Important notice: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy and the Words to Avoid guideline. Furthermore, it reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past. Before starting another discussion about the article title, please consult the above policy and guideline, and read through the archives to see if your concern has already been addressed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The meaning of "myth", in the context of this article's title, can be found in wikt:myth:
A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Mythical origins of language: Origin of language, mythology, oral tradition, deluge myth, creator deity, creation myth, confusion of tonges, Tower of Babel, VDM Publishing HouseCS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) Click the "show" link above for further details.
Not only is it blatantly obvious that the intention behind most creation myths is to provide a model of origin (see almost every single creation myth for examples) and not to be symbolic.
Not only that but the lead contradicts itself. The first paragraph makes a sweeping statement that creation myths are symbolic but in the proceeding paragraphs it says not all of them are symbolic. So which is it? Are they symbolic narratives or is it that only some are?184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This is similar to the situation at the other article (Teleological argument): per WP:BRD, if edits have been reverted, consensus should normally be established here before reinstating your changes. Also pinging Theroadislong for their opinion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The lede summarises the body of the article, the article includes plenty of references to "symbolic narrative" so that's why the lede does too. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's jargon anyway. "Symbolic" links to the "Symbol" article giving no clue as to what the heck a "symbolic narrative" is as compared to merely a "narrative". I argue that "symbolic" be removed based only on it's lack of clarity(!). :-) For your argument above to have any foundation, you-all need to first make "symbolic narrative" clear without jargon. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Seeing no disagreement with removing "symbolic" based on it being WP:jargon, I removed it. If someone knows what a "symbolic narrative" is as opposed to simply a "narrative", you're welcome to replace the word in a way that makes it clear as to its meaning. Afterwards, you can all go back to arguing over whether or not to say what it means (whatever it is that it means). :-) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I say. Just a little explanation is needed for what I think is philosopher jargon. No big deal. I'd add it, but I don't know what it means, because, you know, because it's frickin' MOS:JARGON. :-) Right, and scrolling down to maybe decipher a cryptic usage in the lede gives me a headache too, man. It's unencyclopedic to require scrolling and deciphering to understand lede text. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I have restored it with a better link. Terms which are not always obvious are best wikilinked (now to religious symbolism). I also added another source. A previously existing quote in one of the first paragraph's footnotes also explained it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)