the non-myth advocates of a belief they do not hold. It's like that old question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The question is unanswerable by someone who never beat his wife to begin with. I've repeatedly (as have others) been forced to defend my own acceptance of evolutionary theory, as well as my own acceptance that Genesis does indeed contain a "creation myth." And yet I see this as a poor choice of title for several reasons:

1. It is not being used in an academic way as a "symbolic narrative." Your own post here demonstrates this, because you keep leveling the question on whether or not Genesis is literally true, when as far as I can tell almost no one on any side of this discussion believes Genesis is literally true. In fact, you are insisting on a literal interpretation that is not shared by the consensus of those on the "non-myth" side of the discussion.
2. The academic use as a "symbolic narrative" was in fact not supported in the Words to Avoid guidelines by the "myth" advocates, demonstrating that they were not only failing to use the term "myth" in an academic way, but were actively opposed to doing so.
3. The academic descriptions of this narrative use a number of terms as alternatives to "myth." The "myth" advocates are adamantly refusing to even consider other terms used in academic writings. And in fact it has been demonstrated a number of times that "myth" is in a distinct minority of academic labels for this narrative.

Please note that when I first came to this page I voted in favor of the title "Genesis creation myth." It was only after finding that those advocating "myth" were doing so in a non-academic way that I changed my position to oppose the current title. We editors on Wikipedia are required to edit in a NPOV manner, using notable and reliable sources. Those notable and reliable sources offer a number of alternatives to the term "myth" that are in fact more commonly used in those sources than the term "myth" -- and those using the term "myth" are doing so with an academic meaning adamantly opposed by the "myth" editors here. We at Wikipedia cannot do this. If you wish to write a blog or a book, go ahead, but at Wikipedia we have guidelines to follow.EGMichaels (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax EGM. We are not voting here. Placing a signature next to the word Support or Oppose only says "I can't think of anything more to add to the current discussion, all that needs to be said has been said, as far as I'm concerned." Guy has in fact contributed, he's said he doesn't think he can do better than the arguments already put forward for the phrase "creation myth". He's not interested that Julius Wellhausen thinks Genesis 2 is myth but Genesis 1 is not, nor that Gerhard von Rad thinks Genesis 1 is anti-mythological. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I'll be forced to relax anyway since I'll be involved with real life for the next few weeks. Thanks for the reminder!EGMichaels (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Biblical Creation"

I hereby suggest to change the title of this article to "Biblical Creation". In this the scope and context of the article is conveyed, while controversial terms as "myth", "story", "account" are avoided. Also, with this title the article can be found easily in a visitor's search. · CUSH · 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support EGMichaels (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support i never thought it would be Cush who would come up with the the most fitting compromise Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Biblical creation is a term that would not be limited to Genesis since Colossians, John, etc. have passages that address creation. I believe that this would dramatically increase the scope of the article. I would not opppose the "biblical creation" title if the group wants to make that change.Deadtotruth (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of the creation stuff is expressed in Genesis, the other paasages are negligible. The Judeochristian creation myth is the incantation by YHWH in the six days described in Genesis. · CUSH · 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support as one of many good possible titles. This one is particularly suitable to possibly end up being a parent article to more specific topics, which might be very much less contentious, if we end up doing the hard work sourcing the top-level conceptual focus this proposed title zeros in on. Bravo Cush! Alastair Haines (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As if a third RM wasn't bad enough, this RM is now in its own third cycle: the original by Weaponbb7 (who now appears to have abandoned it), a cosmogony/cosmology cycle and now this one. This endless cycle of WP:IDONTLIKEIT needs to stop. This article's topic is centred on Genesis, in particular the creation myth contained within, not the Bible as a whole where there is much further discussion of creation. If you feel this project could support an article with broader scope then by all means go and create it (where a suitable article title can also be discussed), but there is more than enough material on the Genesis creation myth to support an article on just the Genesis creation myth and I as a reader of this encyclopedia would be interested in an article on the Genesis creation myth. A subsection of the new article will obviously discuss the Genesis creation myth and point here for further discussion and this article should point back to the new broader article. I look forward to seeing the new article unfold, but for now the title of this article is fine as is and I oppose any change for the sake of the removal of the obviously relevant and suitable term creation myth. Ben (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not know if this is the best title but it is certainly better than the current one. If it means helping you all get over this mess then I would also support it. There are two major reasons why the current title is a poor choice and these reasons appear to be misunderstood by many of the people commenting here.

1) "Genesis creation myth" is NOT a commonly used phrase in scholarship at all. If you asked scholars from a variety of relevant fields and sub-disciplines whether or not this section of Genesis is a "creation myth" there would be widespread agreement that it is a creation myth. However, you'd be hard pressed to find these scholars actually referring to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth." Instead you would find a wide variety of other options the most common utilizing terms like "story," "account", or "narrative" instead of "creation myth" -- again despite the fact that these scholars would agree that it is an example of a creation myth. If we were really following the scholarly view the body of the article would be clear about the notion that this is a creation myth, which it is already, but the awkward title would be gone.

2) "Creation myth" is NOT conventionally utilized in the title of an article of this type across Wikipedia. I tried starting a discussion of the actual conventions below but it went dead in the water when I asked for contradictory examples from someone who did not agree with my points. A very small minority of articles tagged with the "creation myth" category use the term in their titles, even though they make it clear right away what their subject matter is. If this article had a different title (and possibly different a scope) it might conventionally be named something like Ancient Near Eastern creation myths, and that would follow the convention. However, naming a narrative and then utilizing "creation myth" is not conventional. Anybody with two minutes on their hands can see this for themselves. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2) Actually, "Creation myth" IS conventionally utilized in the title of an article of this type across Wikipedia. · CUSH · 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is used where appropriate, I think in 5 other cases - see Category:Creation myths. But most articles in this category have other types of name, as individually appropriate, which is correct. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. Please see the thread below titled "Looking past the obvious". It is used only in a handful of cases in the following formula -- "name of civilization" + "creation myth". When discussing specific narratives with other names it is never or almost never utilized. I provided examples below and have asked for counter examples but I don't see any. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support as better than current title. "Genesis creation story" or "account" are better still. I agree with Griswaldo's comments, and see mine at various points above. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support SAE (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Present title is neutral, factual and precise. Please stop trying to change this by proposing titles that are less factual and less precise. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course the present title is neutral, factual, and precise, but unfortunately the majority of editors here are unable or unwilling to see beyond their religiosity, and they insisted that exceptions be made for their belief system. So I came up with a compromise. · CUSH · 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

...which, we hope, will also satisfy the zealots from the Atheism project who have previously insisted on this title, which is so very rarely found in scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That is only because most scholarship is not religiously neutral or objective. After all, admitting that one's religion is the same stuff as every other religion means to destroy the very basis of ones faith. There is no intellectual honesty to be expected from believers. How could they possibly say that YHWH is in the same category of world views as Krishna, Horus, Odin, Zeus, and whatnot without admitting that their own personal adherence is pointless? Religious people are in a COI when it comes to determining reality or even in comparing their own faith to others. · CUSH · 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the new proposed title is inadequate, since there is more to creation in the Bible than just Genesis 1. The "rarely found in scholarship" is a red herring. If scholars refer to the content of Genesis as "creation myth", then "Genesis creation myth" is a legitimate title. There are plenty of what look to be reasonably respectable works in Google searches for the phrase (i.e. they're not word lists or link spam), and there are similar results using the formulations "creation myth of Genesis" or "creation my found in Genesis", etc. That a certain group of people choose not to use the words is precisely that order is neither here nor there, since in this case it does not result in a significant change in meaning. This compromise is a poor solution in search of a problem. Much of the points made in favour of a title change boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why most editors reject "creation myth" as part of the title is their own conviction. That is why they ask for an exception that their belief system be treated differently from all the others. Since creationism and similar ideologies are on the rise it is not surprising that the war over truth has finally come to Wikipedia, after it has been going on in school boards and courts for decades now. Just look to YouTube, which has become the battleground for this in the internet. · CUSH · 07:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So, why are you pandering to them? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a red herring -- though I think the term "rarely" may be a tad too strong. I found something rather informative in the archives -- Talk:Genesis_creation_myth/Archive_7#WP:UCN. I'll copy the links to Google books, scholar, etc. here with an addition:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"Biblical creation" has by far the most hits in Google scholar but I'm not entirely sure how that parses in in terms of actually referring to the content of this article. After that "story", is the clear winner with "account" running a close second and "myth" lagging rather far behind. Of course there are scholars that use the term myth in relation to this story. Doing so may also be more normative in select contexts, like comparative religion, but those contexts are not producing a majority of the work related to these passages. The red herring comes from the false assumption that scholars tend to refer to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth" because they agree with the categorization. I think there is another false general assumption going around that the term "myth" has some monolithic, agreed upon and neutral definition in scholarship when the real picture is not that rosy. Using the term when referring to Genesis, to Hindu narratives, to native American stories, or creation myths from any other corner of the world may carry baggage with it -- baggage that can range from the purely definitional to the ideological (see Bruce Lincoln's Theorizing Myth for instance). Of course the same could be said about terms like "religion", "ritual", "culture", etc. and the point isn't that debates and disagreements render these terms useless, but at the same time acting like these debates don't exist is naive at best. The argument from authority that keeps cropping up here is possibly the reddest of herrings.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm recalling another misleading argument I've read on these pages. There are those who claim that this isn't about the term "myth" but about some more specialized term called "creation myth". Sure it is ... but that specialized term is only specialized because it describes a specific category of myth. In other words the "myth" in creation myth is 100% synonymous with "myth" more generally. This is a non-argument, but I remembered reading it because I realize that I've brought up issues involving "myth" generally and it would be nice to forgo the "this isn't about myth but about 'creation myth' rebuttal".Griswaldo (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The use or otherwise of the exact phrase "Genesis creation myth" absolutely is a red herring. By that sort of argument, we shouldn't use titles such as Georgia (country) because nobody refers to it as "Georgia (country)" with the parentheses. It's already been pointed out that "Biblical Creation" is inadequate, since there are multiple accounts of various aspects of "creation" in the Bible. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That comparison is rather far from being spot on I'm afraid. 1) The current title is not "Genesis (creation myth)" and 2) the creation narrative in Genesis is part of the larger text and not one of several referents of a homonym that need to be differentiated with parenthetical clarifications. More importantly the scholarship issue has been brought up to suggest other other exacting phrases that are preferred by scholars over the current one. I'm sorry but no rationale is provided for why we should go with less common and more awkward language here. Outside of common and specialist use the logical argument is also lacking. All myths are by definition narratives (or stories). Logically it makes complete sense to call any myth a narrative. The question becomes whether or not it is preferable to get a bit more specific. Once again I wonder why we would do so when scholars chose not to most often. It would be nice to have the (pseudo)empirical evidence of scholarly usage actually dealt with head on instead of dismissed as a red herring, which strikes me as pure evasion.Griswaldo (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo, you make some excellent points of logic that are hjard to refute. One thing, when you say "Doing so [ie defining scripture as myth] may also be more normative in select contexts, like comparative religion" - I'm not so sure Comparative religion is right either. The first thing I learned in University Comp Religion class (in the 80's, but still true today) is that the modern landscape of world religion is predominantly divided into major quadrants represented by the Bible, Quran, Vedas, and Sutras (and of course many other doctrines outside these). The second thing we learned was not to refer to any of these as "myths" or "mythology" since it was not neutral and offensive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Was it truly a comparative religion class or a survey class of a group of religions? Either way I cannot speak to what your professor told you specifically about this and there are concurrent differences in opinion, and also fads that come and go. Note as well that I think of this as "more" normative in a field like comparative religion than lets say Biblical studies. Also please understand that I am neither a comparative religionist nor a Biblical scholar, though I think there are some folks that hang around here who have a more intimate knowledge of those fields, and they may well tell you I'm not entirely correct. However it is uncontroversial to state the modern study of myth is itself born out of comparative religion (or vice versa) and is loaded with comparitivist assumptions.Griswaldo (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it was a top Canadian University (Dalhousie) so it was fairly in depth course on Comp Religion, with plenty of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist students. This particular professor was from India, I still vividly recall his telling the entire class while forbidding the use of 'myth': "This would be tantamount to saying 'my orgasms are cool, and yours are not'." Somehow, one never forgets a statement like that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, although I like the term "myth" and can freely use it for my own religious experience, I recognize that only Alastair uses the term "myth" the way I do -- as a symbolic narrative. It's a rather academic use of the word, and can be used positively and affirmatively for your own beliefs. C. S. Lewis is a well known example of a person who actually converted to Christianity because it was "myth." But, then, C. S. Lewis was an academic. My experience on this page is that "myth" is absolutely not being used in this academic sense. None of those promoting or open to the use of the term "myth" (other than myself) were using it in reference to their own faith. Further, the arguments being given were along the lines of Genesis not being true. Fine. It's not literally true. But neither are most stories we find so meaningful that we govern our lives by them. Who cares that "To Kill a Mockingbird" is not literally true? I even attempted to tweak the use of the term Myth in the guidelines by adding "symbolic literary structure" but didn't really get any support for that to take with me to some village pump, so I tabled it for now. In any case, the term "myth" should NEVER be used for another person's religion, period. You can use it for your own religion, or for a dead one, but not for another living religion. If you do, you are being deliberately insulting and pejorative, and to claim "academic use" as a way to insult the other person's intelligence is to triple the insult: 1) to insult him with the term, 2) to insult his "lack of academic sophistication" by taking offense, and 3) to insult his intelligence with such a baloney excuse. Let's accept that "myth" for living religions is poor form and move on. And if we cannot accept that ourselves, let's at least accept the fact that everyone else on the planet accepts it.EGMichaels (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

-- side discussion --

Comment: Scholars consider Genesis 1 to be anti-mythological and demythologizing, which is also neutral, factual and precise. Calling a demythologizing symoblic narrative a myth is rather gauche, therefore hardly a title de rigeur, however true. It may be neutral, but it's still PoV taken technically. If it's taken non-technically, it's blatantly non-neutral, as well as PoV. When last I checked atheism was still a non-neutral PoV. The very essence of neutrality is agnosticism, let's stick to it please, and keep working towards consensus--a title with sense that all can see. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How is a story involving a deity possibly not mythological? And could you please demonstrate that the overall determination of what the creation narrative in Genesis is, is by the majority of scholars, theologians, anthropologists, etc described anti-mythological and demythologizing? The only two ways that Genesis is not myth is that it is either an accurate historical and astrophysical account (and that is without any evidence whatsoever, in fact the evidence is 100% against that), or Genesis is rather a literary play and only symbolic in its meaning, but then you need to explain for what it is a symbol or allegory or whatever form of substitution you suggest. · CUSH · 07:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer: because there might just be a deity! Who knows? Certainly not any Wikipedia editors (as editors) and most definitely not Wikipedia.

But to address some of the issues behind what you say.

The only people in the world who think the Prologue to Genesis is literal are: 1. modern American creationists (and those who follow them); and 2. some atheists (of a rather narrow-minded type). There are scholars included in both groups, so, strictly speaking it is possible to provide reliable secondary sources for the point of view that Genesis is a very ancient and out-of-date science textbook. However, among scholars of language, literature and religion, I think it would be hard to find many who think Genesis is anything but a symbolic narrative.

Now, according to your definition, that makes Genesis not a myth, which shows you mean myth in the common usage sense of "pure fiction" ("myth", Oxford English Dictionary). But that's not actually any help to us, because we could only use the word myth in the title if we mean it in the technical sense, i.e. it is a "symbolic narrative" ("Creation myth", Encyclopaedia Britannica).

But that's precisely what everyone (except Cush it seems, and creationists) think Genesis is: a symbolic narrative--using symbols to communicate its claims about the nature of universe and the nature of its God. Indeed, the latter is far more important to Genesis in particular, and the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Genesis doesn't care about animals, birds and fish, it cares that men and women are to rule them, as they themselves are ruled by Yahweh.

Now, how on earth can we possibly know if that metaphysical/theological picture of things is true or false?

Fortunately, scholars of language, literature and religion frequently don't care (or don't dare) to try to answer such a big question. They content themselves with investigating just what the text itself is trying to say. They find quite enough to disagree about doing just that, without being distracted by the bigger question.

Finally, I don't need to demonstrate that all but an undue minority of scholars view Genesis as demythologizing, because I'm not trying to suggest the title of this article should be The anti-mythological cosmogony of Genesis. However, I've already supplied representative sources of that school of thought from the academic literature, which shows the unsuitability of the current title. The current title shows no knowledge of this strand of scholastic opinion. Whatever title we come up with needs to be broad enough to admit the full range of scholastic points of view, yet specific enough to know what we're actually talking about. That should not be hard. We need to specify only a portion of a text, without additionally committing ourselves to some evaluation of that text portion.

We can take our time, whatever Genesis was saying (our topic) won't ever change, and books that have been written on that topic will not go away. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Once more, the term "creation myth" makes no assumption as to truth. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, except perhaps Cush, seems to know that. It's absolutely irrelevant though. Let's say Genesis is absolutely false, even in the metaphysical claims of its symbolism. It's still anti-mythological, false demythologizing it would be, to be sure, but still demythologizing. A demythologizing myth sounds like nonsense, and indeed it is. Since a notable number of the very best scholars think Genesis is demythologizing, it would be just a tad arrogant of us to ignore them and embrace the unqualified designation of Genesis as myth.

