Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Creation myth vs. "narrative"

I came to this page from the referrer "List of Creation Myths." On said page, this article is linked via "Genesis Creation Narrative" while the Islamic Creation Myth link uses "Myth," etc., etc.

I realize this page has probably been attacked by the evangelical crowd, but referring to the Genesis Creation Myth as a narrative whilst referring to others as "Myth" is not neutral. Essentially, it displays a preference for the Genesis Creation Myth as if it's somehow more reliable than other creation myths when in fact it's not.

They're all "myths" or "stories" of equal value, and I propose changes for the sake of clarification.

They should all either by called "narratives" or "myths," and the use should be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonjenkton (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 March 2013‎

We're painfully obvious but the pro-Jesus folk have a strong opposition to it, and any discussion to change it back ends in no consensus. Probably needs taken to a larger venue next time... — raekyt 20:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus hater here. Myth does not belong in the title of this article because it's misleading. In the lede, where it can be explained, it's okay, but in the title, it's the POV pushing of those who are anti-religious. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How is it misleading if it's a myth in the academic sense (in the all others as well, but that's another debate, lol). — raekyt 20:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Very often, we go to Google to see how words are used in general. The fact is, myth means something different to the vast majority of people than it does to scholars in academia. Those scholars do not own the English language. Words mean what they do; not what an isolated group of people insist they must mean.

Frankly, I don't think the word should be used in the context of the Bible at all. Even the Christian part, which I personally consider laughable. Why? Because it's an incendiary word. It's provocative. It's pejorative. It does not matter if the academic usage says otherwise. If academics were to try and rescue the word "kike" by saying that it's a technical term referring to a specific subclass of Jews, it'd still be a fighting word.

But I'm willing to bend on it being included in the body of the article, where it can be explained that it is being used in the academic sense of the word, and not in the sense of the word familiar to the other 99%+ of English speakers.

You might find this article from Discovery Magazine interesting. Or this one, about words that don't mean what most people think. So even if the academic definition of myth can be argued to be the "true" meaning, it's still misleading. You wouldn't refer to Pope John Paul II as "notorious" in an article title, even though it simply means "of note".

There are a total of three arguments that have been made for using "myth" in the title of this article. Lots of arguers, but they only boil down to three arguments. One of them, I'm sure you'd agree should be dismissed. It goes like this: "The Bible is stupid, and anyone who believes it is stupid, and it's patently fictional, so we should call it a myth to make that point." Ironically, people who argue this agree with me about what the word means. But their POV is inadmissible here.

The other two are more reasonable, but equally wrong. One is that the word myth is a technical term that doesn't have any pejorative meaning. As I've said, that argument is wrong, because words mean what they do. Not what a tiny fraction of people say they do, even if they have degrees after their names.

Lastly, there's the consistency argument. "We call all the other creation stories "myths", so we should call this one a myth as well. Frankly, I'm okay calling the other ones creation stories. It's accurate, inoffensive to the people whose stories they are, and would eliminate this particular argument. When I was doing graduate work in Assyriology, I assure you that the common manner of referring to Mesopotamian creation stories was as Mesopotamian creation stories. Because that's how people talk, even in graduate school. It didn't mean that we believe in the Mesopotamian pantheon or thought that the stories were true.

But the fact is, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." There is no Wikilaw that says titles have to be consistent. Certainly not when making them consistent creates this kind of controversy. Certainly not when it's misleading to the vast majority of people reading and using Wikipedia.

I think this particular war, which has been going on for years and years and will never go away, should be given a rest, at least. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lisa. She describes it well. The major objection IMO is that it's misleading to the vast majority of people reading and using Wikipedia. And that includes more and more elementary school classes these days.Afaprof01 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done fixed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is the use should be consistent at minimum. Presently it looks as though the Genesis creation myth is treated differently than others -- calling it a "narrative." I think they should all be "myths" or they should all be "narratives."

Vonjenkton (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How is it that I just went over why the consistency argument is a bad one, and rather than reply to it, either in agreement or disagreement, you simply throw the same bad argument out again.

Personally, I think they should all be termed "stories", because that's what they are. To those who like "myth", that's one type of story. But no one disputes that these are stories. Some think they're true stories, and some think they're fiction. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Emerson's hobgoblin is a recurring theme in article naming disputes and policy-making (stay away from plant articles if you're scared of hobgoblins). "Story" is a good solution, in my opinion. Next time there is a regularly scheduled move request for this article (every six months has been the average), it should be one of the options. First Light (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lisa. Pick a random academic topic and you will notice wikipedia uses the academic sense of the words. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not when they're misleading to most people. Not without specifically clarifying them. Which can't be done in a title. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good argument – if we ignore English-language lexicography and corpus linguistics. Among English dictionaries that order definitions by most common usage (like American-Heritage, Collins, Macmillan, and Merriam-Webster) many define myth as "ancient story; sacred narrative; etc." first and "false belief; fiction; etc." subsequently. Please provide some references supporting the claim that myth is "misleading to most people". Keahapana (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You can conduct some easy research. Pick 5 or 10 major newspapers in the English-speaking world. LA Times, London Times, Washington Post, et al. Do an Internet search on "Myth." I've done that several times, and every time "myth" is used to describe a falsehood--these days more typically coming from government officials or politicians. I've never once found it to be used in the technical/literary since. If our audience is anthropological scientists, myth is our word, though I'm doubtful many of them doing scientific research use Wikipedia. If our audience is "most people," then even well educated people will think of a falsehood. Story can be anything from a bedtime story to a prestigious biography of a famous person. Narrative is so inherently neutral. It's just what's been said or written. But please invest just 5 minutes of random searching in popular respected newspapers. If I'm wrong, please tell me. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A fellow user did the research I suggested above and sent me this list showing current uses of the term myth. With thanks to that editor:

