Talk:Creation myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



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? (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)
I know that. However the statement Xs are Y means all Xs are Y which is not the case. It's a Universal affirmative. (talk) 13:43, 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. (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).  :-) (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If it goes back in, a clarifying footnote would be helpful. Leeming, David Adams (1994), A Dictionary of Creation Myths, Oxford University Press, pp. vii, viii, ISBN 978-0-19-510275-8  might be helpful, or might not -- reading it gave me a headache. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:44, 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. (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)