Creation myth implies symbolic narrative. I'd like for us to assert that, sybolic narrative, if we're to assert anything, though it would exclude Charles Darwin's analysis of Genesis, which I think unwise. Darwin didn't think Genesis was technically a myth, he thought it was myth in the common usage sense of the word. He was right about evolution, but wrong about Genesis, he gave up theology for biology, remember. But his PoV would have to be notable wouldn't it? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Of course the term "creation myth" makes no assumption as to truth, but wasn't the foremost argument of the opposing faction that it does exactly that? That is their point in keeping "myth" for the other creation tales but making an exception for the biblical stuff, so that the Judeochristian foundation of faith will not be presented as a fairy tale with no greater significance. And to be honest, in the parlance on the street "myth" does indeed mean "made up crap".

And btw, as for the literal understanding of Genesis: the belief that Genesis is somehow real, is the very foundation of the abrahamic religions, no matter to what extent the deity influenced the origin of the world. If there is no truth in Genesis or if it is just symbolic, then the rest of the Bible falls apart and Judaism, Christianity and Islam are finished. You will never get a religious editor to admit that Genesis is detached from reality in every possible aspect, be it as science or literature, because that would just kill their God. · CUSH · 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth implies exactly what it says - a religious or supernatural explanation of the origins of all things (for some value of "all things"). Which this is, indisputably. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well in scholarship it implies a whole lot more than that actually, but that is neither here nor there. In terms of what you're implying consider that "creation myth" is of the same kind as the term "red dog" -- an adjective modifying a noun in a manner that retains all the general qualities of the noun. A red dog is a particular type of dog, but it is still a dog. If your culture treated all dogs as dirty impure animals then a red dog would be treated in that fashion along with brown dogs, and yellow dogs. The fact that a creation myth is a specific kind of myth does not erase the baggage that more general term carries with it. It doesn't do so in academia and it doesn't do so in popular culture. As I stated above this notion that somehow the way people view "creation myth" transcends the baggage that comes with "myth" is a non-argument. Of course I also disagree with all the people who claim that the term "myth" needs to be avoided because of popular connotations. That's hogwash. Yet at this point that argument seems to get aired much more often by people arguing against it's phantom than by people who actually support it. Let's just follow scholarship on this as well we can.Griswaldo (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I cast a vote as proxy for Charles Darwin. Genesis is a "manifestly false history of the world".[8] It is not a myth in any technical sense, what hogwash. Genesis is in no way a symbolic narrative, it is a purported history, and a false one. This is my, Charles Darwin's, point of view, and I most certainly have good reason to believe other points of view exist! (Philo and Augustine jump to mind.) To be fair, we need to give them a say, so that the superiority of my own point of view can be seen clearly against opponents more worthy than mere straw men. Good day to you all. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The dead don't get a vote, not that it is one. We currently define "creation myth" as "a supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe". Does the account given in Genesis 1 somehow not fit this description? Supernatural? Check. Story or explanation? Check. Beginnings? Check. Humanity? Check. Earth? Check. Life? Check. The universe? Check. Did I miss one? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hello 81.111.114.131, As Alastair pointed out, the only people in the world who think the Prologue to Genesis is meant to be literal are: 1. modern American creationists (and those who follow them); and 2. some atheists (of a rather narrow-minded type). This leaves us with a third category of people – those who believe that Genesis is a symbolic or allegorical narrative. Group 1 believes that Genesis is literal and factually accurate – nonfiction. Group 2 believes that Genesis is literal and factually inaccurate – myth. Group 3 believes that Genesis is meant to convey symbolic or archetypal ideas and is symbolic or allegorical narrative meant to convey truth about existence. Gulliver’s Travels is a well known example of symbolic narrative. Only children, modern American creationists, and some atheists (of a rather narrow-minded type) believe Gulliver’s Travels is about a man named Gulliver who takes a trip. Everyone else knows that it is a symbolic narrative of life in England in the 1800’s meant to convey truths about the foibles of 19th century politics in England. Gulliver’s Travels is not a mythological text. Gulliver’s travel’s is not meant to convey literally accurate geographic or anthropological facts. The lilliputians are not meant to be taken literally as tiny people – they symbolize a political group. Similarly the people in Group 3 believe that the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis is meant to symbolize religious strife and is not meant to be taken as a story literally about a man named Cain – whether he existed or not and did or didn’t kill his brother is entirely immaterial what matters is the truths conveyed in the symbols concerning the nature and consequences of religious strife. So the people in Group 1 would maintain that Cain really lived and did what was written. The people in Group 2 would maintain that it is myth and not true and proceed to find inconsistencies in the account. The people in Group 3 would maintain that history has repeated the truths contained in the archetypal concept of Cain and Able throughout all interfaith religious conflicts – catholics versus protestants, pharisees versus essenes (Josephus), sunnis versus shiites, etc. Myth is not the same as symbolic and allegorical narrative. Gulliver’s travels is not a myth except to children. The prologue in Genesis like the story of Cain and Abel is also allegorical in nature except to someone like yourself who believes that Gulliver's travels is a myth. Deadtotruth (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The belief of Group 3 is also accurately called "myth". Thus, you have one group that believes it literally true, and two groups that consider it "myth". Does anybody dispute that the subject of this article meets the definition at the head of our article creation myth? That is the only basis on which I would support a move. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well said Deadtotruth (but not allegorical truth it seems:)). There are two more very large, perhaps largest groups of all, who think Genesis 1 is a symbolic narrative expressing things IT believed to be timeless truths, but which themselve believe:

• 4. that those "timeless allegorical symbols" are nice ideas but false, and
• 5. that those "timeless allegorical symbols" are pretty much gobbledigook (however it spelled, and doesn't matter really 'cause it's gobbledigook;).

And, sure enough, there's a bunch of other people, who think parts are this and parts are that.

Now, as a Wikipedia editor, I'm committed to not knowing who is right, when writing as an editor. My only job is knowing what the groups are, which writers have famously represented them, and in which books. Then I deliver a smorgasboard of choices to a reader, who I respect as being smart enough to be able to make the choice between the menu options (and come up with the same solution as non-Wiki-editor me;).

The important thing is, though, that I give the reader the very best of each meal available. Some of that will be all-time classics from a long time ago, other parts of the selection will be recent clarifications and major changes of direction if, and only if, there have actually been recent clarifications and major changes. There's no point in quoting crib notes on Einstein if we can quote Einstein himself, quoting the crib notes misleads the reader regarding the source of E=mc², which could prove to be embarrassing in an examination. Unlike Einstein, Darwin's theory has be tweaked, just a little. And unlike Darwin, Wellhausen has been radically reconstructed. You can't know what people think about Genesis today, unless you know about Wellhausen, and unless you know several people since him (who don't often makes sense unless you know about Wellhausen).

That's enough for now. I do believe we were in the process of deciding what the new title should be, given the wide-spread disatisfaction with "creation myth", which is loaded with Judeo-Christian PoV in the word "creation" (which is OK for Genesis, but not in all cosmogonies) and loaded with confusion in the word "myth" (especially in the case of Genesis). Alastair Haines (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to move away from "creation myth", I'm afraid you're at the wrong venue. You want to be persuading people in the field that it's a poor term. Otherwise, the bulk of the above discussion, over several headings, appears to be arguing over people's beliefs, which is a poor basis on which to be deciding article titles. If anyone was able a suitable title that is as accurate as the current title without deviating from the facts and without losing the precision, I imagine they would have done so by now. In the meantime, we can't be doing with arguing over such frivolities such as whether the title is neutral with respect to whether the account is true or false as if such was somehow an open question. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The founder of Wikipedia, Wales, has indicated that the current title is inherently POV and I concur. Whatever we decide part of the outcome should be certain from Wikipedia's NPOV policy the current title will be changed to something else. So far I haven't heard anything persuasive for retaining the current title and Wales has stated that he hasn't either. Wales specifically targetted the word "myth" as POV offensive and I agree. The word myth should not be in the title.Deadtotruth (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't let yourself be impressed by the "authority" of someone who has only thought about the issee for a minute or so. Myth does not convey a POV. And Mr Wales is clearly abusing his position here. · CUSH · 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush, <sigh> and peter pan doesn't convey fairy tale. what world do you live in? i hope you said that with your fingers crossed, or else your pov has so blinded you that you can't reason correctly anymore 76.249.24.95 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Myth is just the Greek word for story. In the modern meaning the involvement of the supernatural is included. In what way does that a) convey a POV as to the veracity, and b) convey a POV that Genesis does not convey already? I see the core of the problem rather in the dismissive use of the word by adherents of the abrahamic religions to defame other beliefs. · CUSH · 23:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"I see..." = "my pov is..." (or in the context = "I can't stand it that 2 billion people in this world today don't see things my way") 76.249.24.95 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh how you delight and amuse me. Do you honestly think that either the meaning of words or the veracity of a religious claim is determined by popular vote? Oh how you delight and amuse me. · CUSH · 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Myth does not convey a POV" -> you like to amuse yourself it seems. 2 billion people have a pov. they admit it. you have a pov and you try and claim, "really, it's not pov." that's a lot of things -- amusing may be one of them -- but rational thinking it is not. 76.249.24.95 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush? He's gave an opinion like everyone else on this dang page, and hell he did'nt even do it on this page! I transfered it here as food for thought! i dont see him blocking everyone who disagrees with him and moving the page to his opinion.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you transfer Jimbo Wales' opinion onto this page? To use him to impress us? That's clearly appeal to Jimbo. · CUSH · 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Cush, i Tire of you demeaning your perceived opponents Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I tire of people who try out every trick. And people who disagree with me are still not my "opponents". You see, I get offended pretty often, and do I complain or start RfCs or appeal to Jimbo?? I do not. You can call me pretty muc anything you like, such as asshole (Lisa did) or anti-semite (you did) and whatnot. Why? Because this is the internet, and I'd be pretty busy taking everything seriously and personal. · CUSH · 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We at a point where this is WIki-World War Every one has been shunted into two camps, Frankly I really dont care any more. I come on Wikipedia to try to expand knowledge. This is a Perversion Neutrality of in my opinion. I was personally attack the moment i stepped on this page as "Creationist." and "Scientifically illiterate" and was thus was "disqualified" to render any opinion all by you Cush. If you had AGF you might find out that i beleive in Evolution, One of my Favorite movies i have seen recently is a "flock of Dodos." and Guess what Cush scienfitically the big bang theory is a "creation myth" yes paradoxically it is also supported by physics. Yet if you truly think "creation myth is a neutral term" in "academic usage" then you would not have thrown a fit with me when i stepped on here and called the big bang theory "Anthropologically a Creation". So yes you assumed that my use of myth implied falsehood. So dont patronize me with it being used academically. Every Joe Sixpack and Susie Bible-tumper walk on here and sees myth and feels their religion under attack. It is inflammatory and out of all the words in the Wikitionary i find it hard to believe we cant find two or three that work better that Satisfy most people. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Big Bang is not a "creation myth". It lacks the two defining characteristics we (appear to) ascribe to creation myths: it is neither "religious or supernatural" nor does it account for life, the universe and everything. These are two, simple, factual tests. You will notice that "is not true" is not one of them. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly you need to take an anthropology course as that is a pretty standard way those textbooks make a point of how to look at things through the lens of anthropologist. I have seen it in three different textbooks by different publishers use it as example. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you show us where the supernatural element is? Can you show us how it would account for life? In the absence of these, it doesn't meet the definition we have for "creation myth". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if you were acting in good faith, you were wrong nevertheless. Maybe I should not have been so harsh but you were unfortunately coming at a time when numerous editors were claiming that creationism were a valid position. You claimed that the Genesis story of creation had the same credibility as the Big Bang theory, to which I naturally replied "bollocks", although in more words. And you know, what you "believe" or what your favorite movies are, is not my concern. I am only interested in what you can show me reliable sources for. And to say that you "believe" in evolution or that the Big Bang Theory were a creation myth is a further assault on science. And this concludes my interaction with you on this talk page for the time being. · CUSH · 03:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, because it cannot be our purview to determine which religions' scriptures are true or false or canonical. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Ip-81.111, This not about whether or not it is a creation myth But rather is it absolutely necessary to have it in the title? Does it harm the Article not to have it in the Title? To me both answers are no, i think Cush did a very good thing sticking an Olive Branch compromise out. Especially since he has been one of the Most Vocal in the "Creation Myth Title Camp." now We are working now towards a compromise, as both sides have restated their opinions numerous times. Your Borderline Trolling here is not welcome, please lets try and collaborate and not nit pick. Secondly i find it very suspicious when Ips jump into these debates seemingly know all the ins and outs of wikipedia. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be in the title? Yes. In the absence of a distinguished name, we have to give it one. Does it harm to not have it in the title? In the absence of an alternative that is as neutral, factual and precise as this, yes. To move this one but retain the others would appear to ascribe some special status to this account of creation over the others we document. "Biblical creation" loses some neccessary precision. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Borderline trolling? There is no trolling, just an IP user (from what appears to be a stable IP - it's simple to review their edits) that had been reviewing requested moves on a number of pages. Your suspicion of this user is unwarranted. Please show good faith to IP users that deserve it. Now the above IP user that personally attacked Cush in his very first edit as if he was very familiar with him may deserve some suspicion, but not 81.xxx. Auntie E. (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. let me guess, you hold to cush's pov, and not mine, so therefore you don't have to assume good faith? you are unbelievable to jump in here and spout off like that. very nice. very classy. show me your statement is not utterly biased - show me that you pov is different than cush's. 76.249.24.95 (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Right Striking Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

IP, all of your edits were personal attacks as if you know him. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Saying that you may deserve suspicion is actually a mild response to those attacks. My point of view is somewhat different from Cush, but immaterial in this instance in the face of your behavior. Auntie E. (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, you don't have to assume good faith. you're somehow different than weaponbb7. not sure how, but i don't really care. notice how weaponbb7 took back her/his comments? that's impressive. oh, by the way, did you know the user ip's from people's houses change slightly in the last few digits every so often? (hmm... maybe i have edited here before...) perhaps you might have thought of that if you had assumed good faith. but, since you were busy doing the exact opposite of that, (what makes me chuckle is that you did it while accusing weaponbb7 of doing the very same thing...) 76.249.24.95 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Midday in Australia, and thankfully it seems posters above have been forced by mother nature to sleep on things.

Discussion above seems a bit robust, but not impolite in my ignorant and uninvolved opinion.

But inferences however true or false about editors' motives belong on user talk pages first, not in public discussion.

I've dared to retitle this section as "side discussion", and want to close it.

Please feel free to ignore me and continue the sparring.

But I trust I'm merely everyone's servant making nothing more than the observation that the to and fro has ceased. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh... but I was so close to receiving an apology from auntropy. <sigh>

by the way, if she reads this, i voted above on apr. 1, and cush replied by telling me that my vote was "an irrational, unscientific, unencyclopedic, and hence unacceptable POV." That might account for me calling him out here for what I see as irrational, no? but look here, now I'm explaining again when it's YOu who should be assuming good faith. (since we're so good at telling others the rules and all...) 76.249.24.95 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Friend, we're doing a bad job of encouraging you to register, so we have a name to insult, instead of a number! ;)

Shame on us, thanks for your patience. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

edit break 3

• Oppose. Biblical Creation is a reasonably good title for an article about all aspects of the Christian belief in Creation, but perhaps the title should be more clear regarding whether or not the discussion of the beliefs of later Christian philosophers and contemporary creationists is welcome. (See Creationism#Types of Biblical creationism). There may well be a need for both a title about creation references in the Bible and also about Christian creationism as opposed to the all-religions scope of Creationism. But each of these things is a new article with a new scope. If you want to start an article "Biblical creation", then you should start it first, going over and figuring out which things belong in the expanded scope and which don't. Then propose a merge with this article if it still seems appropriate. But don't combine a move and a change in the scope of the article at the same time, because the disagreements will cause more trouble. Wnt (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm very sympathetic to the point that the current article clearly focusses on Genesis, and expanding to the whole Bible is quite reasonably seen as two proposals in one. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Title should start with Genesis - keep creation myth or change it to creation story(if that seems less upsetting) or whatever but whoever is searching for this article will most probably start with the word Genesis. Think about who is going to be looking for this article. Nitpyck (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nitpyck — I don't believe we've seen any evidence that anyone is "upset" about anything so I don't know what you are referring to by "less upsetting." Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, changing titles purely because they may offend some is either pandering or censorship, dedpending on the actual result. Neither of these is a Good Thing. (Look at Conservapedia for the sort of trainwreck that you can end up with) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Biblical Creation could then include some of the later affirmations from Job, Psalms etc. ^rossnixon 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a good way to resolve this, and the name I would think of using for an article like this, —innotata 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose any change from the current title unless all the other "creation myth" article titles are similarly bowdlerised. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr Marcus most articles that are about creation myths actually do not have the term in the title. Please poke through the "Creation myth" category where you will find articles with titles like Völuspá and Enûma Eliš. The articles that do use the term in the title are almost exclusively of a different type. These articles identify the creation myths of specific civilizations -- see Sumerian creation myth and Mesoamerican creation myths. These articles are both in the vast minority and almost exclusively of this type: "name of civilization" + "creation myth(s)". I've tried to make this point repeatedly in the discussion but people unfortunately follow their gut and assume the opposite. Since the basis for this argument simply does not reflect conventional reality here on Wikipedia I really don't see how we can count it in this discussion. I do sympathize greatly with what drives people to make the incorrect assumption, because there are a very small minority of people who would prefer to never ever refer to their own creation narratives as myths. But this discussion is not about eradicating the term from the entry. If the conversation ever gets to that point most of us would strongly oppose that.Griswaldo (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed your post below. I must have started this before you posted that. Apologies for repeating a point you came to on your own. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 3 should be in scope

After some thinking and research (including reading some Sumerian creation material), I think Genesis 3 should be in scope. This isn't merely creation of existence, but creation of the present world. The world in which we live is a post Genesis 3 world, and the fall is how we get there. Further, there are additional parallels that are in the Mesopotamian creation accounts themselves, including Inanna's hullupu tree (=tree of knowledge or life?) guarded by a serpent and a dark maiden named Lilith! Granted, Lilith is a Genesis creation myth rather than the Genesis creation narrative, but given the present title she's certainly within scope.