• "Weight loss myths busted" (The Sun, March 25, 2013)
• "Four Common Driving Myths and Mistakes" (AARP, March 25, 2013)
• "The myth that children fare worse when raised by gay parents, for example, has been shredded by social science." (Slate March 22, 2013)
• "There's an urban myth that people get more irritable, on edge, upset." (The Guardian, March 19, 2013)
• "The Smarter Healthcare Consumer Myth" (Forbes, March 18, 2013)
• "9 Most ridiculous sex myths of all time (The Times of India, March 9, 2013)
• "Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth" (BBC News, February 21, 2013)
• "Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth" (The New York Times, February 16, 2013)
• "The myth of deregulation's consumer benefits" (Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2013
• "The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class" (The Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2013)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afaprof01 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Myth" by itself can be used that way, but we're not doing that here. Any well educated person would recognize that in the phrase "creation myth", "myth" means "traditional story", not "falsehood". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are the same user who only yesterday tried to draw a parallel with wikipedia calling the Flat Earth Society a "myth". So do you seriously suggest that is done to stress to readers that Flat Earth is a "sacred story" with no implication of falsehood? You know, your insistence that the only terminology that you will accept is one that is widely recognized as a pejorative, really strains the limits of "Assuming good faith". And when I say "widely recognized", it's not just me - we have tons of sources speaking for the point of view that it is really just pejorative rhetoric, that in case you haven't seen it yet, I have collected here. But I expect as usual you will tout your personal expertise as a self styled "well educated person" to give yourself the authority to brush off every last one of these sources. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I neither suggested the former nor insisted the latter. I drew a distinction between "myth" and the set phrase we use here, "creation myth".

"cake" sometimes means a block of dense material, like a cake of soap. But a "chocolate cake" is not a block of chocolate, an "ice cream cake" is not a block of ice cream, and a "sponge cake" is not a block of sponge.

And you have not provided a single example where the noun phrase "creation myth" was "pejorative rhetoric". But even if you came up with one, we would still have no good reason to condescendingly avoid scholarly language just because someone ignorantly misinterpreting it (and not following our "creation myth" link to our article defining it) might hurt their feelings. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If I might say so, the argument that a "creation myth" should be seen as entirely distinct from a "myth" seems like pure sophistry. But at any rate, since you asked, I did not have to look too far before I started finding stuff like this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Which brings your total number of examples up to... zero. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Myth" is insulting to believers in the myth and we can use less offensive terms such as "narrative" or "story" without affecting the article's veracity in the title and lede, until we can at least blue-link to the academic meaning of the term "myth" in the body of the article. That is sensitive and effective writing. The problem is with our use of "myth" in articles about other living traditions. It is an artifact of our demographics - most editors on en.Wikipedia are in largely Christian countries. So, use of "narrative" is not problematical at all in this article, it conveys the meaning just as well as "myth" or "story", though "myth" should be introduced and well-defined or at least blue-linked because it is an important descriptor of the field. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Accoring to Adherents.com there are 300 million tribal religionists. All their creation myths are described as "creation myths". Should they also be called "narratives?"? Pass a Method talk 01:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Narratives" would be perfectly accurate in the case of any of these beliefs that any population groups today take seriously, if they themselves might not consider them "myths" - but especially, if it can be shown that anyone is on the record as objecting to their being labeled "myths". In these cases, going out of our way to use neutral and non-offensive language should outweigh those who want to stand on the "use common name" guideline, per "use common sense". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We must always seek neutrality, but there is no requirement for Wikipedia to be non-offensive. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Our Flat Earth Society article also calls it a "myth" that the Earth is flat, which may be offensive to flat-earthers. Well, tough for them. People who find objective facts offensive should avoid reading encyclopedias. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Robin, that's a bad analogy; the flat-earthers are not a "significant point of view" since they can probably be counted on your fingers. HiLo, yes we have a requirement to be neutral. We cannot be neutral and offensive at the same time. Either NPOV holds more weight around here, or selected people's biases hold more weight. The latter usually seems to be fine with the selected people, as long as they themselves get to select who the selected people are. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree here. Sometimes the only way to be neutral is to offend somebody. Some facts and views are inherently offensive to parts of the population. We should very much avoid to be intentionally offensive when we can, but we cannot and will not whitewash e.g. waterboarding or Holocaust or homosexuality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with your strong disagreement. First of all, it's a lot easier to point to other unrelated stuff as some kind of a weak analogy, and claim it as a precedent or a fait accompli, than it is to explain why the argument is logical. Secondly, "Sometimes the only way to be neutral is to offend somebody." is Orwellian language. We have a choice here of going out of our way to offend, or going out of our way not to offend. It seems correspondingly there are two basic types of people in the world: those who go out of their way to offend, and those who go out of their way not to offend. We need to make up our minds which type of person this encyclopedia is going to be. Using language designed not to offend is usually a simple matter, in terms of wordsmithing, that in the minds of I think most people is synonymous with "neutral writing" as opposed to "polemic writing". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How about we choose neither, and not go out of our way, but rather straightforwardly? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Also: When you call the flat-earth society a "myth", which of the twelve conflicting definitions of "myth" do you mean to imply? Do tell. Does this word mean the flat-earth world view has something to do with sea monsters creating the universe? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't about whether other cultures or religions also have creation myths, nor whether these cultures and religions are still extant, nor whether they take their creation myth "seriously" (whatever that is supposed to mean), nor whether they would be offended if we call them myths. The question is whether another culture or religion has a creation myth that exists in the form of a singular, uniform, cohesive narrative that has survived in complete written form for thousands of years. That's what we are talking about with the Genesis narrative. It is named uniquely because it is unique. Even if it could be proven with absolute certainty that God didn't create the world by divine speech over a period of six days, it wouldn't change the essential nature of this topic. It would still be (uniquely) the Genesis creation narrative. HokieRNB 13:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cohesive? What? And other creation myths aren't? What arrogance. Whether you realise it or not, you are pushing an obvious POV here that has no place in an objective, global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Genesis narrative is not unique. Even just within the Book of Genesis, we have a couple contradictory versions of its creation story. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure any reliable sources would agree that there are "contradictory" versions in Genesis. Most scholars agree that there are two parts to the narrative, the first part being creation as a whole, establishing the sequence of "...and God said... and it was so... and God saw that it was good... evening... morning... the x^th day"; and the second part focusing on God's special creation of man, His preparing the garden for him, and His providing a helper for him. The two sections are complementary, not contradictory. Ἀλήθεια 15:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Muslims are offended by the fact thta Muhammad does not have honorifics. Should we add honorifics to Muhammad ? Atheists are offended by the selective usage of the word hypothetical/ficion. Should we pander to atheists? NRM's are offended by various misapplications too. We need to be consistent here. If we dont offend CHristians we don't offend Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists and every other hot-shot on the block. Pass a Method talk 20:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Add a FAQ section to the Talk page?

I notice that the Talk page at Evolution has a very prominent FAQ section - "Why don't you discuss objections to evolution?" and all that sort of thing. Maybe it would save sometime if we added a section like that here? No.1 FAQ question would be "Why don't you call it a myth?" PiCo (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Whose answer to that question would you include? Mine would be "The conservative, powerful, narrow-minded, middle American Christian right has succeeded in having its view imposed on this article." Others will disagree, but my question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think "the conservative, powerful, narrow-minded, middle American Christian right" has signally failed to impose its view on this article - just ask Til :) What it reflects, in my view, is the opinions of mainstream professors of Hebrew and Old Testament studies at leading tertiary institutions in the US, Britain, and elsewhere. (Ska, for example, is a Frenchman, and a professor at the Pontifical Bible Institute in Rome; Lemche,if we mention him, is the boogeyman minimalist from Copenhagen; and so on). Anyway, my answer to the question "why don't you call it a myth" is "because 'myth' is an emotive term with two distinct meanings, 'falsehood' and 'religious narrative'; the article discusses the GCR in terms of the second definition, but avoids using it in the article title." Would that do? PiCo (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, because it immediately leads to the question of why the creation stories of other religions are called myths. And the fact that you didn't realise that, after all the discussion here, worries me a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I realise it quite well. Tell me, because I'm curious, where do you see my point of view lying? PiCo (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Like all of us you are influenced by the culture of which you are a part. Some of us come to different conclusions. My point above is that you could not logically in an FAQ use a justification for not using myth here which would equally apply to every other use of the word myth for any other religion's creation belief. And answers in FAQs need to be simple, consistent and logical. Your suggestion isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Err... this talkpage already has an FAQ... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It does? Where?PiCo (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Linked from the "search archives"-box. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks, never noticed it before. At the risk of causing another ruckus, what about this bit?PiCo (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Q4: Why can't we use a different term like creation narrative or sacred story?

A4: Search engine tests, reviews of reliable sources, and even many reputable theologians consistently agree that creation myth is the proper and widely used umbrella term. Many suggested substitutes such as creation narrative or sacred story have no formal definition and are not used consistently in the literature. Because they are ambiguous, Wikipedia does not have formal articles on those terms which makes wikilinking difficult. Articles dealing with similar topics in other religions are also termed creation myths. Additionally the policy against obfuscation is clear.