In any case, Genesis 3 continues the parallels with the other creation narratives and describes the progression to the present world, and should therefore be included.EGMichaels (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've hinted in various places above, I agree. Scholars beyond counting observe that it is mankind's estrangement from Yahweh that the text, as we have it, drives towards. Genesis 4 is less "sexy" and not so obviously wed to its prior context; but, without pushing so far as Noah, it would seem wise to let scholars lead us beyond Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, as their various points of view would have it. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How can you say that Genesis 4 is less "sexy"? It is the story of the contrast between nomadism and sedentary lifestyle, and how YHWH rejects the latter and agriculture. · CUSH · 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 3 is about the creation of the moral world rather than the physical world - nothing is actually created in Gen.3. Also, if you include Gen.3, where you do you stop? You'd have to keep going to the Fall at least, and probably to the Flood, which represents a new Creation. Actually that could make quite an interesting article. PiCo (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no morals in Gen 3, just an unjust deity. From where do you drag morals?

As for the scope: I would stop at the loss of Eden. Tops. · CUSH · 02:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty universally accepted in the scholarly literature that the Adam&Eve story (the Fall) is about the need for mankind to be in obedience with God as the source of the moral order - God tells primal man that he cannot have knowledge of "ëverything" (this is the meaning of "good and evil") but he/they disobey, causing expulsion from God's presence. Only the most wild-eyed fundies would think it's a story about a real garden and a real fruit.PiCo (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My fault, I was referring to the wrong chapter. It's Gen 4 with the unjust deity...

Gen 3 is of course crystal clear to me, I have just finished Paradise Lost as a john book :-) · CUSH · 03:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Amen brother Pico!

Flood and re-creation would make it a very interesting article: creation, fall, redemption (re-creation) is a very standard thematic treatment of early Genesis (and the whole Bible). I'm nervous about going that far, though. But I'm not sure I have good reasons for that.

Sorry, Cush, I don't find the distinction between nomadic and sedentary life a particularly "sexy" dramatic tension. Fratricide and polygamy have a certain "sexiness" about them, though, at least to me. (Perhaps I should see a therapist about that.) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How can you say that? :-) In the history of the Middle East and humanity itself the neolithic revolution is of core interest. · CUSH · 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to avoid the word universe -- but you can't limit it to just "world." The sun, moon, and stars... I think "universe" is fine. we may understand more of what they did, but we're certainly talking about the same thing. think about 1000 years from now -- they'll certainly know more than us, yet we do refer to a universe today. 76.249.24.95 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

World does not equal earth. World includes everything in the immediate perception of humans. The directly observable part of the universe. Hence also the wrong conclusions drawn from these observations. The concept of universe comes only into existence with some basic physical understanding of at least the solar system (even though also here for a long time the wrong conclusions were drawn.).

And please stop hiding behind an IP and get a user name. Otherwise we must assume you are someone else's sock puppet. · CUSH · 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear you Professor IP Address, perhaps it's a multiverse, and they're certainly looking into that possibility. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiverse Great now we are Talking We can have divergent point here before anyone thought about changing the name (extra points I had never heard of Glenn Beck or met that now ex-girlfriend.) We could have a whole bunch of realities where everybody had their own CORRECT version of this article. Oh IP is so Sad i so badly want to Open an SPI on you. Seeing as you have implied you a sock... Or may be since the username is used from that ip we are actually talking to the master.Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The ISP editor says that Genesis 1 is talking about "the same thing" as we mean by the term Universe. I don't think so. The universe of Genesis 1 is a flat, probably circular Earth floating in a sea of fresh water (tehom, the Deep, cognate with Babylonian Tiamat), circled by a ring of salt-water ocean (Yam, the sea), with a solid but transparent lid to keep the waters out. This isn't remotely like our concept of the Universe. PiCo (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PiCo's absolutely right. We're certainly discussing something dealt with in the sources. The writer of Genesis refers both to parts of the universe as then observable, but also to things that were incorrectly inferred to lie beyond observation, but within the scope of the visible universe.

Genesis did not attempt to challenge the "science" (inferences about the natural world) of its day. It assumed them. But it most certainly presented a challenge as to how the whole box and dice were perceived to have originated. As far as explaining origins goes, it wields Occam's Razor with almighty gusto!

Now port that thinking to our own day. Would the writer of Genesis accept current scientific cosmology? I don't see why not. (Though I'm quizzing myself for sources that say this.) Would he still have a challenge to put to us? I rather think he would.

I doubt he'd change any of the first three Hebrew words: "In-beginning created God ..."

Alastair Haines (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have Wenham quoted in a footnote saying that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is basically "In the beginning God created everything." BTW, somewhere in this mess I think the Professor said something about ex nihilo in the Vulgate. That's not in Genesis 1. The Vulgate reads "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram" (Gen 1:1 VUL).EGMichaels (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

However, our understanding of universe, or even that of the ancient Greeks, is different from the world view of the biblical authors as well as audience. The heaven and earth was "everything" to Jews, even if they were backwards backwards when the Bible was written. Jews during the Babylonian Captivity took (then already out-of-use) Sumerian tradition and world view and made it their own, ignoring that general knowledge had already developed past that cosmology.

Btw I have no trouble including Gen 3, after all humans are the focus of the biblical Creation, so it is interesting to include how the aim of Creation plays out. · CUSH · 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm buying two additional books to use for sources here: Civilization Before Greece and Rome (Saggs), and Old Testament Parallels (Matthews and Benjamin). However, I'll be taking intensive job training over the next five weeks and may not be able to participate much during that time. I noted in the contents of the Parallels book that there were some Egyptian entries, which is what I was hoping for to supplement the ANE parallels. Might not be until May that these are in the article, but I'll try to get them in there.EGMichaels (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

if that's how "world" is used in cush's comment, then fine. but notice that even pico can't stop using the word "universe" as he describes "The universe of Genesis 1." just saying. my point is that Genesis claims much more than just this earth as being created and we need to interact with that. sure they saw it as a flat disc with a roof, etc, but they claimed it as being created by Yahweh. (sorry weaponbb7, i don't understand what you are saying, if you are talking to me) 76.249.24.95 (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that Cush is not against Genesis 3 being part of the portion of text we're looking at. That's particularly good, because it strengthens the possibility of explaining how early Genesis is true symbolism, rather than false history.

An extremely common understanding in scholarship is that Genesis 1-3 provide a context for an explanation of the problem of evil. From chapter 4 onwards, humanity is both outside and excluded from returning to Eden. Problems in this world stem from this exclusion, and the blame is laid on us, rather than on God: we broke a command, and are suffering consequences.

People like myself who take this point seriously wonder just how else the idea might otherwise have been presented in the ancient near eastern context, and why the manner of presentation that has survived was actually chosen. It's not particularly unusual for abstractions like, in this case sin, to be presented using symbols, metaphors, stories, allegory. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

note on possible existing content fork

Adam and Eve Covers 3 rather well, can we just do a summary of the existing article in a section and have "for further information see Adam and Eve" Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't entirely rely on other articles, but yes, I think this article would not need to go into all the detail regarding Adam and Eve, just direct people there. However, where relevant to Genesis 2, Genesis 3 needs to enter this article.

Genesis 2 introduces a tree and a command for a narrative purpose only seen in chapter 3. Chapter 3 places these at the centre of an explanation of the origin of sin, which has effects as described in chapter 4. And so the scholars take it. That makes a good (I think persuasive) case for there being a kind of mythology there, running from chapter 2 through to chapter 4.

Additionally, chapter 5 begins by recapitualating the story so far. It starts with the toldot formula of Genesis. The Noah story focusses on God's intervention against sin outside Eden: the very elements Genesis 2-4 established as context.

The Noah cycle is actually more than passingly relevant because this too is debated as being mythology drawn from surrounding cultures. Conceptually, it is taken as a "reversal of creation" followed by a re-creation. The recreation is followed by a bridge placing Abraham in context.

From chapter 12 (Abraham), considerations of borrowed mythology largely vanish.

This synopsis is very standard, and all bears on the question of mythology. The unit of text 1-11 is almost universally acknoweldged, and frequently termed the Primeval History. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice of a new proposal

As far as I can see, both Weapon's and Cush's proposals above have succeeded. All that is missing is an extremely brave person to close those discussions in favor of the proposals on the basis of the evidence and arguments offered, noting a substatial number (but still a minority) of editors have expressed no objection to the term "creation myth", indeed their preference for it, and they are not without considerable non-partisan scholastic support.

The decisive issue is that not all scholars support the expression "creation myth" in its application to Genesis 1 in particular. Indeed, this disagreement is also expressed by non-partisan scholars, though strictly speaking scholastic commitment never invalidates their arguments or opinions, they all believe what they say, or why do they say it, and how could we trust their reliability?

However, although I have supported both proposals myself, and think both could work, I don't think either is ideal. I think discussion has been dominated by the issue of using "creation myth", and support or opposition of the proposals in nearly all cases has come down to opposition or support for the phrase "creation myth".

As a baby theological writer, I am willing to go on public record as believing the text of Genesis 2-3 is a symbolic narrative and, in all meaningful senses of the technical usage of the phrase, a creation myth. I happen also to have the personal conviction that it is a divinely inspired and absolutely reliable symbolic narrative, with implications for daily life as explained in the New Testament, but I mention that only in the interests of full disclosure.

I am not willing to go on public record as believing Genesis 1 to be a purely symbolic narrative, though I am willing to admit that I am personally persuaded by the established results of contemporary science, which entail that much of Genesis 1 reflects the standard ancient view of the physcial world as they knew it, which we now know was somewhat myopic. It is very important that it be understood I am advancing an opinion here that makes my own religious tradition vulnerable to being falsified. I am claiming that substantial parts of Genesis 1 are supposed to describe the real physical world accurately, as they could then be known. Parts of Genesis 1 can indeed be described as scientific, according to scientific paradigms that are now outmoded. Some of the "science" of Genesis 1 is much better understood now than then. As such, Genesis 1 is a reliable primary source of ancient scientific paradigms, but an unreliable source of scientific understanding now, since science has "moved on". So Genesis is a good resource for the history and philosophy of science, but a poor one for physics, chemistry and biology.

But Genesis 1 is not merely ancient science, it is also, in part, symbolic narrative. Since ancient times the "days" of Genesis 1 have been understood, even by some notable believers, as symbolic days. But does this mean that those parts of Genesis can be felicitously called "myth"? I think not. For two important reasons. Firstly, "myth" in the technical sense usually involves wide appeal to diverse supernatural powers, which is certainly true of the myths of the Genesis writer's neighbours. Genesis is demonstrably not the earliest cosmogony in its region. So many scholars (many have claimed a consensus) consider Genesis to be a secondary source regarding those earlier myths, and so many of those scholars have also considered it to have interacted with them critically, rather than uncritically, that we must admit the PoV that Genesis 1 is anti-mythological or demythologizing, in the context of the world of its composition. It should go without saying that calling an anti-mythological text "myth" is stretching the bounds of clear use of language.

There is a last feature of issues in this discussion that warrants little explanation, but must be stated. It violates the spirit of the technical sense of "creation myth", if not the very letter of its ordinary definition, to apply the word "supernatural" indiscriminately to a real God at work in human history. Such a God would not be merely supernatural but natural as well. Such a God would not be merely part of a pantheon hypothesized to have given shape to features of the world, but the actual first cause of everything. I happen, personally, to believe in such a God, which makes me appreciate more acutely why "creation myth" is inappropriate in the context of Genesis 1. But it is not necessary to believe in the God of Genesis to appreciate the point.

So, then, the current title must be altered, as discussion above has already demonstrated. My new proposal will assume that fact. I will ask people to either support, or to raise any verifiable or reasonable objection, other than a preference for the term "creation myth", to entitling the current article Creation in Genesis. If no objections can be substantiated within a week, I trust someone will close the discussion by renaming and moving the current article.

I am happy not to make this proposal if Weapon or Cush wish to continue with their own, and would really appreciate their feedback, and that of any others who care to comment. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're joking right? [The current title] violates the spirit of the technical sense of "creation myth" .. [by applying] the word "supernatural" indiscriminately to a real God at work in human history. If you're serious, then please see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ben (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to reread those policies Ben. That's my point exactly. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Suppose you are an intellectual impostor, ... what kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose [you]. [9] Or maybe I'm an intellectual deadbeat and the problem here is mine. Either way my advice is: make clear your point. Ben (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben, a person doesn't need to be an intellectual deadbeat to have problems following a point that falls outside of his paradigm. In other words, a Macintosh computer could be a perfectly fine piece of hardware and have trouble loading a Windows operating system. You strike me as rather intelligent, but sometimes you seem to lack that appreciation for others. Alastair seemed pretty straightforward there: Weapon and Cush both offered proposals that easily cleared the hurdle of acceptable consensus, but Alastair's proposal was more ignored than rejected, so he'd like to make sure it didn't just get lost in the excitement to replace the current title. In other words, he's giving his proposal a "bump" because he'd much rather have it rejected than merely lost in the shuffle. As for "creation myth" I'd have to agree with him. Those promoting "myth" are doing so basically as "false science" rather than merely a (true or false) "symbolic narrative." And "supernatural" doesn't really delimit a concept of God which is immanent (nature) and not merely transcendent (supernature). In other words, the Jewish and Christian concept of "God" is not merely "supernatural" but more specifically "natural", and must be so by definition. It is not merely divine action if God were to raise someone from the dead, but rather it is divine action that anyone lives at all: each natural heartbeat echoes the presence of an infinitely immanent deity. The confinement of the Jewish/Christian deity to supernature is therefore not applicable to that deity. It would be like rejecting Jesus because he was a woman... while that may actually BE your view, no one here is actually CLAIMING that he is a woman. So, therefore, your rejection, though noted, is irrelevant.

None of this means that God exists. It merely means that your SPECIFIC definitions of that deity are not applicable to the actual religions who's text you are trying to label. You've been trying to reject a definition no one here is trying to promote. Most of your arguments fall along the lines of "noise."

As I said, you are quite intelligent, and if you will merely recognize that others here are ALSO intelligent then you may take the time to have a discussion regarding their own views, rather than the views you imagine them to have.EGMichaels (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Cush's is far better, it allows for slight broadening of the scope, and since he came across the aisle with a compromise. I think it is the better of the two thus i struck my original Proposal Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, I think Weapon has two good points there. "Biblical creation" certainly leaves the door open for a more... systematic exploration of the subject.EGMichaels (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Biblical creation should be an article about making bibles. I really hope you can keep Genesis in the title. And I will cheerfully accept whatever title is decided as long as I can still find the article about the creation story found in Genesis. Nitpyck (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bible Creation" would do that, people generally will get the Gyst Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "biblical" is too vague. See here (Humanities Reference desk) and here (Language Reference desk) for the wide range of meanings people assign to the word "bible" which is of course very much related to the word "biblical." I don't see what advantage there is in substituting "biblical" for "Genesis" in the title. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think again most people will not try to include the Book of Enoch here, to me common sense is the solution if it comes up Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Creation in Genesis" is my favorite title. As I hinted to Alastair, "Biblcal creation" opens the subject to a more systematic approach. It is no longer text based, but rather subject based -- and thus would be more applicable to input from Systematic Theologians rather than Biblical Scholars.EGMichaels (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels — Why do you (apparently) prefer "Creation in Genesis" to "Creation according to Genesis"? Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, when I did a sanity check of "Creation according to the Silmarillion" I did see Cush's (Pico's? I've lost track) point that "according to" does connote reality of some kind. It just didn't work with Silmarillion because it's obviously fiction -- and to anyone who's POV has Genesis as obviously fiction it won't work either. We need a title that will work for ALL POVs. As for Lisa's suggestion below: "Genesis creation narrative" is perfectly fine, as would be the sanity check of "Silmarillion creation narrative." I simply like "Creation in Genesis" because it doesn't call Genesis ANYTHING -- not story, not narrative, not myth, not history, nada. It's just bare bones, and works just fine, although "Creation in the Silmarillion" might connote either Tolkien's creative process or his thematic treatment of the subject of "creation" in that work. But, since we don't really know the author of Genesis, most of that potential pitfall is moot.EGMichaels (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How about Genesis creation narrative? I mean, we're all talking about whether the narrative is an account or a myth or a story or whatever, but we seem to all agree that it's a narrative, no? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I find that acceptable. My opposition to "Genesis creation myth" was that it ("creation myth") constituted unnecessary commentary. If all agree that there is no controversy in referring to the subject of the article as a "narrative" then I don't think there should be opposition to your suggested title, "Genesis creation narrative," based on specific opposition to the characterization of the subject matter as a "narrative." Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly lets end this; I really tired of debating, we seem to have clear Consensus, Any serious objections to Cush's suggestion? I am giving till 10:00 Pm GMT/UTC beofore i post to The Admin Notice board to ask them to formally move the page Weaponbb7 (talk)

To this point I haven't expressed my concerns for future stablity of article content regarding Biblical creation as a title, because I wanted to support Cush's generous bid for compromise, just like Weapon (and probably others). I also wanted to see if other oppose voters would follow Cush's lead. I don't think that's happened, nor do I think it will.

The two major concerns I have with Biblical creation are scope and sense. Regarding scope, I guess I should ask Lisa how much of the lead she'll allow me to devote to the first verses of the Gospel according to John. Need I say more?

Regarding sense, I'm glad it is not me who has had to bring up the fact that it does strike me as being about creating Bibles, or something like that. In fact, I think a reader would need to know quite a bit about the topic, and about a broader context for the topic, to know what we mean by it. If Bible must be the scope, I'd still prefer "Creation in" nomenclature, like a swag of other editors above: Creation in the Bible.

But, as I've said, I'll not prolong closure of the current discussions by holding out for Creation in Genesis, if Cush objects to it. All I'm saying is that discussion appears to have run its course and closure is needed now. "Creation in" nomenclature seems most popular, and Genesis seems most popular for scope. I agree with both those views and have seen no objections to them, so I'm happy to propose them on behalf of all.

PS here are the words that are essential to a Christian understanding of Biblical creation. I really don't think we want to open that can of worms.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning. ³Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1, NIV)

Back to work on Indian religions. So much happier and easier. Cheerio all. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines — why have you just removed the posts of other editors, including myself? Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and my browser didn't handle it well.

It's nice to see that while I was typing that closure was needed, and soon, Weapon was typing that he'd be seeing to it that this would happen.

Biblical creation is a nice big topic "biblical theology creation" gave me 184,000 hits at Google Scholar.

The first few pages were full of books and writers I value highly.

I'm not sure whether the title is best for readers, but it's certainly a gift for Christian writers.

So you'll have no objections from me personally, but I do have reservations for the sake of others, but I've already posted them. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Cush's suggestion. There is no reason at all to expand the scope of this article from the Genesis creation narrative to Biblical anything. But if you go through the talk page, you'll see that no one has any problem with it being called a narrative. So you could make a case that there's an implied consensus for Genesis creation narrative. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with your first two sentences more. I don't agree with the rest of your post I'm afraid. Alastair, please be more careful. If you mess up discussion, please go ahead and fix it. Ben (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Implied Cases are just they are "not stated", lisa i dont know why you complain about this, this compromise solves alot of problems, I can think of three possible reason you argue this. (1) you think narative is better, (2) expanding it to biblical you might fear it exapnds it beyond the coverage of the torah, (3) giving in to Cush is not something you wasnt to. I am inclined to think it combonation of those. Please we are trying to compromise Cush has given in way more than i think he likes, let meet him halfway Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7 — Lisa is making a suggestion. It is not a bad suggestion. Lisa suggested the title "Genesis creation narrative." Why not just comment on her suggested title? Do we really have to contemplate what's in any other editor's mind? Why don't just stick to discussing what would be the best title for this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding scope and "Biblical" I do not agree that Biblical necessarily implies more than Genesis narrative. For instance the Oxford Companion to World Mythology deals with only this creation narrative under the title "Biblical Creation". It should be noted that "myth" is most likely implied given that it is a companion to "mythology" and given that "Biblical creation myth" appears in the text itself. In other words by way of actual use it is not clear that "Biblical creation (myth)" conventionally includes anything outside of Genesis.Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about how much Cush is "giving in". That shouldn't even be an issue. This is about what's an appropriate title for the article. I do think that narrative is better, because I have yet to hear anyone suggest that it isn't a narrative. The people who pushed for "myth" think that the narrative is a myth. Others think it isn't. But everyone agrees that it is one. Cush, for some unfathomable reason, thinks that both account and story imply that it actually happened. I don't get it, but I accept it.

Expanding it to biblical is simply unnecessary. To do so for the sole reason that it would reward Cush for "giving in" seems patronizing beyond belief.

As far as me not wanting to "give in" to Cush, I dropped the idea of account or story, despite my disagreement, so you're misstating the facts, in addition to attributing motives, which is a no-no.

Why are you so adamant to force a consensus that doesn't exist? This discussion has been about what to name an article. Changing the article to something else entirely shouldn't even be on the agenda. This article is about the Genesis creation narrative/story/account/myth/fairy tale/hallucination or whatever you want to call it. It isn't about "Biblical creation". That wouldn't even limit it to creation of the world, for crying out loud. It's more than a change of scope, it's a change of subject. And there is no consensus to do so. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, Lisa. There is no consensus, full stop. But consensus is only required to change policy, not to apply it. The current title has had three weeks to defend itself against the substantiated and majority objection that it is POV, and the defense has failed. By default the title should revert to Creation according to Genesis.

Since that proposal has been withdrawn, we either accept the new proposal, which includes an expansion of scope (i.e. it is two proposals in one), or we offer a new proposal.

As mentioned, I'm still waiting for Cush to speak first. Cush's proposal would suit me personally, so I'll not oppose his proposal. However, for the sake of readers and the community, I'd prefer the title was: 1. focussed on Genesis and 2. made no claims about literary genre, since this is not settled unanimously in the literature and is unnecessary for identifying the topic.

If you formally propose Genesis creation narrative, Lisa, I'll support you. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I formally propose that we change the title of the article to Genesis creation narrative. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal.Mk5384 (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

Editor	Creation according to Genesis	Genesis creation myth	Biblical creation	Genesis creation narrative	Creation in Genesis	Biblical creation myth
EGMichaels	Weak Support	Oppose	Weak Oppose	Support	Strong Support	Strong Oppose
Lisa	Neutral	Strong Oppose	Strong Oppose	Strong Support	Support	Strong Oppose
Weapon	Support	Oppose	Strong Support	Weak Support	Support	Strong Oppose
Cush
Ben
Alastair	Support	Oppose	Weak Oppose	Support	Support	Strong Oppose
AFA Prof01	Support	Strong oppose	Oppose	Strong support	Oppose	Strong oppose
UberCryxic	Oppose	Support	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose
Til Eulenspiegel	Support	Oppose	Support	Support	Support
Hans Adler	Neutral	Support	Weak oppose	Support	Oppose	Support
Ross Nixon	Weak support	Strong oppose	Strong support	Support	Neutral	Strong oppose
Griswaldo	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose	Support	Support	Oppose
AuthorityTam	Support	Strong Oppose	Weak Oppose	Weak Support	Strong Support	Strong Oppose
etc
Total	7	2	3	10	7	1

EGM i love these tables! these are so handy!Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, another poll. Is this the 7th now? Let's see, 3 Requested Moves, the third split into three more successive polls, article name dropping on User_talk:Jimbo Wales, this table and countless threads in between, all by the same small contingent trying to erase, or at least obscure, mention of the term creation myth. The amount of effort you folks have put into doing this would be enough to turn this article into an FA twice over. It's time to quit the so obviously tendentious editing - continually starting new polls until you get the answer you want. In fact, I suggest a 1 year moratorium on discussion of the article's title. Ben (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben, since the "non-myth" folks don't have an agenda, they are willing to explore what the sources say. While "creation myth" is one characterization that does appear in the available literature, it is in a distinct minority in the sources. We are trying to find a title that is the most neutral POV, which ALLOWS both "creation myth" characterizations and "demythologizing polemic" and everything in between. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to follow sources and be committed to neutrality between all notable and reliable points of view. Only those truly and passionately committed to a singular POV will refuse to support equally documented alternatives. Hence the need for a poll to explore what we are finding in the sources, and what strikes us as making the article available to readers who enter common terms in a search engine. While "creation myth" is one possible name, it is most certainly not a name readers will think of typing. How, then, are they even to find this article without a host of aliases constantly forwarding people's generic NPOV searches into a heavily POV limited article title.EGMichaels (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I second that, but of course the discussion will devolve into another tit-for-tat over whether we should have a moratorium in the first place. Everything here is like an endless argument, no matter what the particular topic. It's just a controversial subject I guess.UBER ^(talk) 04:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason there is a problem with making a decision is because Wikipedia processes are designed to do exactly the right thing: allow people who have already been committed to reading and documenting reliable sources to welcome people who are willing to come on board.

Unfortunately, in practice what happens is people who have modest knowledge of the sources and modest commitment to the article, but do have a broad ideological commitment related to a topic engage sufficiently with discussion to ensure their ideology is represented.

That is not always a bad thing, but sometimes it's pushed way too far.

No, what is happenning at the moment might be slow, but it is correct.

We are all contributing to building up a proposal that can be closed by someone who knows nothing of the issues, except what we document for them. A poll is part of that picture. It will show that there are a wide range of acceptable titles. Add to that information the data already provided showing "creation myth" is only one PoV, and the closer can toss a coin for any of the alternative titles proposed, or better still, pick any one that addresses the right scope, without having any substantiated objections against it.

A closure made by tallying votes is unstable without a quorum, but one made on reliable sources and clear reasoning will endure.

Closures here are not made by experts, so they depend on the value of the information discussion participants provide.

Our job is clear: provide sources and reasoning to make life easy for a closer, who represents a reader who knows nothing.

A poll is great, since it shows that there are lots of possible titles. It will also show which people are unwilling to compromise. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Guess who is most compromising so far? Weapon! Anyone surprised? Not me. Bravo Weapon! Alastair Haines (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What a silly comment! There was only one column that has "creation myth" in it, so according to your logic anyone who thinks that term is the main problem is automatically extremely compromising. I have added another column ("biblical creation myth"), which in my opinion is even better than "Genesis creation myth". Hans Adler 13:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush (or Pico?) did have a good point that "Creation according to Genesis" implies fact. And I DO prefer Alastair's "Creation in Genesis" the best because of its specific scope (Genesis) and last of characterization of the creation account (i.e. as narrative, story, myth).EGMichaels (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that a good point? How does Creation according to Genesis imply fact? If Creation according to Genesis differs from Creation according to the Qur'an and from Creation according to Buddhism and from Creation according to The Silmarillion, then none of them are being touted as fact. They're all being labeled as what this or that source says about Creation.

You said before that you think it implies fact. This time, I'd like you to explain that assertion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, I've already explained it. It's not a denotation but rather a connotation. And, to be fair, it may not even be an implication, but rather merely open to that inference. When I did a sanity check against "Creation according to the Silmarillion" it struck me as odd. That's all. I'm trying to be as fair to all sides as possible. When Cush said it struck him a certain way, I did a sanity check and could see how he felt that way.EGMichaels (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, thank you for saying this, because I used to think the same as you do about "Creation according to Genesis".

You are absolutely right, CatG does not imply or denote fact, however it is still problematic.

EGM's thought-experiment Creation according to the Silmarillion demonstrates that the phrasing connotes fact.

The fact that is being connoted is the fact of a creation, hence of a Creator or creators.

It is not the factuality of the Genesis account that is being connoted, it is the actuality of a creation, hence of a Creator.

Creation according to Genesis, is a fine phrase to use if one thinks Genesis is false but someone or something created the world.

But if one believes there is no Creator or creators, as well as thinking Genesis is false history or false science (say Dawkins), then one will object to this phrasing.

Strictly speaking, I should withdraw my support for that title, now DGM has provided a valid objection to it (as opposed to the invalid objections others have given). However, it requires very wooden, unimaginative and uncompromising interpretation to understand CatG in the PoV sense, so I will follow DGMs example and modify my poll position to Weak support. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Creation according to ..." is also stylistically awkward. The phrase "according to" is most commonly used to describe the opinions or claims of beings that have agency. If we say, "according to Bob ..." we expect that whatever is attributed to Bob is an accurate reflection of what Bob claims, and we assume that if it isn't Bob is able to set the story straight. When people say "according to the (X text)" there is a similar claim to accuracy involved, but unlike Bob, a text cannot set the story straight. The obvious need for interpretation (and in this case translation for one or more ancient languages) should make us weary of implying that there is an authoritative version of what Genesis claims about anything ... creation included. Personally I would be much less concerned about the "connotation" described above, and much more concerned about the implication of authority. There is good reason for such concern as well because in common parlance statements that begin with phrases like "according to the Bible ..." are usually made by people who believe their very narrow interpretation is the only accurate reading possible. So I agree, even if for different reasons, that this is a phrase to avoid.Griswaldo (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I've recently encountered a similar issue in another religious tradition. There are multiple versions of the Ramayana and of the Mahabharata, but one cultural group appeal to minority textual traditions of each work as authority for the validity of their culture. That's fine by me, I'm very remote from all the issues involved, but I can see the point that "Culture X according to the Ramayana and the Mahabharata" are quite inappropriate. (That hasn't stopped Wiki editors from saying this though, and I'll not get fussy about their use of "according to" and change it.)

However, I'm only aware of one alternative text of Genesis: the Samaritan Pentateuch. And I'm not really sure that counts as a different text, and not in the sections relevant to this article. So, I'm just dropping in a note to indicate I understand your point: I can certainly see how it applies in other articles. But in this one, I'm not convinced it does, in fact, quite the opposite. "According to Bob" is a very uncertain thing, because Bob can change his mind or change his story. "According to the Mahabharata" is also uncertain, because we know it had a dynamic textual history. But "according to Genesis" is extremely well defined. The received text of Genesis is the Masoretic Text, which is not appreciably different from the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Septuagint Greek translation. Biblical Hebrew is an extremely well-known language.

Mesopotamian creation myths, however, are nowhere near as well-defined. People stopped transcribing them. Most have alternative versions, even among the copies that have been recovered by archeologists.

As far as I can see, it is only people, like me, who believe Genesis to be exactly what God himself wants us to think about, who could possibly interpret Creation according to Genesis as an appeal to authority. But, since this is an encyclopedia written from the neutral point of view, such an appeal to authority cannot be read into it. When last I checked, editors were not required to certify their commitment to the divine inspiration of scripture before being allowed to edit, whereas I do seem to recall that being a requirement at Theopedia. (Woops, obviously non-notable, I mean Theopedia.) The same title at Theopedia would indeed include an appeal to authority, as I'm sure readers and writers at that site would confirm.

But, in the end, I actually agree with you, Griswaldo, because we cannot assume readers know that the text and language of Genesis are very precisely defined, and there is little room for interpretative variation at the sentence level. Debates about biblical interpretation are normally about abstractions, rather like Wiki debates about article titles! Is Genesis 1 science? Is it myth? Is it true? How many people wrote it and when? Which parts were written by which people? Arguments about what it actually says are much more tame, except where those are perceived to be decisive in establishing more abstract matters of interpretation.

Since readers can't be presumed to know this about Genesis, many educated people will assume Genesis is somewhat vague with plenty of different ancient versions. Of course, that is an exceedingly long way from the abundantly documented facts. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not always being entirely clear. I'm not sure we're on the same page ... let me try again. The fact that Bob can change his mind is a great way to get at this. When Bob does change his mind we can authoritatively change our statement "According to Bob ..." The problem with a text is that the text never changes its mind while people interpreting the text do. In other words we will always be talking about "Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis" (or according to biblical scholarship if indeed our sources are that narrow). If the entry presented the text of the narrative itself in its original Hebrew only then perhaps we'd have "Creation according to Genesis". Does that make sense? Let's compare this to the U.S. Constitution. There is really no such thing as "According to the U.S. Constitution", though from the rhetoric of politicians and activists one might believe there is. There can, however be endless "according to person (or group) X, the Constitution ...". Authoritatively, in terms of U.S. law, we can say "According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution ...". Like those interpreting scripture the Supreme Court may change its interpretation of the Constitution, which it does, but the constitution itself does not change its mind. One could say that amendments to the constitution are an exception to this but they are not and if anyone wants an explanation of why I'd be happy to provide it (but I hope it isn't necessary). So my point is that I really think that we ought to refrain from "according to" when not referring to beings that are widely considered to have agency. "According to God" is much more acceptable to me than "according to the bible", for instance. That is not because I believe in a "god" with agency (which I don't), but because a whole lot of people do in fact believe in such a God. Those are just my two cents.Griswaldo (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I do not in any way mean that "According to God ..." is acceptable as a title for this entry. I just mean the premise is more acceptable because within certain contexts and to certain people God has agency.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo -- I'd agree with your statements here, but I think we'd both agree that "Creation according to God" would be a poblematic title as well, even if we had someone claiming to be God to use as a reference.EGMichaels (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be very problematic and that's why I added the disclaimer.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a bunch for such a cogent retort!

I completely agree with something you wrote, but first I want to defend an option that is not my preference.

• according to prep.

1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. As determined by: a list arranged according to the alphabet.

American Heritage Dictionary

I would have thought "according to Genesis" meant "as stated or indicated by Genesis".

The text intended by the name Genesis would have to be the text normally given that name, which just happens to be a text that scholars don't think has changed much over 2,000 years. A fundamentalist might make a scary neighbour, but someone who flogs himself for misspelling a word of his sacred text is just the kind of guy you want as a photocopier. And history seems to have borne that out according to text critics of all flavours. So, is Genesis a well-defined term (unlike Bible or Apocrypha)? I think so, I think we know exactly which Hebrew words we're talking about.