Wow. That's old stuff. It looks like we're going to have to edit that substantially. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for having a question in the FAQ about the article title, but I have doubts we could some up with an answer we could all agree on. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of you - I think the answer part is pretty dubious, and I doubt agreement is possible. PiCo (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

SrAnselm, the only reason the last RfC failed is because you went canvassing to Christian projets which in turn switched the tide to keep the title. If you look closely, its the last votes that were largely opposes. You also worded the rfc quite provocatively by the way you mentioned only "myths" and not the other proposal. Pass a Method talk 23:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that pattern in the RfC !voting. Three out of the first five were opposes, followed by a few supports, followed by no discernible pattern, and six consecutive opposes near the end—but those were preceded and followed by two supports on each side. If you remove the last ten !votes, it doesn't change a thing. I think the real reason the last RfC failed was because there was no consensus for it, just like all the previous ones. First Light (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The FAQ for this is actually worded quite carefully so that it doesn't matter whether the article is titled "creation myth" or merely uses "creation myth" in the opening line. It makes it clear that editors shouldn't be afraid to use the term "creation myth", and that it should be linked. It seems totally consistent with the current titling of the article, and I don't see a good reason to change it. Ἀλήθεια 14:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure - Sequence

In the section on the "Structure" of the text, it is stated in an unqualified way that the two sections contain differences in the sequence of creation, using as a source David McClain Carr. Does any other biblical scholar of any actual repute actually hold to the view that Genesis 2 presents a contradictory sequence? It seems that the vast majority of standard commentaries (Victor Hamilton, Keil and Delitzsch, H. C. Leupold, Robert Alter, Gordon Wenham, etc) all agree that the purpose of Genesis 2 is not the sequence of events, and specifically that the wording of verse 19 is not contradictory to the order of Genesis 1. For instance, "Whatever the disparate historical origins of the two accounts, the redaction gives us a harmonious cosmic overview of creation and then a plunge into the technological nitty-gritty and moral ambiguities of human origins." Can we please either omit this or at least balance it out with what reliable sources actually say about this text? Ἀλήθεια 15:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have since made an edit to address this deficiency. Ἀλήθεια 17:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no contradiction between what Carr says and what the others say. Genesis 2 does have an order of events that contradicts Genesis 1; the purpose of Genesis 1-2 is not the order of events; the redaction (meaning the merging of these two accounts by an editor, which is what the word redaction means) gives a harmonious overview. I've removed the tag, but by all means we can continue the discussion here. PiCo (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my edits saying "unexplained deletion of sourced material". (A) nothing was deleted, only moved, expanded, and/or clarified, and (B) it wasn't unexplained, I made it quite clear in the talk page why I made the edits I did. Since the premise of your revert was incorrect, I'm going to once again make this bold move to add some much needed balance. On another note, you removed the {{dubious}} tag, saying only that "the source is a leading biblical scholar". First, I would like to challenge your idea of "leading" - he certainly isn't highly cited, probably wouldn't even pass WP:PROF. I'm not suggesting he can't be cited in this article, I'm just suggesting that his minority view should be balanced by what most biblical scholars actually say about the text. With regard to the tag, its documentation says it should be used for "a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely. Most commonly, this involves uncertainty regarding the veracity or accuracy of the given source, or of an editor's interpretation of that source." It's perfectly appropriate and I will restore it until other editors can weigh in. Ἀλήθεια 13:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You've made some very significant edits to a contentious article. You have a right to do that. But the edits were then rejected. So your next step is to come here to Talk and argue your case.

You say you haven't deleted sourced material, but you have. This is what you deleted:

• "There are significant parallels between the two stories, but also significant differences: in the first account mankind (male and female) are created after animals, while in the second the man is created first, then animals, and finally the woman "as the climax of creation." "[T]ogether this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1:1–2:3 and 2:4b–3:23, however elegantly they have now been combined."

The source, Carr, is one of the leading biblical scholars - his book Reading the fractures of Genesis is a classic, on the reading list for any self-respecting seminary or university.

• "Genesis 1 is notable for its elaborate internal structure. It consists of eight acts of creation over six days, framed by an introduction and a conclusion." The source is Ruiten, at the end of the paragraph. You've replaced it with this: "The first account (1:1 through 2:3) employs a repetitious structure of divine fiat and fulfillment, then the statement "And there was evening and there was morning, the [x^th] day," for each of the six days of creation." Perfectly true, but not an improvement - and not sourced, either.

All in all, your deletion of Carr seems to be based on nothing more than your ignorance of modern biblical scholarship (that's what I gather from your comments above, since you say you've never heard of him). PiCo (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. I said he is not highly cited and probably wouldn't pass WP:PROF. I say this in comparison to others like Wenham, Brueggeman, Hamilton, Walton, etc all have literally hundreds of citations on google scholar. And let me reiterate, I didn't delete the reference to Carr, I simply questioned whether it is accurate to state in an unqualified way that the two sections contain differences in the sequence of creation, as if there were no other possible readings of the text. I also expanded on the "elaborate internal structure", so even though that exact wording is no longer there, the same concept is still there. Ἀλήθεια 01:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, if you note, this reference to Carr wasn't deleted. It was just moved lower in the section. And no, Carr can't be considered "leading". I went to a self-respecting respected seminary, and his book didn't make the list. Upon further review, it seems that Carr's obvious hijacking of the creation narrative to serve his feminist agenda would render this source not reliable for the purposes of this article. It certainly doesn't reflect scholarly consensus regarding the nature of the two accounts in Genesis. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's stay with the stable version till we talk this out - that's the usual way.