Back to "as stated or indicated by": Genesis states bara Elohim ("God created"), but does it indicate ex nihilo? Good question! Genesis states b'reshit bara Elohim, but does this state "In the beginning God created" or "At the beginning of God's creation"? Another good question!

I still think the title "Creation according to Genesis" implies a perfectly good, neutral question: "What does Genesis state and indicate regarding creation?" It states a fair bit and indicates a lot more, like any text, and indeed there are different readings with relative merits and demerits available for us in the documented reflections of people who are familiar with a lot of specialist issues.

The title does assume Genesis talks about a creation, but it is true all scholars agree that it does.

I still think the problem, if there is one, is with the word "creation". It's not as though we know there has to have been a creation, perhaps the Big Bang just happened, no cause, it just happened, just as matter–anti-matter particle-pairs spontaneously occur in vacuums. Nothing we know of "creates" them, and why should it?

The "sanity check" for me is trying "The creation according to Genesis". Now that would really express a PoV.

Now, here is where I completely agree with you.

'The problem with a text is that the text never changes its mind while people interpreting the text do. In other words we will always be talking about "Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis" (or according to biblical scholarship if indeed our sources are that narrow). If the entry presented the text of the narrative itself in its original Hebrew only then perhaps we'd have "Creation according to Genesis". Does that make sense?' [Griswaldo, Appendix to Wikipedia, The Foundation, 2010.]

You bet that makes sense, to me anyway!

Yes, only the Hebrew truly gives us precisely what Genesis is saying, whatever that might be. Only that Hebrew text is truly "Creation according to Genesis".

But Wikipedia is not about that kind of truth or that kind of knowledge. Wikipedia is about the first kind you mention.

All we can report is what the best interpreters say is the sense of the text. Or, in your words, the substance of the article can only be:

"Creation in Genesis according to interpreters of Genesis"

Likewise, Nuclear physics means "Nuclear physics according to reliable sources".

It is a convention here to drop "according to reliable sources" from article titles.

What, then, should we call this article? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I think something I stated in the first post got lost as I tried to explain what I meant more thoroughly. I think the most common usage of "according to" is akin to definition number one above, though even then I also think we're interpreting that definition slightly differently. Does a text really "state" or "indicate" anything? I'd say no, only beings with agency state or indicate anything, but I think that's where we may disagree (I believe rather strictly that signs are arbitrary and meaningless in the absence of human action, mental or otherwise). The notion that the Bible, or the Constitution for that matter, can state something on its own which then can be claimed as "authoritative" has been (and is) a very seductive notion in Western history. It is seductive in no small part because of the very fact that a text cannot change it's mind. If we can authoritatively lay claim to the meaning of a text like a national Constitution or the Jewish or Christian Bible then we can tap into the authority granted by the power that sanctifies that text. I would argue that even if we disagree about whether or not a text can "state or indicate" anything we cannot dismiss the fact that in practice, in human history, this is often what happens. To say "according to" a fixed text is to claim ownership of its power, and usually this is done only when someone wants to exclude the views of others, or otherwise adjudicate their own behavior towards others. I know this sounds like a stretch but I feel that with options like "Creation in Genesis", etc. we don't even need to get within a hundred miles of these types of associations. "Creation in Genesis" or "Genesis creation narrative" are my preferences personally.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, and building off of something else you wrote, I think when we don't have "according to" in an article title it is, to me anyway, always implied that the content of the article is "according to someone(s)". When we interject "According to Genesis" it is as if "Genesis" itself trumps these otherwise implied someones. "Creation in Genesis" would not require us to state "according to ..." anyone, and that's why we don't need article titles like "Gravity according to physicists".Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Valid points. I've changed my support to neutral for "Creation according to Genesis". But I think "Creation in Genesis" is poorly phrased. "Genesis creation narrative" is more explicit, and has all the benefits that "Genesis creation myth" had without the problems it has. So far, no one has said anything to indicate that it could be problematic in any way. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think somewhere I read claims that "Genesis creation narrative" was not a common phrase in scholarship, but that claim is patently false. Variants using "creation narrative" are slightly more common in google scholar than variants using "creation myth". "Creation story" gives many more hits than either but I think "narrative" is preferable for other reasons.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for such a clear presentation of your philosophy and sociology of language!

Ah yes! You and I agree regarding the current issue, but would be pushing one another on others.

Briefly, to meet your openness with my own, I value authorial intention above reader response.

Perhaps our focus in life pushes us to learn more about different sides of the same abstract issue.

Your approach strikes me as more demanding to learn and apply and generally more useful.

I concede, people can and do appropriate texts for their own purposes.

This can be done responsibly and pro-socially, but is typically the opposite.

On the other hand reflective listening, understanding authorial intention, can also be pro-social and useful.

I'm a student of dead voices, more interested in comprehending than evaluating, just an interpreter.

Perhaps one day I'll grow up and dare the risky thing of evaluating: praising the pro-social and condemning the anti-social.

I don't trust myself yet, though. How do authorial intention and reader response address the current topic?

I think, although this article must be titled and aim first at authorial intent, I think it can extend to reader response and evaluation.

There are a goodly number of scholars who read Genesis 1 as intending to promote human exploitation of the environment, for example. There are other criticisms of its ethics, especially if Genesis 2-3 are considered. Who cares if the science of Genesis 1 is out of date, if its ethics is out of date ... and millions still follow those ethics!!!

I'm not pursuaded by those critics, we agree about what Genesis actually says, but we evaluate it differently.

I hope what I'm saying shows that I hear what you are saying Griswaldo.

You're the first I've seen in my short time here to raise this important aspect of the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that we need to step back and ask a simple question. The question is NOT "do notable and reliable sources use the phrase?" Quite obviously notable and reliable sources can be found for all of the phrases.

However, a much better question is: "do notable and reliable sources REJECT the phrase?" Any title that is not explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources is allowed. Any title that includes a term which is explicitly rejected by notable and reliable sources should be disallowed.

So,

1. Creation according to Genesis
2. Genesis creation myth
3. Biblical creation
4. Genesis creation narrative
5. Creation in Genesis
6. Biblical creation myth
7. Genesis creation history
8. Genesis creation truth

While there are many notable and reliable sources that will insist this narrative is myth (and I personally agree with them), there are other notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject that characterization.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much we may personally like a particular characterization -- if there are notable and reliable sources that explicitly reject it, we as Wikipedia editors must bow to the sources.

We may think we are important here, but we are only yeomen.

I'll add that this works FOR us as well as AGAINST us. While we cannot impose our view that this is myth (because notable and reliable sources reject it), we can be happy that other views of truth or history cannot be imposed on us.EGMichaels (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my earlier observation that the term "myth" is similar to the term "cult". Both terms may be used responsibly in scholarly works, but a general audience is likely to read the term(s) as demeaning the subject(s) veracity.
"Narrative" seems unobjectionable but superfluous.
"Biblical" greatly broadens the scope in distracting ways, such as John 1:1.
Strong Suport: Creation in Genesis --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I support any of those options that does not include the word "myth" as it is misleading. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind a little. I can see the arguments for the "narrative" title, and I've actually looked into it, and the only other "X creation myth" article I can find is Sumerian creation myth, with the other fanciful relgious stories being either sections of larger mythology articles or labelled as "cosmology" or the like. Unfortunately, I can't think of a new title for Sumerian creation myth that would match the renaming of this article, but I'll set my mind to it as and when it happens, since we must, per WP:NPOV, not give additional credence to Judeo-Christian mythology over the Sumerian tales from which it was cribbed. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

The title subject in the lead should reflect the title of the article. I don't care what you think the article should be called. Whatever it's called, that label has to be appear in the lead, hence the the reason for placing "myth" back in there. If the article's title changes, then you can change the lead as well.UBER ^(talk) 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. "Myth" is a PoV, should not be in the first sentence, and so should not be in the title. (See also my suggestion above that we get the lead worked out, only after that decide on the title.) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- I'll table my suggested edits until we agree on the title and scope.EGMichaels (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But again I notice that someone changed it under the guise of neutrality. People let's get something straight here: this has nothing to do with bias or neutrality. It's an issue of style. If we lost our collective sanity and decided to call this article TigerClaw Xtreme, the lead should start off saying:

TigerClaw Xtreme is the biblical account of the beginnings of the Earth, life, and humanity as found in the first two chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis.

This is not difficult to understand.UBER ^(talk) 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not just this talk page ...

Apparently the same "myth" argument creeps up from time-to-time in the real world too, in this case a school board in the US. Although two of the reviewers, comprising a principal, a biology teacher, a parent, a student, and others, thought it might be a bit sensational, the reviewers immediately deduced what myth meant and ultimately did not deem the material questionable. Should I add this high school-level textbook and review to the list of references affirming the current article title? Since we now have experts affirming what is mainstream, generally accessible reference works like Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford's long list of specialist dictionaries, school board reviews, high school-level textbooks, children's books and countless academic works all describing this material as a creation myth, which easily discounts any claims sensationalising, and only a small cohort of editors here opposing the current title, I think we can safely bed this article title issue for a year and instead focus on other parts of the article. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to add sources for the usage of "creation myth". It doesn't hurt, but no-one has contested that the "creation myth" PoV can be reliably sourced. What you need to find is a source that says "creation myth" is the only uncontested designation of the Genesis cosmogony. But you can save yourself time, since sources have been provided that do contest it, or render it an oversimplification. Charles Darwin thought Genesis 1 a "demonstrably false history", Julius Wellhausen thought Genesis 1 a "sober reflection" as opposed to Genesis 2 which is "marvel and myth", Gerhard von Rad thought Genesis 1 "anti-mythological" and "demythologizing", very many scholars have considered Genesis 1 to be "polemical" in regard to ANE creation myths, Northrop Frye considered Genesis 1 to be an "artificial creation myth", i.e. not a genuine creation myth. Darwin is not an acknowledged expert on the Bible, despite his theology degree, so perhaps he doesn't count as a reliable source, but the others are gold-standard scholars of biblical literature (and none of them are conservatives, not that it matters).

Ben, I'm puzzled, could you explain the idea of WP:NPoV in your own words for us please? Perhaps we understand it differently. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say thank-you for writing so much more clearly. Perhaps we do have a different understanding of the NPOV policy, especially with demands like [w]hat you need to find is a source that says "creation myth" is the only uncontested designation of the Genesis cosmogony. I'm not going to rewrite or even summarise the NPOV policy in my own words for you though, but if you have specific questions then I'll try and answer them as I have time. If they're not directly relevant to this article though it might be best to discuss it somewhere else. Ben (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well allow me to repeat my unclear definition of my understanding of the policy: encyclopedic treatment requires all reliable, verifiable points of view to be documented, without evaluation of their relative merits, but also without giving WP:UNDUE attention to minority or fringe points of view.

Since you seem to find the application of that idea to the current title unclear, let me spell it out again as some more questions. Does the title Genesis creation myth serve as a description for all reliable, verifiable points of view in the history of scholarship regarding Genesis? Is it the consensus position of all recently published points of view regarding the Genesis cosmogony? Do you consider Charles Darwin, who thought Genesis to be history not myth, to be a non-notable, fringe point of view, not worth being covered by selection of the title?

If you do believe these things, then we agree about WP:NPOV, it's just that you've not yet verified the reliable sources that have been provided to demonstrate that the three questions above must all be answered "no". Alastair Haines (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It is not surprising that those opposed to discussing a change in the article title keep on rehashing this particular discussion while they ignore all the other arguments as much as possible. Clearly there are religious editors involved in this discussion who are harping on the POV issue and who would probably like to see the word "myth" eradicated from the entire article for those reasons (I do not agree with them in that regard one iota). Those editors are not in the majority amongst those who oppose the current title, however. So why do the myth title supporters keep on dredging up this particular argument in some kind of culture wars microcosm? If you ask this observer it is exactly because it plays upon culture war motifs. People should remember that the real actors in the culture wars are very vocal minorities. This particular discussion is like the more general discourse of the culture wars in that it hijacks reasonable dialog in favor of divisive arguments that have no solution and are in fact out of touch with the beliefs of the majority on both supposed sides of the debate. Consider that a vast majority of Christians (in the United States at the very least) have absolutely no problem accepting biological evolution while still believing wholeheartedly in their monotheistic God and the scriptural stories about this God and his/her relationship with humanity. Similarly a great deal of people here have no issue at all with the discussion of this passage as a creation myth but simply do not agree that the current title is a good one. I have as little sympathy for those who want to eradicate "creation myth" entirely from the content of the entry as I have for those who actually want "creationism" taught in schools, but thankfully these individuals are in the minority. I suggest not rehashing this dialog because that's what Ben, and others seem to want. Maybe, instead Ben can deal with any number of other problems presented above that are not handicapped by this ludicrous culture wars rendition of the debate.Griswaldo (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said. too many editors here are caught in a petty culture wars microcosm. They cannot let others write an intelligent article about the actual topic apparently because they cannot conceive that anything could be more important or interesting that their culture war. At Wikipedia, we cannot change the world, or the way people think, but we need efficient means to route around such time-wasters. But you need to recognize, Griswaldo that the culture wars has two camps. It isn't just stupid religionists against reason. It is idiotic theism pitted against idiotic atheism. Intelligent voices on either side are simply shouted down because, hey, who needs intelligence when we can have a good old-fashioned primate poo-flinging match. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and wish I had been clearer about the coeval nature of this extremism. Like I said before, I believe there are many editors here who are willing to do real work and are also willing to discuss the title and the content outside of this context. To those editors I say stop letting the culture wars nonsense hijack the discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

With other voices articulating things so accurately and clearly, I have no need to add anything. Thank you for your contributions Dieter and Griswaldo. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- my compliments to Dieter and Griswaldo.EGMichaels (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the title 'Creation Myth',

but it is preferred to 'Creation Story' which would imply total lack of any fact. At least 'myth' implies some possible remote basis in fact--and this is more than it deserves from a purely scientific PoV (a compromise). This will have to remain imperfect--for now. When that which is perfect comes along, that which is imperfect shall be deleted and replaced with the perfect--right? Science must remain true to its erection of 'testable' hypotheses and rigorously tearing at and modifying them. Faith must remain true to the mothers/fathers History as brought down from the past--it is our only communication from then. I am a neo-anarchist and am definitely not a believer in majority (nor committee) rule of anything. These two opposing PoV need to remain separate. To mix them, ends up in hodgepodge. At worst (from a traditional faith PoV) a scientist should be agnostic--God hasn't been disproven, and how would we even form a testable hypothesis for a negative proof? Atheism is an opposing belief (faith), based on less truth, for the purpose of obscurantism. Atheism is a mean spirited 'religeous' concept intended to be devilish. God, however, is in complete control and affects that every roll of a die, every Powerball Lottery Drawing and every genetic mutation is completely random--what would we do and where would life be, if it weren't so? Hallelujah! Mouselb (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we mention traditional Jewish beliefs on authorship?

Some apparently devoutly religious editors would like us to mention in the article their belief that the Torah is the exact Word of God (or Yahweh, or YHWH). Just to be clear here: the traditional Jewish belief is that the Torah wasn't just inspired by God, but dictated by him. So should we mention this? Personally, I'd say not: it's very much a fringe belief, one that no biblical scholar follows to the best of my knowledge, and not even one that a great many Christians or Jews would really believe. In short, it represents undue weight. Comments? PiCo (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important to theology in my own tradition, that the New Testament claims quite a different conception of divine revelation. However, how can we deny such a well-attested Jewish tradition exists? Does it take long to state it? Are many subtle arguments put forward to recommend the view? It's a very natural position to take, if one believes in God, but not the only one held even by believers. I would have thought it was a natural and straight-forward position to document.

Naturally the article can't be written from the point of view of this Jewish tradition, assuming its truth. But then again, the article can't be written from any other point of view asserted by any sources, reliable or not, that assume the Jewish tradition is false either.

It's not hard to verify the Jewish tradition for a reader from reliable sources. Indeed, we can provide a clear example from a reliable Jewish primary source, making precisely the claim this article would be asserting constitutes their PoV. That trumps any secondary source for verification, but it is adequate to provide a secondary source claiming that this is the traditional Jewish understanding.

I don't think we should feel responsible that we could be leading readers astray into believing the traditional Jewish understanding, that's really the reader's own business. I don't think we should assume that readers are familiar with this Jewish traditional understanding either.

This question is not close to my heart, though it might be a great way to "start on the right foot", for non-Jewish editors to document the Jewish view sufficiently well that a Jewish editor could say, "Yup! That's exactly what we say!" Alastair Haines (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it gets included. And of course it isn't "fringe". It was the unanimous view of Judaism for centuries, if not millennia, and it's still the view among Orthodox Jews. As such, it has a very extensive pedigree. Excluding it would be highly POV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Small correction: it has also been, and continues to be, a Christian view as well. Christians believe the Bible is God-inspired to one degree or another. It falls under the theological topic "Inspiration." The term comes from Latin and English translations of the Greek word theopneustos (used in 2 Timothy 3:16. The KJV renders it "inspiration", while the RSV translates it "inspired of God". However, the word literally means "God-breathed" (theo+pneustos). But for whoever ends up writing about it in the article, good luck: there are four main theories of biblical inspiration:

• Dictation (not popular but prevalent within some conservative Christian circles)
• Limited inspiration: God guided the writers, yet also allowed them the freedom to express their own thoughts regarding history and experiences they had, allowing for the possibility of historical errors, but divinely protected against any doctrinal error.
• Plenary verbal inspiration: God inspired the complete Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and doctrinal details. This very conservative view recognizes both the human and divine element within Scripture, but with more "degrees of freedom" than the dictation theory.
• Neo-orthodox: Proponents of neo-orthodoxy believe the Word of God is God himself, and thus the Bible is a witness to the Word of God; God is not the Bible. This view recognizes that the writers were finite and sinful, thus being capable of error in their writings. While the writers of both the Old and New Testaments recorded their experiences and witness to revelation, their writings may contain errors. This is the most liberal view of inspiration. This view conflicts directly with the NT claims that Scripture is God's Word (2 Tim 3:16) and that its writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Pico, it is not undue weight by any means. It's a notable historic POV, and also commonly confused with the verbal-plenary POV. Both should be stated so that they can be differentiated.EGMichaels (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Afaprof wrote, the main distinction between verbal-plenary and dictation is that dictation is a single parent (God), while verbal-plenary has dual parentage (divine and human). The product of verbal-plenary is written with human idiosyncracies, but remains exact what God wanted because God used those human agencies, and chose those agencies including their idiosyncracies to accomplish exactly what he meant to say. Mark and Luke could write in very different syntax and style but say exactly what God wanted, even down to the individual letter. Per dictation there shouldn't be identifiable differences in the syntax of the writers.EGMichaels (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To set out my argument again and answer some of the points made here, I'm arguing that this should be an article describing the major scholarly views on Creation in Genesis (or whatever this article is eventually named). The view that God dictated it to Moses isn't such a view - you'll never see it seriously considered in the journals (JBS etc), or in scholarly books, or indeed anywhere, except, of course, as a part of the historical background. It should be, and is, talked about in the article on Torah and the article on Mosaic authorship, but it's a digression in articles like this. The great think about Wikipedia is the hyperlinks - by all means let's have a hyperlink to the more relevant articles, but it's highly misleading to suggest to readers that modern scholars think that Genesis 1 might represent the actual words of God. PiCo (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Even rejection of a view is note of that view. It is notable and can be reliably sourced.EGMichaels (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should mention traditional Jewish beliefs on authorship. However, that does mean that we replace information on authorship as determined by historical research by such a doctrine of a particular belief system. · CUSH · 12:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

PiCo is setting up a "no real Scotsman" criterion. Any scholarship which holds that God dictated the Torah isn't "real" scholarship to him, so there can be no scholarship which says such a thing. But there is a wealth of Jewish scholarship that says just that. And we aren't going to exclude that. It is the relevant scholarship in the field of Jewish studies. Not just "doctrine". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a real Scottsman -- of the Sutherland clan.EGMichaels (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jewish scholarship that claims divine authorship is bollocks. And no source that requires belief in the supernatural as a precondition is a reliable source. You can have a section that says that some Jews believe in divine authorship, but you cannot use that to replace information about who actually wrote the text and included it in the biblical canon. · CUSH · 18:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a novel idea — why not use sourced material? If a source says that Jews — some Jews, many Jews — we might want to adhere to wording used by reliable sources — "claim divine authorship," then we put that in our article with a little "reference" after it. Please pardon my sarcasm. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(No sacasm intended at all) that's exactly what we are supposed to do :-). EGMichaels (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cush,

"you cannot use [orthodox Jewish scholarship] to replace information" — no one is proposing replacement, some are proposing inadmissability of Jewish scholarship

"source that requires belief in the supernatural" — being Jewish does not require orthodox belief, some Jewish scholars have pursuaded themselves of orthodoxy and explain that for others to consider

I became a Christian when I was 24, because when I read the New Testament as an adult, it made sense of things. Now I am 44 and a baby Christian scholar, I have to think even harder about a lot of questions. Perhaps next year they'll excavate the bones of Jesus of Nazareth, and I'll have to admit I've been wrong all along. My Christian conviction is based mostly on facts, but with enough "benefit of the doubt", that I know I could be wrong.

I'm very impressed by the perfect faith of atheists, though, who have absolutely no doubts, they know they can't be wrong. Amazingly impressive, not scientific, but amazing faith, I salute you! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair -- several side points: They'll never turn up the bones of Jesus any more than they'll turn up most other people's bones. At best he was buried in someone else's grave and you could find someone labelled Joseph of Arimathea. Fine -- but then... would that be Joseph, Jesus, or someone else? Presumably if Jesus rose from the dead then someone else would have been buried there later. It was only centuries later that people started looking for a grave. And even if they turned up bones definitely labelled "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, brother to Yaakov and Judah, crucified under Pontius Pilate" THEN it would be too perfect and appear to be staged.

Short point is that faith is faith. Even as Genesis remains rock solid even after uniformity and evolution, then the resurrection would remain even if you had "proof" otherwise.

That's not only as it is -- but also as it should be. Faith is lovely, as long as it recognizes itself.EGMichaels (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I guess what I really mean is faith contrary to evidence is unscientific and irritating, I guess we'd all agree. If only we can all agree that evidence regarding some questions is incomplete. Reliable sources are good at doing that. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm feeling the need to support PiCo here, because he is asking the right sort of questions, and doing things the right sort of way.

What PiCo says is true, and the good professor hints that it extends to Christianity as well, while EGM notes there is well documented confusion regarding the issues.

The confusion is "dictation" versus "inspiration". Going into those details here does strike me as undue attention, they ought to be covered elsewhere at Wiki. If they're not, they might as well be covered here and then merged where they properly belong.

Where "dictation" v. "inspiration" intersects with this article is in the relationship between Genesis and earlier ANE material.

I'm an inspiration guy, that is, I agree with the many scholars who hold to inspiration and are perfectly comfortable with the idea that the final editor of Genesis (who doesn't have to be Moses), presented her ideas in a literary form that engaged with the worldviews current in her time and place.

My opinion is irrelevant, what's relevant is that it coincides with a large number of highly regarded scholars (who are generally Christian, but also include some awesome Jewish professors).

There are far more Christian professors with this view than Jewish ones, because there are far more Christians. But the Jewish professors are all the more important, from the Christian perspective, because they represent a somewhat independent tradition supporting the findings of the Christians.

Likewise, there are many (but not a majority) of scholars of the Bible who write from outside communities of faith. When this group also confirm certain readings or theories regarding the Bible, we have yet another important independent tradition supporting conclusions derived by the others.

Sometimes the groups divide along party lines. Of course they do! The scholars are genuinely representatives of the groups that employ them! Other times, it's all very confusing, because disagreements are genuine scholastic thorny questions, not ideological matters of opinion, or there's a horrible mix of ideology along with difficult technical questions.

But back to PiCo and supporting him. If we ignore secular scholars, even then, "dictation" type scholars are very rare, but they do exist. I think PiCo is right, they are a minority, and their conviction regarding dictation means they don't address a lot of questions they believe to be settled already.

Yet, ultimately, I can't go with PiCo on this one for three reasons:

1. we don't need to silence the group, because they simply don't speak on a number of issues that don't interest them (they're no threat)
2. when they do speak, they are important, because they are the skeptics who need persuading, sure some can be too stubborn, but sometimes they keep us real about just how much we've actually demonstrated
3. finally, sometimes even the most orthodox start conceding long cherished assumptions, and if we want the power of that to be felt, we need to be fair, and acknowledge their place in the dialogue at other times also

To conclude, I really commend PiCo for asking the right questions in the right way. I commend others for refining the issues and defending the voice of orthodox Jewish scholars.

As for those who try the old chessnut—"Jane only says X because she believes X, therefore ignore her"—I would dearly love for them to apply Kant's categorical imperative, and only say things they don't believe, or be silent. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth

Everyone involved since "archive 4" Should have gotten notified on their talk page, If i miss you please add yourselfWeaponbb7 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this hard work Weapon. Almost single handed you're pushing us all to really embrace the very best parts of Wikipedia policy. Keep cool, but keep going! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrative 1

@lisa. I sourced this. It's also sourced in Wenham and easily a hundred other references. In the first narrative creation is by divine command, God "says" and it then "is". Each day's creation is preceded with God's announcement "let there be". And in the second creation narrative God "forms", like a craftsman. In the second, he molds, he breathes into the nostrils, removes a rib and closes the wound. But in the first he creates by summoning into being. This creation by imperative rather than craftmanship is viewed as a significant feature of the first creation story. So if you dispute this what are your sources? Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, and I acknowledge that this isn't a valid criterion for Wikipedia, it's factually untrue:

1:1 God created the heavens and the earth

1:7 God made the firmament

1:16 God made the two great lights

1:21 God created the great sea-monsters, etc.

1:25 God made the beast of the earth, etc.

1:27 God created Man in His own image

There are plenty of direct statements of God creating/making, including the first verse, which most sources see as a summary followed by details. In the second place, I'd be happy to cite you any number of works of Jewish scholarship which are clear on the subject that God did not "summon" creation, but created. Will you give me problems about these sources the way Cush did? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, God created-but how? The how the creation was accomplished in the first narrative is by God calling it into being and form. Right? God didn't "plant" a garden, or sedate Adam and pull out a rib, or mold the dust as in Genesis 2. And as you know, we do rely on sources here, not editor say-so, so if you dispute a sourced description you should furnish sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote doesn't say that God created anything by means of speech. It says that He "summoned" the creation of things. That's an awfully odd turn of phrase, and one which isn't backed up by the text or any number of rabbinic sources on the subject. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you want to elaborate on the idea of God creating by going into how it was done, that really belongs in the body of the article, and not in the lede, particularly when there are conflicting opinions. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I thought summoned had pizazz -- but Lisa's probably right. Some flair may not be appropriate. But good style!EGMichaels (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Again-"summon" is the exact word used in the source. So far you've disputed it but haven't offered a source. I wrote what the source said and until you offer contrary sources there is no "dispute" to consider here. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor -- that's an odd request. Almost NO sources use the word "summon" (which is why I thought it had pizzaz). Do you really need a source that says "create"? Heck, blindfold yourself, throw a dart in a library, and open any book on Genesis at random and you'll probably see "create" instead of "summon." Or do you need a book that says, "This was not a summoning." Since "summon" is such a unique word here, it would be really hard to find someone denying it. Besides, it's a clever way to say "called into being." While I don't agree with Lisa that the word is "inaccurate" I'd have to side with her that it's a little odd. I personally like it, but if an editor objects to so odd a term (even a lovely term as that) we should probably err on the side of the mundane.EGMichaels (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an "odd request" given the reasons given for lisa's revert were that it isn't true, that it can't be backed up by the text, and there were "conflicting opinions" on this. def summon: "to call upon to do something specified; to call for the presence of, as by command, message, or signal; to call into action; rouse; call forth". If "summon" is too "pizzazy" let's hear some alternatives. But I've already shown that "summon" is perfectly suitable, and neither is it particularly "odd". [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] The poorly disguised I just don't like it revertitis has been chronic in this article, while hundreds of more serious problems dealing with properly sourcing claims, copyright infringements, and content errors go ignored. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't clarified whether you are requesting ANY source that uses ANY other term (such as "create") or rather a source that somehow managed to take enough notice of the wildly improbable (though not inaccurate) term "summon" in order to actually reject it. It's like finding a source that says, "God did not conjure" or "God did not channel" or some other unusual word. Either one of those would be an odd request. As for "I don't like it" -- I've repeatedly said that "I DO like it." Nevertheless, it's an unusual term, and when challenged should revert to a more mundane term. Wikipedia isn't about cramming any cool term we can shoehorn in there, but rather to be clear. We sanity check each other for clarity, and Lisa did you the favor of a sanity check. Please return the favor by being... mundane.EGMichaels (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Lisa: "I'd be happy to cite you any number of works of Jewish scholarship which are clear on the subject that God did not "summon" creation, but created." Let's stop moving the goalpost, okay? Enough's enough. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not moving the goal post. Her wording was quite clear: she has reams of sources that God "created" instead of sources that say God "summoned."EGMichaels (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you running interference on this? She defended her revert by saying that she would be happy to cite any number of works clear on the subject that God did not "summon" creation. So let's have them. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not running interference -- you are deliberately "misunderstanding" her words. I say "deliberate" now that you continue to press it even after I've made it clear what she meant (which should have been obvious). Please drop it; you are creating noise on the talk page and interfering with collaborative editing.EGMichaels (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he's running interference because he has more tolerance for tendentious demands than I do.

• Wayne D. Dosick, Living Judaism: the complete guide to Jewish belief, tradition, and practice, p.128: "What was the first act of creation? God said, 'Let there be light' (Genesis 1:3)"
• Martin Sicker, Reading Genesis politically: an introduction to Mosaic political philosophy, p.2: "All previous acts of creation are described as the direct consequence of straightforward and impersonal divine imperatives, such as Let there be light (Gen. 1:3), Let there be a firmament (Gen. 1:6), and Let the earth bring forth the living creature (Gen. 1:24). In all these instances, the utterance of the divine word itself constitutes the act of creation, although as is evident from the last citation, the act may be merely the initiation of an evolutionary process."

Recopying more would be just more of a waste of time. This is like a microcosm of the whole title debate. There are terms that are clear to everyone and not disputed. "Narrative", in the case of the title. "Created", in this case. There are idiosyncratic terms that may be present in a source, but are by no means the most common term. "Myth", in the case of the title. "Summoned", in this case. In both cases, those wishing to use the less common term accuse those wishing to use a normal term of "IDon'tLikeIt-itis", a violation of AGF which could easily be turned in the opposite direction. Just stop, okay? The vast majority of sources and the world read "Let there be light" as a statement which created light. Even those who don't believe it happened understand that this is what the text is saying. Why on earth you have to get all snippy about an odd term like "summoned" is beyond me. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why am I still focused on "summon"? Because when editors revert with the reason "factually untrue" and it's like pulling teeth to get substantive backup to the accusation, the "discussion" drags on and on. And I am quite fed up with being lectured about "collaboration" from you, egmichaels. I have asked for the references to back up the revert, and if I can't have them unless I bug and bug then any failure to "collaborate" certainly isn't mine. So Lisa, please explain how your own reference disputes my edit? It says creation takes place "as the direct consequence of straightforward and impersonal divine imperatives". "To issue an imperative" is as clear a synonym for "to summon" as one can find. So if you don't like summon because it's "odd" (given you've abandoned the "untrue", "disputed", or "can't be backed up" excuses in favor now of this one) what word do you like better? We need something to describe the "manner" of this creation because it, as well as God's series of declarations that each day's creation was "good", are distinguishing features of the first narrative. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<---The question of how God creates is something you can discuss in the body of the article. If you want. Personally, I think you knew from the start that using the word "summoned" would cause problems, and you did it anyway. Genesis says God created things. You want to say that He only "summoned their creation". One of the sources I brought says explicitly that the command was the act of creation. Not a summons for creation, but the act itself. If you have a source that disagrees (and I haven't read your source, so I have only your word that it does and that this isn't an idiosyncratic reading on your part), then we have conflicting sources. Which can be dealt with in the body of the article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Why would I anticipate that it would "cause problems"? There is nothing wrong with it - I don't have just one source, I've provided a dozen that use the very term itself, and even the reference you furnished unequivocally supports it. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't have friends arguing like this. Can I break the deadlock with an alternative? How about using the term fiat-fulfilment.

• "The full two-register cosmology comes to expression in the fiat-fulfillment format, which is the basic structure of each of the six day-stanzas. While the 'let there be' is uttered at the upper register, the 'and it was so' occurs at the lower register."

— Meredith Kline, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48 (1996): 2–15.

Please shoot me instead of one another. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive suggestion. If "summon" is objected to as too odd, though, I think we'd have to agree "fiat-fulfillment" is somewhat more so. Maybe just "fiat"? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about just "spoke"? That's basically the same as what Professor seems to mean by "summoned" without the pre-existent connotations that Lisa (and orthodoxy!) wishes to avoid. Every source I know of grants that "God said." Well -- "God spoke." Granted, it's not as cool a word as summoned, but it's non-controversial and easy to understand.EGMichaels (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How about just "created"? Up above, the prof said, "Yes, God created-but how?" So even he agrees that created is correct. And since there's a dispute in the sources as to "how", the question of how doesn't belong in the lede. EGM, it's the same argument you've used here about the title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He he, yes I'll keep fiat-fulfilment to my writing off Wikipedia (mostly).

Fwiw, I think "summon" is a great word to capture the idea of words causing something to come into existence.

However, I really do appreciate that in ordinary usage a "demon is summoned" or the boss "summons" you to her office.

Since the idea of pre-existing material is contested in scholastic discussion of Genesis, and ordinary usage of "summon" tends to evoke the idea of calling something that already exists to be present before you, I can really appreciate the objection.

"Summon" is used by sources. Its a good word. Is it the only word?