Yes, I see now that the Carr material was just moved down - I apologise for not noticing that. Still, I feel it belongs in the original position, for the sake of the structure of the section. That's one point.

A separate point is the "dubious" tag on Carr. Or rather, I gather, on the point he makes. He says there are parallels and differences between Gen.1 and Gen.2. This is hardly controversial, it's been established for centuries. There really is a difference in the order of creation between the two - in Genesis 1 the male and female are created together and after the animals, in Genesis 2 the man is created first, then the animals, then the female. That's not an assertion, it's an objective fact.

A third point is woman as "the climax of creation." I hadn't noticed that in Carr, to be honest.I suppose he has a point, since she comes last. It is contestable, though. I'm open to suggestions on that one. PiCo (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Most reputable biblical scholars acknowledge that the language of chapter two doesn't necessitate a difference in the order of creation. In fact, many English translations render the verb "had formed" in pluperfect to make this point more clear. Therefore it is "dubious" to state as "objective fact" that there is a difference in order of creation. At best, it is one interpretation of the text, and even then, not one that is accepted by a large number of scholars (self redact). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the one that's accepted by the majority of scholars - the only ones who don't are hard-line fundamentalists/inerrantists. But, since you think I'm too invested in this, and since I don't care all that much, I'll recuse myself. PiCo (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I need to soften my position a bit. Yes, it's true that many liberal and secular scholars hold a position of conflicting creation accounts, while others see them as either complementary or simply different. However, the bit about woman as "the climax of creation" is certainly novel, and should not be presented in a wikipedia article as representative of scholarly consensus. It is still important to have both viewpoints represented in the structure section - the viewpoint that the creation accounts provide a single cohesive narrative (pick your source, there are dozens), and the viewpoint that the text is composed of contradictory accounts (and the question stands as to whether Carr is really the best source for this viewpoint). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WOTD: Cosmogony?

While looking into this still further, I came across one source that stated "cosmogony" was a perfectly acceptable synonym for "creation myth" to scholars. In addition to it being a perfectly acceptable synonym, it would seem that "cosmogony" has the additional advantage of not using any terminology known to be considered pejorative to any significant group of people. Food for thought. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to find a mutually acceptable synonym is creditable, Til, but our definition of “cosmogony” at Cosmogony does not seem like an apt descriptor for Genesis. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfair Accusation of Spamming?

Moved from my talk page Hello

I feel that my addition of external links to the Wikipedia pages "Genesis creation narrative," "Ibbur," and "Gilgul" have been unfairly flagged for inappropriate activity. The external links added are primary source texts directly related to the Wikipedia page subject . They are not commercial or ideological. Please advise.

Thank you Jeangohile

I removed them because they linked to a blog and blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, if you feel they are a special case you could discuss on the article talk pages. This link may be helpful links normally to be avoided All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand and thanks for responding. I still feel my external links provide important primary source texts that are not available online. Yes they are presented on a blog but there is no writing of my own presented. Please reconsider. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeangophile (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If the texts are not available online they do not need to be sourced to the internet. Just cite them to the book. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I misunderstood what was going on. The link is spam. Blogs are not acceptable sources or external links, and the post you are linking to doesn't appear to be relevant to an understanding of the article anyways. I don't understand why this needs a RfC. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

2 sources that appear to be vital but aren't in the article

Norman Cohn's Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, Yale University Press 1996, and J David Pleins' When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood OUP 2009. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Those two books are about Noah's flood, and this article is about the Creation story - have you got the right article?PiCo (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, although the first has a lot to say about creation stories! And why isn't 'Noah's Flood' a redirect, and why doesn't Book of Genesis show up on Google when you type Genesis? Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Noah's Flood is a redirect, and the term "Genesis" is pretty generic term, theres LOTS of things that use that term that isn't referring too the biblical book. But when I google it I get "Book of Genesis" as result #3... so... — raekyt 12:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Myth" replaced with "Account"

The word "Myth" in the first paragraph should be replaced with "account". Myth implies that it is a false story, but account implies neither. If you claim to be neutral, then change the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.145.130 (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The response to this is always the same: Look up the words myth and account in a dictionary rather than thinking you know what these words mean.

Here's one definition of myth: "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". Sounds perfect to me.

Here's one definition of account: "a report or description of an event or experience". Sounds POV to me.

If you still think account is a more neutral word, then you're using a different dictionary from everyone else - perhaps Browns? GDallimore (Talk) 23:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

They have a specialized definition of "neutral point of view", as I explain on my user page. They don't care if most readers are going to keep complaining about this forever, and they could care less about the website's reputation with readers. They know better than the readers, and at all costs must tell them what "truths" they're allowed to believe, end of story! Welcome to wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to respond, put your response under mind instead of removing it next time, thanks Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that "account" would imply a record of actual events. I think we should not give readers that false impression. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not usually, for example there is no problem talking about Hesiod's account of Pandora, etc. The word "account" does not imply anything in particular so it can be used in any case as a neutral term. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a source for the description of Genesis creation as myth (source is David Leeming's encyclopedia of world creation myths) PiCo (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC) (Just as a personal note, to believe that the events described in Genesis 1-2 actually happened would require a very high degree of eccentricity).PiCo (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Til doesn't like our NPOV policy which is clear from his hatred of the fact we have a guideline for WP:Fringe. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic or literal

Given that a large percentage (nearly half) of at least one major country (U.S.) takes the Genesis creation narrative literally, are we still correct in calling it a creation myth?