I'm not going to take sides here. I think you're all spot on! Alastair Haines (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've started looking at the prof's sources: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

I checked the first two, and failed to find the term "summoned" being used. I don't see any reason to continue through them. If he wants to demonstrate his point, he can include the text here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First source, printed page 85: "On days 1 - 3 God performs three acts of division and separation that summoned into existence of the created order." Second source, printed page 2: "Distinct to this telling, however, are two significant variations. [In the first variation] The incomparable ease with which God summons the sun, moon, stars, water, sky, earth and life into existence and that God does so without the aid or counsel of any other being marks this God as incomparable and unique." Do you want me to keep going? They all say the same thing, in so many words. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC) On second though, let's finish this. The third source printed page 80 (speaking of allusions in the Book of Baruch to Genesis creation)"Descriptive accounts of Creation--The first example, 'You summon the coming of times and they stand before you' alludes to the scene of the Genesis creation account." The fourth, printed page 24: "As God's 'speech creature', the world is evoked by this summoning God who will have his way." The fifth, printed page 462, "This primal universe contained the potential that he summoned into actuality by his creative word and so made heaven and earth, as we read in Genesis 1:1." Next, printed page 7 (speaking of 2nd and contrasting to 1st narrative) "In this more vividly anthropomorphic account, God, now called YHWH 'Elohim instead of Elohim as in this first version, does not summon into being from a lofty distance but ... works as a craftsman, fashioning, ..." Next, printed page 107, the fifth day: "At the same time God summons into existence birds..." Next, printed page 218: "The classic presentation of God's creative word is found, of course, in Genesis 1, where God's word of command (note the language ... 'summon' [qara']. Next, "Out from this, God summons order, thus creating the universe." Next, "God summons the cosmos into being --systematic and planned separation of elements and production of distinct life -forms —by divine word, speech" Next, "A reading from Genesis !:1-15...Earth waits beneath the waters below and, at God’s summons, Earth emerges from the waters like a child at birth and then, at God’s command, brings forth all the fauna and flora on our planet." That should be all of them. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Definition #8 (of 8) in the OED for the verb to summon: "To call into existence; to call forth." The term is clearly being applied within its scope of meaning. However there are 7 other meanings presented prior to this one in the OED and I wonder if, in the spirit of the encyclopedia, it wouldn't be better to use terminology that is semantically equivalent to the intended meaning but not any of the unintended ones.Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. "God performs three acts of division and separation that summoned into existence of the created order." This source describes a summoning which occurred as a result of God's acts of creation. That's not the same as God summoning creation. Such an equation is a misreading on your part, or at the very least OR.

For the second source, you very disingenuously omitted the sentence just previous: "Instead of creation as the result of a cosmic battle requiring great effort, the God of the Torah creates simply by issuing an effortless command: 'Let there be.'" Again, the primary statement of the source is that God creates. And that act of creation (the command) summons things into existence. Which is the opposite of what you wrote.

And no, I won't go through the rest of them. Those two alone suffice to show that you are taking words out of context. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a good point here. Per definition 8 above, when summon is being used it refers to the notion that God summons that which is created and not creation itself. Summon and create are synonyms here. It wold be like saying that God creates creation. Unless of course by "creation" you mean not the act of creating but that which was created, which is possible, but I would say stylistically awkward and not obvious to the reader.Griswaldo (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question -- how are you finding these sources? You're pretty good at it and I'd like to be able to do the same. Are you finding them on Amazon.com or something? Googlebooks? I've never used googlebooks, but whatever you're using I'd like to use it too.EGMichaels (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Lisa. "God summons the creation of the heavens and the earth" is so freaking close to "God summons the sun, moon, stars, water, sky, earth and life into existence" that it's spooky (I found that source after my edit. The source I used was Alter's Genesis)

@EGMichaels-I found all those with google, google books most of them.

@Griswaldo-I'm not fixed on "summon". We're only still stuck on it here because Lisa's busy now casting aspersions on the work I've done to justify her hasty revert. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Back the the issue. @Lisa. All creation stories have a "create". It's a given. So in the interest of developing some substantive ~content~, we typically say more than this. We try to describe the process when we describe the creation story. It's commonly a creation from a god or gods, and sometimes creation takes place from hatching from an egg, sometimes it's the result of the gods mating, sometimes the elements are mingled like soup and coalesce into form, sometimes it's an emination, all these are different means to "create". The significant aspect in this creation account is that it was "commanded" into existence. We need to say this somehow. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in the lede, we don't. If you want to discuss whether God's command created things or whether God's command summoned the creation of things, do so. In the body of the article. It requires more than a simple pithy statement. The lede is for simple pithy statements.

You're standing on ceremony now. You don't like that I "cast aspersions". I apologize for casting aspersions. Will you drop it now? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies."[32]. The creation stories need better descriptions in both the body and the lead. It's on my ToDo list anyway. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This one isn't notable. The sources you brought don't even address it as such. Just because an author uses a phrase like "summoned" instead of a simple "created" doesn't mean that anyone is arguing with the fact that it's created. Except you. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody, including me disputes "created". "Creation myths" always involve the "create" part. But I said that. And the idea of the "summoning", if not the word itself, is notable. You dispute it-though so far you haven't offered any sources that do. But then there are disputes over ex nihilo and "pithy" or not, it too warrants mention in the lead. But you and I aren't going to agree but I'm content to wait for broader input while I work on other areas. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Henry Ward Beecher

I'm perplexed by the recent addition of information on Henry Ward Beecher in the section entitled "Creationism". The source uses Beecher as an example of religious liberals who interpreted Genesis as myth, allegory, etc. Beecher's POV is in line with the mainstream POVs presented in the main sections of the entry. Just because Beecher appears in a Science reference work within the context of discussions about creationism doesn't make it apropos to the creationism section of this entry, especially when Beecher's POV is in line with mainstream (non-literalist, non-creationist) interpretations of the passage in question. I caution against building the "Creationism" section up any further as this entry is not about the history of that controversy but about a religious text that is otherwise interpreted in a very different way. Let's think outside the culture wars box here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the phrasing on Beecher is misleading, though I'm sure that was not intentional. The source states that Beecher "eagerly abandoned what he regarded as obnoxious traditional doctrines such as the Fall and Original Sin (Genesis 3), for an optimistic evolutionary anthropology ..." I'm not sure what abandoning the doctrine of the Fall meant to Beecher in entirety, but it certainly doesn't seem right, without another source to back it up, to then place his evolutionary anthropology as being expressly post-Fall of Man with a link to the Christian doctrine of the Fall to boot. Let's be a bit more careful here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was misleading. Hopefully it's better now. The problem with the original section is that it treated all creationism as a literalist reading of the genesis creation, and that's incorrect. There are different shades of literalist creationism, and then there are non-literalist creationists (special creation of the soul, for example) whose creationist theology relates differently to the Genesis passages. I used a better example from Beecher than the Fall (he has many, and and his "Fall" ideas would "open" things up beyond the creation account more than is ideal there). Professor marginalia (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are still others (i.e. Neo-Orthodox) not dealt with, but probably too confusing for the general reader.EGMichaels (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, creationism is not limited to Genesis literalists. This is a widely held misconception but the encyclopedia shouldn't perpetuate it. But all these forms of creationism I included did develop in large part as a response to the scientific developments. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The new text is quite clear. Thanks for that. However I'm still unsure of its placement in this entry. The entry is not about the history of creationism. Also, while I suppose you have sources that includes Beecher's interpretation of Genesis within some type of "creationism" (yes?) I'm quite uneasy with this designation because it implies that any interpretation of Genesis (whether from the 19th or 3rd century, etc.) that assumes divine creation is real (whatever that means ahistorically -- I say next to nothing) belongs under the subheading "creationism". This renders the term virtually meaningless within the context of this entry. Creationism of the sort that includes some amount of biblical literalism is meaningful precisely because it does not fit into the mainstream historical trajectory of the interpretation of these passages. Such is not the case for Beecher. Whether or not we agree about these later points I still have a hard time understanding why this has been included and why under this heading and not some other.Griswaldo (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we rename the entire section "Theology and Judaeo-Christian interpretation", "Creationism"? This seems to be implied by the argument for Beecher's inclusion.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the section, I repaired and improved it. And I'm not responsible for the definition of creationism either, but the idea that it refers or is notable only to "non-mainstream" religious thought is absolutely untrue. Beecher would be an evolutionary creationist-he believed that the soul was separately and divinely created and that the method God chose to perform the creation was a progressive form of evolution. Whether or not he should be "labeled" a creationist is not significant--but what is significant is the way he incorporated the new Darwinian theory into his theological interpretation of both an historical, factual creation and the theology as revealed in Genesis creation scriptures (and other scripture as well). I think it's useful to include him because he's repeatedly mentioned in the context of the kind of "schisms" that developed in Genesis interpretation in response to Darwin. In 4 or 5 at least he's described as the most influential theologian to lead the liberal theological accommodation of evolution to Genesis interpretation. If you think a better label might be something about interpretations following the advance of science that would be fine with me. I don't think it should merge with the "Judaeo-Christian" simply because this response to Darwin etc on Genesis interpretation is extremely notable in and of itself. Interpretations changed for other reasons as well, such as in the case of the documentary hypothesis, but I think these creationists described in the section now directly address the discrepancies between scientific understanding and the details given in the text itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that creationism only refers to "non-mainstream" religious thought. I said that, "[c]reationism of the sort that includes some amount of biblical literalism is meaningful precisely because it does not fit into the mainstream historical trajectory of the interpretation of these passages." Creationism as you suggest it is commonly defined apparently includes virtually all "mainstream religious thought" coming out of the history of Christianity and Judaism. I don't really see the utility of this definition when what we're really writing about is the historical period after Darwin and specifically the encounter between biblical interpretation and biological theories of evolution. The relationship between theology and this passage is placed in a more general section on theology and interpretation no matter what developments in Western intellectual history may have dramatically influencing this theology, but when theology and interpretation relates to Darwin somehow it naturally belongs in its own section? I'm not sure I understand that. I will concede that it is of historical significance and perhaps the answer is not to merge but to split even more. But if that is the case your suggested rename for the section is better because it much clearer. The inclusive definition of creationism isn't meaningful in this historical context in my view.Griswaldo (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the broad scope of creationism itself isn't of much interest here-what is would be noting the set of interpretations that came about as a consequence of modern evolution and science. Genesis creation and Noah's ark are the two primary areas where we continue to see these big religious and social clashes over the texts say and what science says, and the Ark article addresses the related interpretive issues there as well. Let's get a better title then - I'll think on it myself. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Any luck. I haven't solved this one myself but I think we're pretty much in agreement. I might have been a bit extreme in my initial arguments on this, but in the end I do agree that it is important but that we simply need to be accurate about reflecting the context and importance adequately. Thanks for thinking this through.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop in two cents to this quality discussion. It is remarked upon in biblical studies and theological literature that both the theory of evolution and the documentary hypothesis challeged cosy consensus and assumptions regarding interpretations of Genesis that preceded them. Many contemporary scholars from faith communities consider Genesis itself to be unchallenged, but accept that rejecting or modifying prior interpretations is necessary. In my opinion, Creationists are important because they seek to keep old interpretations alive as the "natural reading" of the text. Leaving the physcial sciences aside for a moment, if the Creationists were right in their linguistic and literary arguments, then Genesis 1 would be literal, after all. That would be good news for secular humanism, because Genesis 1 would be falsified.

I'm sure what I'm saying is not new to either Griswaldo or the good Professor. What I would like to see in the Creationist section is a focus on summarizing Creationist arguments for the literal nature of the text. There are some excellent scholars in that tradition who challenge my own reading. It strikes me this is a literary article (all the more so under the title "creation myth"), rather than a Science v. Bible kind of article (without meaning to include due space where relevant).

Anyway, sourced examples of the "literalist" point of view is content I'd hope this article could contain. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should develop more the most notable of the various interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 out there. In its current form, there's a bit of "flattening" even while many of the issues are touched on. It's probably in part because of the way the article is structured. Ideally literalism is more fully developed as a method apart from creationism-it's as old at least as Basil of Caesarea. I'm not sure I know what you have in mind though when you say creationist arguments for the literal nature of the text. Do you mean arguments that the literal is more accurate for Genesis creation? If so, there isn't much to say beyond what's already given in the quote there now. The strict literalism in today's creationism was actually born from the arguments and motivations from 19th millennialist eschatology, not so much creation in Genesis, and the arguments in post Darwin creationism that are peculiar to support for strict literalism of the Bible as a whole come more from that area. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been browsing this discussion [sic] and I've noticed at least an indecision whether to use the word 'summoned' or 'spoke'. The word 'spoke' (like talk/discussion) definitely implies PHYSICAL AUDIO EMANATIONS. Can you 'hear' me? If a tree falls in the woods without any medium to tranmit sound does it make sound--me thinks not. I vote for 'summoned', which at least allows for inaudiable communication/creation. From then on, alot of speaking goes on! The first few words from Biblical Genesis literally read, "In the scratch Gods created supermatter and matter." Gods from Hebrew/Aramaic 'Elohim' is always plural, regardless of how contemporary translations spin it. I think the 'how' is answered 'from scratch'. Will you be including the 'eighth day of creation'? Abraham was given the circumcision as a covenant with his creator with the promise of 'a new creation' the 'eighth day'. Mouselb (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Fall

The fall itself has its own spins. While to Christianity it is a problem, to Judaism it is part of the process of our becoming partners with God. A child has to individuate to become fully conscious. Thus, the fruit is entirely irrelevant as such. It is the command that makes this knowledge of good and evil. Note the similarity with the "before [Immanuel] knows the difference between good and evil" in Isaiah 7. All this is simply to say that the "fall" has its own scope and will need a good deal of work.EGMichaels (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "myth" to debunk false notions

Our article Myth of the Flat Earth is devoted to debunking the idea the Medieval society generally believed in (or had returned to) the pre-scientific concept of the Flat Earth.

Ther the word "myth" is used in an article title specifically to connote the idea of a what Myth (disambiguation) calls:

• A commonly-held but false belief or a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality

I suggest that we either change both titles to avoid appearing to taks sides on whether the ideas the two articles are describing, or acknowledge that our use of myth in Genesis creation myth is indeed intended to convey the idea that mainstream scholarship regards the Biblical account of creation as discreditable. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ed, couldn't agree with you more. If you read above this has been the subject of much debate. The counter argument to what you're saying is that the technical/academic definition of the word "myth" does not imply falsity. Read above for more details. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But we need not resolve two problems to resolve one problem. This Talk page is for this article; the other article has its own Talk page. And this sort of composite reasoning can be taken up at the WP:Village Pump. According to WP:TALK I think a Talk page is especially designed to be used to improve the one article associated with it. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am opposed to the title "Genesis creation myth." It contains "spin." What is called for is a bland title that identifies the subject of the article. That was accomplished adequately by the previous title which was "Creation according to Genesis." Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The other article should change its title, but I think its best to have that discussion over there. I do not like the current title here either, but not for any reasons related to the problems of that other article. Using "myth" in the popular sense should be discouraged across the board.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've come to realize that "Creation according to Genesis" is also prejudicial. It implies that there was a creation, and this is how it went according to Genesis. Which is a problem for people who don't think there was a creation at all.

"Genesis creation narrative" fixes this problem without using the problematic term "myth". I don't think a single person has expressed any problem with the term "narrative". It's even more neutral than "story". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrative is the most popular of all the choices in the table that presented all of the choices somewhere above. Of course a lot of people who have elsewhere in this discussion insisted on "myth" have not chimed in there. I'm personally comfortable with changing the title to narrative, especially given the more recent silence from the afore mentioned people, and then dealing with the fallout if there is any after that. Others may not agree but I just don't think the "we're silent now because this has been discussed to much" argument should prevent us from doing something productive about this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think narrative is acceptable, but I'd prefer something like "Description of Creation in the Book of Genisis". That avoids the somewhat obscure "narrative" word while not being prejudicial. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

100% agreed on the title "Genesis creation narrative".EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "narrative" is perfectly neutral, even if other words might be better. But since "the best is the enemy of the best", I suggest we all compromise on narrative as in Genesis creation narrative. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "myth" accurately describes the Genesis story. You may as well create an article describing Tolkien's Silmarillion as a creation "narrative". The fact is that neither are accurate. Both are pure myth. They should be described as such. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion is not about removing the term "myth" from the main article. No one is suggesting that we stop calling it a creation myth in the entry, even in the open lines of the introductory paragraph. It is a discussion about the title only. There have been many arguments on this page that actually focus on the title only. The issue is not as simple as you think it is. Scholars do not often refer to this narrative as the "Genesis creation myth". That's simply fact, and that's one of the many arguments that have been made here.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and here's an example of the use of "myth" to mean "fiction". Is it any wonder that it appears to some editors as though there's a concerted effort to use prejudicial POV language behind the change of the article to "Genesis creation myth"?