Perhaps a more neutral way to describe it (in the intro) is to indicate what proportion of people (or "Western people" or "Americans") take the account literally. Or if not in the intro, how about a section further down? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We correctly call it a creation myth no matter how many people take it literally. Perhaps we could include some statistics about belief in Genesis in a subsection, though they seem too tangential for the lede in my opinion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that no matter how many people take it literally, it is actually symbolic. Am I hearing you correctly? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say that in academia, the made-up term "creation myth" can be applied simultaneously to something that is both symbolic and literal. I'm not sure if that means "literally symbolic" or "symbolically literal". Ἀλήθεια 14:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Uncle Ed, there's a section in the article on genre. Neither "literal" nor "symbolic" are recognised genres. Those who read Genesis 1 literally are actually reading it as history - without realising that history as we know it today is both quite recent and continually subject to change. Genesis 1 certainly wasn't intended as history in the modern sense by its authors - it couldn't be, as our idea of history hadn't been invented. It is history-like, in that it deals with the past as a continuous narrative. But that isn't enough to distinguish it as history - Star Wars also deals with the past in a continuous narrative. It isn't symbolic, either - I can't see anything in it that's a symbol (a representation of something else). Really, you need to read the sources referenced in the section. PiCo (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Genesis is like Star Wars obviously intended as fiction or entertainment? I see no evidence that view is even widely supported by very many scholars. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No that's NOT what I'm saying! I'm saying that writing about the past in a narrative manner is not evidence of an intention to write history. PiCo (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been nearly a week, and Robin Lionheart has not answered my question. Continued silence on his part can only lead me to assume that his answer is "yes". But I don't think his opinion should trump that of Bible experts - or of religious people who believe in the Bible.

If the word "symbolic" means that the narrative is not taken literally by anybody and yet there are people who take the narrative literally (e.g., Young Earth Creationists), then Wikipedia must not simply sum it up it as a creation myth. It simply does not fit the definition:

• Creation myths explain in metaphorical terms our sense of who we are in the context of the world

At least, we would have to mention in the intro that some people take these "myths" literally - rather than as metaphor or symbol. (Assuming that a large percentage of at least one major country takes the Genesis creation narrative literally.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of answering your question for you. Yes, it's completely irrelevant how many people take these myths literally. That's an argumentum ad populum, a common logical fallacy. As for "Bible experts", the only ones reliable for a scholarly topic like this are qualified scholars with degrees from REAL universities publishing in REAL scholarly publications, especially those who represent the consensus in the relevant scholarly field. The opinions of the general public, the make-believe "scholarly" community, and the tiny minority of the REAL scholarly community don't carry much weight, if any at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Insert comment here -> I want to take issue with what appears to be yet another instance of anti-religion bias. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should I read your assertion regarding reliable sources to mean "REAL" = "non-religious"? If that's the case, then I think you are totally off-base. If you simply mean that scholarly sources are acceptable if they are written by people with advanced degrees from accredited seminaries and theological schools whose books are put out by well-established established publishers or whose papers are published in peer-reviewed journals, then you aren't saying anything new. I fear this is not the case however. And, for what it's worth, yes this article should mention somewhere the extent to which the populace (American or otherwise) hold these accounts to be literally true. Ἀλήθεια 18:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As requested, I will correct you. I never wrote anything that implies in the slightest that "REAL" = "non-religious", and I can't understand how you could arrive at such a conclusion. Your second guess is correct, though. Of course I'm not saying anything new. It's all in our sourcing policies. Your "fear" was ungrounded. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is at all. An argumentum ad populum fallacy would be structured as "many people believe the story is true, therefore this makes the story more likely to be true." This is rather a statement that is logical and relevant to the question of determining what point of views are significant: "Many people believe this story is true, therefore that makes this meet the definition of a a significant point of view." See the difference? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And that's called a non sequitur. For our purposes, the significance of a point of view has absolutely nothing to do with the opinions or beliefs of the general populace, who have no expertise on the matter. We're only interested in the opinions of qualified experts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you doing, making this up as you go? The theological viewpoints of Christians and Jews have always been Significant Points of View for all Biblical theology articles, those of Muslims to Quranic and Islamic articles, Hindus for Vedic, etc. etc. This point has already been stressed enough I had thought. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Stress away, but what you are saying has absolutely no backing in WP policy. The vast majority of Christians, Hindus, Muslims etc. have at best a sketchy knowledge of their own religion. Would you rely on a random, say, Catholic in the street for information about Catholicism? I hope not. And neither should we at WP. We rely on qualified experts for the information we present. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean wikipedia should present the only views of scribes and scholars, without also mentioning other widespread theological views as even being worthy of significance, you are the one who is inserting your bias into the policy. It's like saying a small number of outsiders can dictate to the faithful how they are to interpret their own scriptures in selected instances, like some kind of one-sided shadowpuppet show, but that never has been and should not be the norm for any religion article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean what I wrote. You obviously misread it, because your answer has nothing to do with what I wrote, or with the present discussion at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Also nobody wants to cite anything to the Catholic in the street, but the views of Church leadership including Popes should speak for themselves as well any any "expert", I should think. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And you would be thinking wrong. Another non-sequitur. There's a good reason why we require reliable INDEPENDENT sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it is self-obvious and crucial. There is no one school of thought that possesses a monopoly on scriptural interpretation, so we have to cover all the major views, period. It sound like you want to be the one to pick and choose which are acceptable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is self-obvious nonsense and irrelevant. As is the rest of your answer. Please read our policies again. And read the discussion over again. Your comments have all been way off topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me irrelevant, but I thought it was perfectly relevant, you can't expect everyone to follow your bias because you say so. NPOV policy on theological / religion articles calls for all the various denominations, sects on every article to be represented, including cites to their own leadership or doctrinal statements. Your argument that this article is in essence an exception for some reason, seems kind of partial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)(redacted because you didn't call me irrelevant, according to my talkpage)

The last section of the article deals with the question of genre. It says this about those who read Genesis in a literal way: Bruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading, the "woodenly literal" approach which leads to "creation science" and such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial of evolution.[81] Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, sums up the same thought in these words: "A literalist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."[82] If you want to say that 47% of Americans interpret Genesis 1-2 literally, the obvious place would be immediately before this. (I have a source for the 47% figure if you want it).PiCo (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And once again that mention only of Americans says nothing at all about Eastern Christians, some of whom even enjoy governmental support for their doctrines in certain countries. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are we calling a historical event a "myth". Is World War Two a myth? --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I object to the fact that this article states creation as a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuBBLeSGiRL209 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you object, then explain why. The bottom line is that this story comes from a religion (Judaism) and every culture has some creation myth involving various gods. Who gets to decide which one is the real story? The non-believer will call it a myth. The believer will call it real. As for Daniel the duck, how many people do you know who think world war 2 is a myth? Vmelkon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume Daniel meant to refer to Holocaust denial, which is a thing in the world, though still not remotely comparable to claiming that a talking snake coaxing a rib woman to eat a fruit from a magic tree was not an actual historical event. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Um... where's the science here?

Although there is a section titled: "Genre (Genesis 1-2 as myth, history and science)" that's not science, because genesis wasn't written using the scientific method and it only analyses it using textual analysis. That can only find internal inconsistencies within a text, or point out different interpretations you could make, but the consistency we're usually most interested in is whether it's consistent with the real world.

There's certainly many people that think that it is, that's it's literally real. Well, they're welcome to their opinions, and it's certainly fair enough to point that out in the article.

However, I think it's fair to say that real-world scientific findings (genetics, cosmology, geology, paleontology etc.) are completely inconsistent with genesis.

Where's those scientific findings in this article?

In their absence the article is unbalanced, it's slanted away from science, as if science was just another opinion rather than based on actual hard evidence. There's one or more sections, numerous references, and wikilinks that just aren't present. GliderMaven (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about a creation myth, a religous text. The relevant scholary fields would be mainly litterature, theology and history. The aspects you mention belong in articles like Creationism, Young Earth Creationism, Creation Science and Intelligent Design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The scope of this article is this narrative, and everything notable about it. As an encyclopedia article it has to summarise everything notable on this topic. The fact that there is scientific evidence that (scientists generally consider) proves that it is apocryphal is very notable.GliderMaven (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilder, to use the word "prove" is short-sighted at best, because many topics in history and science are not proven. Everything in "the real world" (as you mentioned) is theoretical... right down to Einstein's theory of relativity. Theory being defined as "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct,"...but this does not mean that everything in theory can be "proven". It is by consensus of the scientific community of tested experiments for a hypothesis to even become theory. If humans don't debate E=mc2, then we are as good as being in the Dark Ages considering a Flat Earth, instead of concepts like String theory.

Now when you are dealing with millennia old text such as the Torah, nothing can be proven, not even its exact date of authorship, and neither the author(s) with it. This article contains a section: Genesis creation narrative#Science vs. literalism. If you feel that this section is scant, please expound upon it. Rather than ranting with the statement: "Where's those scientific findings in this article?" Please help to improve the article. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I see you copied sections for Genesis creation narrative#Science vs. literalism, then it was removed. You could make a new section called Biblical criticism and provide proper sources that give a critical analysis of the Genesis narrative. Otherwise, scientific debates could go on the articles Sång mentioned. Thanks   — Jason Sosa 21:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The term 'theory' has a specific meaning in science and it is not the lay-persons meaning as 'hypothesis'. A scientific theory is a factually supported set of explanations of how the world works. For example the theory of gravity is a theory that is also a fact. Other theories include when and how the Earth formed, and these are also scientific facts. Although in rare cases scientific facts can change; consilience, where multiple lines of independent physical evidence point to the same conclusion make that very unlikely for the age of the Earth as well as the scientific theory of gravity.GliderMaven (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally Adam and Eve are part of the genesis accounts, and the evidence is very, very heavily against there being a historical Adam and Eve. This is already discussed in the Adam and Eve article. We cannot as an encyclopedia not mention them being ahistorical here (although it's conversely perfectly fine to mention that some people are creationists, and that's already done I think.)GliderMaven (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would we mention them being ahistorical here? I know of no Encyclopedia that does or would.