This sort of argument can't be taken into account. The passages in the Silmarillion where creation is described certain is a creation narrative, but that's not even the issue. The issue is that there are those who want to use a charged term rather than a neutral one, because they find the prospect of neutrality in this case to be offensive. It's ludicrous. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The sequence of words "Genesis creation myth" is a contrivance. It is based, arguably enough, on the reference in some academic sources to Genesis as a "creation myth." It is a contrivance because one would not identify the subject matter in this article by that title unless one wanted to advance a very specific agenda. There is an activist spin to the title "Genesis creation myth" because it, more so than any other title under consideration here, rules out the possibility of literal veracity in the subject matter that is to be considered in the article. There is simply no cause for that in a title. There is ample space within the body of the article to refer to those sources that characterize the story under consideration as a "creation myth." There really is no argument as to whether or not reliable sources (some) refer to Genesis, chapters one and two, as a "creation myth." But it is gratuitous to hoist that one characterization up into the title. Genesis, chapters one and two, is also a story, a narrative, and an account. Those words (story, narrative, account) are far less committal on the question of whether the subject matter contained in this article is true or false or anywhere in-between. That is an advantage, because a title only has as its primary purpose the identifying of the subject matter of the article, not necessarily the characterizing of it in any particular way. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Word myth is ignorant. I do not believe in creationism, but it is still ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.113.232 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement on "Genesis Creation Narrative". When is it finally going to be changed? It would be so nice to be able to put all of this behind us, and focus on the article.Mk5384 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I motion for a move request! Anyone second my motion? NickCT (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Seconded.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But please note that there appears to be a still active request above. I think the idea is that per that request there is consensus for "Genesis creation narrative" and we should be able to move forward with this.Griswaldo (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually someone needs to sort this out. On this talk page the move request appears open ended at the top of the talk page. On the move requests page it is specifically a request to go back to "Creation according to Genesis". What is the proper procedure here?Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Really the only "procedure" is that if consensus for a move is achieved, you request the move. Let me ask this, does anyone have a serious objection to moving the page to "Genesis Greation Narrative"? NickCT (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome the title change to "Genesis creation narrative." Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least you need to put together a clearly worded, legitimate WP:RFC narrowly targeted the potential change to this name. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I support "Genesis creation narrative". The common usage of myth implies falsity, and that is counter to NPOV. (Declaration of bias: I personally believe the narratives to be false.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

@Professor marginalia - Usually I'm all for RfCs. But I think in this case, we need not delay. There seems to be strong consensus for the "narrative" wording. It certainly seems less contraversial than the current wording. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't one of the essentials of NPOV that "neither side" feels that the wording gives an advantage to the other side? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no measurement of a "strong consensus" yet. If you don't do the work to gauge it, I predict any change in the title will be reverted within an hour and trigger even more dust and noise in the edit warfare. This battle has been going on for a very long time. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a move to the consensus title of "Genesis creation narrative"

Genesis creation myth → Genesis creation narrative —

After a great deal of discussing and debate, there appears to be a consensus that Genesis creation narrative is the most descriptive and NPOV title for this article. See [33] and [34] and [35]. This consensus has been getting stronger and stronger over the past few days, and I think now would be a good time to move the page. And since it's been such a charged issue, I think the current lock preventing editors from willy nilly moving the page should be left in place. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is the correct move. The current title is not a common phrase in scholarship despite the fact that most scholars do consider this an exemplary creation myth. There is no reason not to follow this lead and discuss the narrative as a myth in the entry without the non-standard title.Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support The current title clearly needs to be changed. It has been filled with controversy since a few quickly changed it a few months ago. Before that the article existed for years with normal discussion. I agree with this proposed title and it has a lot of support. SAE (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems to be a violation of WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. If "myth" is an inappropriate term for one narrative, because it is biased against the validity of the narrative, then it is by default an inappropriate term for all such narratives. And it seems that "myth" is the only term appropriate for some articles: Greek mythology etc. If this is an argument against the use of "myth" in general, it seems absurd, as the word "myth" is a neutral description of this sort of narrative. If it is an argument against the use of the word "myth" in this specific instance, it seems to be biased towards this "narrative" being more true than those which are labelled "myths", which seems both a violation of wikipedia policy and blatantly incorrect, in that it is a symbolic, metaphysical structure. Claritas (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that this term be removed from the entry. There is no censorship here. We are only discussing the title. There are several reasons to change it that have nothing to do with the general usage of the term "myth" and many of us have come to this as the best compromise because it satisfies pretty much everyone ... except perhaps those who have other non-academic reasons to prefer the term "myth". Academics do not prefer that nomenclature when referring to this narrative despite considering this a creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumably consistency is desired - "creation myth" is used (although not as frequently as "creation narrative") to descirbe Genesis, and all other articles about such narratives use the term "creation myth". Claritas (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is one of the many false, but understandable, assumptions people keep on making here. "Creation myth" is not used in the titles of similar articles at all. Please browse the "creation myth" category and see for yourself. "Creation myth" is used in a handful of cases and almost exclusively when referring to the "creation myth" of a civilization -- e.g. Sumerian creation myth or Mesoamerican creation myths -- and not when referring to a text -- e.g. Enûma Eliš or Völuspá. It is the current title that is inconsistent.Griswaldo (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Everyone seems to agree that the subject is a narrative. Any further specificity about what kind of narrative, or implications about its factual basis, need not be made in the title, and would serve no purpose whatsoever, but to endorse a POV about the subject. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Neutral title. The "myth" concept is fully explained in the article body. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mr Collins in his concise dictionary "Myth: a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs etc came into being" supports the current title. Abtract (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • But what is wrong with the proposed title? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong is that Creation myth, Greek mythology, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth and Mesoamerican creation myths would also need to be moved, to prevent prioritising Judeo-Christianity. Claritas (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my answer to you above. Those are the handful of examples of a different type of entry -- or at least a different type of title (see Lisa's response below). An argument can be made for Pelasgian creation myth as of a similar type, but it, like this entry currently, is the exception and not the rule.Griswaldo (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The correct analogy would be from Chinese creation myth to Jewish creation myth. Or Christian creation myth. Genesis creation narrative is different. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone sincerely objects to the characterization of the tales of Zeus, Athena, etc as "myths" they are free to take that issue up on that article's talk page. Personally, I think the stories described in this article are laughably primitive nonsense, but there are many living, breathing, Wikipedia-reading- and -editing people who think I'm wrong, and they have weighed in here on this article, so I'm going to give them the respect due to any language-using child of (mitochondrial) Eve and support the use of neutral terminology. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• • And we don't look to the dictionary definitions of words that make up part of a phrase in order to chose our titles here as far as I can tell. There are other conventions like common use, and technical use, and neither is satisfied with the current title.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Claritas has betrayed that he has taken an editorial position on the matter. The title should not take an editorial position. As far as "Greek mythology", that's the commonly used term. "Genesis creation myth" is not, except in certain narrow circles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the tag on the article, I thought that we were discussing potential NPOV-violation of the article's current title. Apologies. Claritas (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" is a POV violation, as it takes an editorial position on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before everyone else says it... There is a pragmatic difference between the dictionary definition of the word "myth" and the colloquial usage. Since titles are supposed to be "common usage", this would be tantamount to calling the story a flat-out fairy-tale. Since there is no proof for this, that would be NPOV. The authorship has been called into question but the story has no viable way of being tested so it can't be falsified. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support As a Creationist, I find this current title offensive and miseading so I support any change that removes this false accusation of myth. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Genesis creation narrative. The word "narrative" is perfectly neutral, and Wikipedia does not need to take the masses by the hand and lead them. Let the reader, rather than the title, decide what they think. Using words like "myth" is an attempt to lead the reader as opposed to their own ability to decide. --TK-CP (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article should be about the story itself, not it's validity (which has been falsified for quite some time). The article is dealing with the story, or narrative, that describes the myth, not the myth itself. The myth should be dealt with in the Christian creation myth where asserting that this is a myth is perfectly appropriate. This article doesn't talk about the myth, but the story in front of the myth. Padillah (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, not for nothing, but Christian creation myth redirects here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You caught me, I didn't check that. That should be changed to a valid article discussing the various Christian creation myths and their place in the dogma. Not being a seminary student I have no idea how that article would get a start. Padillah (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is written for the common man. The common man understands "myth" by its common definition (i.e. w/ implicit or explicit falsity). Wikipedia must be super careful not to endorse or refute any particular religous belief. Hence, "myth" language is innappropriate. "Narrative" sounds like a good NPOV replacement. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This looks like a token sop to the religon of most Wikipedians, in the face of common usage of the term "creation myth" to describe traditional attempts to explain origins such as are found in religious scripture. On the other hand as long as the redirect was maintained no real damage would be done, so my opposition to this token move proposal is also a token and I won't be losing sleep if I'm overridden by consensus. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This phrasing isn't actually common. I see no reason why the redirect can't be kept, but IMO few people will try find this story by typing in those exact words anyway.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support i think after months of bickering i think this is the closest we have come to consensus Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. I am not convinced that the move is necessary, but it's not wrong, either. The only thing that really makes me hesitant is the prospect that once "creation myth" has been removed from the title, the absurd fight for removing it from the lead will start again. Hans Adler 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans I don't think that will happen. As I see it many people who support this move do not support removing the description from the article or its introduction. However, should that happen I agree wholeheartedly that vigilant opposition is necessary.Griswaldo (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Consensus? This proposal doesn't even have a linguistic basis. The mythology article quotes Eliade, "In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative — (1) "true stories", or myths, and (2) "false stories", or fables." English dictionaries do not define myth and narrative as interchangeable synonyms, nor creation myth and creation narrative, nor mythology and narratology, etc. Keahapana (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand the point of this proposal. You are absolutely correct that myth and narrative are not synonyms, and that is the very reason for this change. Whether Genesis contains a myth or not is disputed depending on one's POV and interpretation of that term, but that it contains a narrative (a less specific term) is something that seems undisputed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The battle has gone on far too long already. My opinion is based on policies and scan of references which I will describe more fully in the section below. Nothing less than a genuine commitment from editors to put aside their own personal opinion and defer to the body of sources and pertinent policies will move this forward. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could start? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've given my reasons numerous times, in numerous places.Mk5384 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - "Genesis creation myth" may be used in some schools of thought, but they are clearly a minority among scholars. There is no overriding reason to use such an awkward and ambiguous term as "myth" just to appease this uncompromising minority, but there IS plenty of reason not to, for example something being more of an "external" term, the same one used by detractors of a given text or whatever, rather than being used as an analytical term, is usually a pretty good indication of manifesting a discernible "point-of-view" - which the current title does in a rather pushy manner. Also, whatever was the true intended purpose of this title, it does not seem to be achieving it - unless it were dissension. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support → "Genesis creation narrative". There is no way to make "myth" NPOV in this article. That should take precedence over other possible reasons to term this a myth. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy regarding the move request above

While I'm for the move, I wanted to point out that two long standing policies stand in direct contravention to the change we are trying to make.

From WP;_SAY#Myth_and_legend

“ Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.

Formal use of the word is 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. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.

”

From Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion

“ 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 note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view (bolding added), or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at words to avoid. ”

Fankly, I think these policies have to change for many of the reasons discussed above. Does anyone want to join me at the village pump to try and overturn these policies? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the village pump? Also, there's another policy which goes against the ones you posted:

From Wikipedia:UCN#Common_names

“ Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.

The following are examples of common names that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of a more elaborate, formal or scientifically precise alternative:

• Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton")
• Snoop Dogg (not "Cordozar Calvin Broadus")
• Hulk Hogan (not "Terry Gene Bollea")
• Venus de Milo (not "Aphrodite of Melos")
• Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)
• Nazi Party (not Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

”

It's been argued by some that "creation myth" is the common usage in reliable sources, but this has been shown by EGM not to be the case. The argument on the side of using "myth" comes down to "that's the technically correct term." Which this policy explicitly rules out. Yes, Aphrodite of Melos is the technically correct name of the Venus de Milo. So what?

And it isn't clear that policies about religion are pertinent here. After all, the bulk of the article argues that the narrative is not what the religions which use it claim it to be at all. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PUMP is the Talk page for Wikipedia itself.

Wikipedia naming policy effectively trumps the bits of the above-quoted guidelines that would seem to argue against Genesis creation narrative. For search and linking purposes, article names are to reflect common usage while remaining as neutral as possible. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In support of my oppose above, I submit the following analysis.

As per WP:COMMONNAME, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article...Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common."

And Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject."

And Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes, "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

And most importantly, Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

Both this and the current "Genesis creation myth" are descriptions, not the most commonly used name or label for this subject. I'm currently surveying the references cited to get an idea how they most commonly address it. I'm a third of the way through them (not all available to me or quickly searchable, but none so far have called it explicitly "Genesis creation myth" or "Genesis creation narrative".)

To gauge the most common usage via google hits, the following are my search results. Except for the category "all", these searches are all mutually exclusive, meaning searching for hits where one term of use is used while the others are not.

Google Hits "Genesis Creation"	All uses	Genesis creation (alone)	Genesis creation myth (only)	Genesis creation narrative (only)	Genesis creation story (only)	Genesis creation account (only)
Google web
Count	73,300	8,140	717	214	2,010	1,560
Percent		11.1%	1.0%	0.3%	2.7%	2.1%
Rank		1	4	5	2	3
Google Books
Count	10,100	5,460	405	572	2,320	1,620
Percent		54.1%	4.0%	5.7%	23.0%	16.0%
Rank		1	5	4	2	3
Google Scholar
Count	2,080	1,050	70	96	452	356
Percent		50.5%	3.4%	4.6%	21.7%	17.1%
Rank		1	5	4	2	3

Given these results so far, I'm inclining towards "Genesis creation", period, and unless the references themselves reveal a clear preference or unless a very very very convincing argument is made here to support some alternative, I won't support a rename of the article. Narrative is no better than myth, and we need to resolve this once and for all. It's become an absurd waste of time, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTE In the hits above "Genesis creation" is almost always an adjectival phrase and not a noun. It modifies nouns like "story", "account", or "myth". Can we use adjectives as titles? I don't think so.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant but WP:AVOID says "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." (Found here.) Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Prof. M. I did a similar exercise recently and I agree that "creation narrative" is not the most common alternative. Your "Genesis creation" is quite similar to the "Biblical creation" idea Cush had. However, like "Biblical creation" I'm unsure that all these hits for "Genesis creation" actually pertain to the referent in question here. The best alternatives that clearly have these passages as their referent are "Genesis creation story" and "Genesis creation account", however, for whatever reasons, those two alternatives have been even less popular around here. "Genesis creation myth", as you can see, is by far the loser here btw (in Scholar and Books that is ... I'm not really sure how significant the web hits are at all). That simple fact is something that very few people here seem to either comprehend or be willing to own up to. I'd be much happier with Genesis creation story than narrative, but this is the best compromise I think anyone has found.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)\

Also, Genesis 1:1–2:3 has always been an alternative. Not sexy but clearly neutral and more factual than any other alternative. Prof. M, I'd also like to remind you that as far as I can tell there was another title on this article for quite some time before a group of editors changed it to the current title. Ever since they did so there have been a ton of complaints on this talk page. You quote something stating that: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." That cuts both ways you know. The old title would never have changed had not a group of editors debated it. I agree wholeheartedly that there are better things to do here, but I also believe that a vast majority of the editors partaking in this debate who want to move on from this also want the title changed. I'm not sure how interested the opposers are (you excluded), on the other hand, in doing actual work on this article.Griswaldo (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you search for just "Genesis" (alone), it will yield an even greater number of hits! It's the nature of textual search functions that shorter phrases will tend to yield more hits; your results demonstrate nothing except that general mathematical principle in action. The problems with the perceived implications of myth have been articulated repeatedly. Story has similar problems: a perceived implication of fictionality. Now, I've posed this query several times in various forms, and no one has articulated an answer to explain their opposition: What is the problem with narrative? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what is the problem with "narrative"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest actually taking a look at the hits in, lets say google scholar, for "Genesis creation". Here is a link [36]. Note that "Genesis creation" is an adjectival phrase here ... not a noun. It modifies nouns like, most commonly (surprise surprise) "story" and "account". I'm pretty sure we cannot make titles out of adjectives. Is that correct? That, once again, leaves Genesis creation story as the clear winner.Griswaldo (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with "Genesis creation narrative." Has anyone articulated an objection to "Genesis creation narrative?" I would prefer "Genesis creation story" because "story" is a simpler word than "narrative." Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Prof. M's objection seems to be that it is barely more common in usage than "Genesis creation myth". It is a fair point. I would prefer "Genesis creation story" but as far as I can tell it gets even less traction than narrative. This is why IMO narrative might be better (because it works as a compromise).Griswaldo (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"Story" is less formal, and it's also worth pointing out that Christian publications titled "Bible Stories" are typically "retellings" of the narratives in language that's easier for kids to understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest-A search for just "Genesis (alone)" will give you Fall of Man, Noah's Ark, Cain and Abel, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham/Isaac/Ishmael/Jacob/Joseph etcetera. If you find any other use of the term "Genesis creation" that isn't referring specifically to this very topic of "Genesis 1:2" or "Genesis creation myth" or "Genesis creation story" or "Bible creation story" please share it. There can't be many. I understand both the nature of textual search and the nature of the topic itself. We have a lot of opinions here, like this objection, that aren't borne first from scholarship and those won't help here.

@Griswaldo-yes, it can act as a modifier, but my searches ruled out "Genesis creation myth", "Genesis creation story", "Genesis creation narrative", etc. If you can think of a more commonly used noun to go with its usage as adjective than "myth" or "story" we can look at it also. But it is not at all always a modifier. For example, "in Genesis creation" which is using it as a noun there are over a well over a million hits.

@Til Eulenspiegel Narrative isn't best suited policy-wise, common-usage-wise, and I have at least one reference who claims creation myths are "stories" specifically, not just any kind of creation "narrative" but specifically a "story" type narrative.

Further note-I've searched and copied from the archives the threads that focused on this very dispute. Those threads alone now fill 320 standard format pages in MS Word. We all can keep on this silliness forever, but it's looking more and more like pure stubbornness, not policy nor "scholarship", is driving most of the debate. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)