I must also point out while the opportunity is present that when recently added material is removed (the addition reverted), it is proper behavior to start a discussion on the talk page about it, and come to an agreement with other editors BEFORE re-adding anything.Farsight001 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The existence of gravity is fact, just as the existence of humans. The Theory of gravity, its dynamics, can just as much be debated (Theory of gravity#Anomalies and discrepancies) as the theories of how humans were first created, formed, evolved, etc...

Farsight had the right to undo your copy/pasted material, Glider. Reverting an undo constitutes as an edit war. Any problems with an undo should immediately be taken to talk to reach consensus.

Addressing Farsight, though not enforced, it is courteous to add a reason in the edit summary as to why you undid Glider.

Addressing the article. I must agree that there are problems with it. It is not balanced in some areas and needs addressing. I do, however, oppose the content that Glider pasted because it is not sourced with Biblical criticism of the narrative itself. It is random content trying to prove points in a non neutral manner. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 22:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but where does this article say it is to only contain purely textual analysis???

It doesn't, and it isn't.

Under Wikipedia's rules, the topic is currently everything about biblical genesis, and the article is incomplete.

It seems to me that if it is only textual criticism then we're currently lying to the reader about what the article is about in the introduction, and the article name should probably be changed to something like 'textual criticism of the genesis creation narrative' and a new top-level article that really does cover the genesis creation narrative topic is then needed.GliderMaven (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The title and subject of this article is about a Narrative. Subsequently, all narratives are subject to Literary criticism, in this case Biblical criticism. Interpretations of the Creation narrative (which is just a text for textual criticism) is a primary foundation for a belief in Creationism. Your argument to include a Relationship between religion and science on this article is out of wp:scope, because that is not a critique of the narrative... It is a critique of an interpreted belief. Please refer to Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk · contribs)'s suggestions on where to place your argument. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So if I've understood you correctly, you're saying that genesis is a narrative, and hence can only be subjected to textual criticism. Narratives in Wikipedia can only be subject to textual criticism.

So you're saying that whether or not they are based on facts, all books, all films, all plays are only subject to textual criticism in Wikipedia.

But; no. That's not true. But you're trying to pretend it is.

I repeat, as currently defined, this article is scoped so that appropriate science is on-topic, as with every other article. Sticking 'narrative' in the title does not make it true.GliderMaven (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You may seek WP:CONTENTDISPUTE to gain community input on the article content. Please be advised that two editors (me included) reverted your copy/paste and a third editor disputed against it. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would not be adverse to a section on scientific views. I don't buy the position that because Genesis is a narrative it can only be studied through textual analysis...unless it was also the case that Genesis were presented as fiction, since fiction obviously cannot be studied empirically. But if Genesis is going to be presented as a narrative of something that, literally or not, may have happened, or as something that people believe may have happened, then so long as there are sources on the matter that specifically address the subject WP:N requires them to be summarized.

For a counter example, some years ago I argued that there should be a religious views section in Big bang theory, not because I thought the religious views were valid criticisms, but because notable religious sources had written on the subject and WP:N requires that all views be summarized in proportion to their prominence. As such, the religious section would have remained small since it was a much smaller piece of the source pie, while on this article the scientific side is likely a much smaller piece of the source pie. N^oformation ^Talk 02:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, good sources that discuss the scientific relevance of GCN can of course be interesting to summarize in this article. But I would suggest that even more interesting would be a section about the "Acceptance" of this creation myth, popular/scientific, historical/present day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance by whom? Remember that this is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

People/countries/organisations considered christian and jewish (in the religous sense), I guess. It´s their creation myth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To Noformation (talk · contribs) and GliderMaven (talk · contribs):In the example of where Noformation "argued that there should be a religious views section in Big bang theory" is notable, and would definitely apply in reverse to have a scientific view section on a religious views based article. Religious views based articles are articles on doctrine, such as the Christian doctrines: Fall of man, Original sin, Creationism, etc. This would also include the doctrine of Adam and Eve being the first humans (who have their own separate pages for text analysis as well).

Because the main article in dispute, the Genesis creation narrative is not a docrine based article, where it's counterpart is Creationism... the critique has to be of the text and not the doctrine. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have a scientific analysis or critique of the text's concept of creation specific to Genesis, exuding critiques that are all inclusive of other mythologies or religious view interpretations on creation (considered "-ism"). Thanks   — Jason Sosa 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I typed up a response much like Noformation's yesterday, but I decided wading into this issue probably wouldn't be a benefit to my life so I deleted it. This article is not "just about the text". It's also about the acceptance, interpretation, and significance of the text. It's also about the text's content. It talks about the documentary hypothesis, and the Greek influence, and modern Christian theology. There's no reason that direct commentary on the topic from a scientific perspective should be excluded, unless we're aiming to create a POV fork. The distinction between doctrine and text is strained; we already discuss doctrine which stems from the text. Noformation is correct, of course, that the scientific literature should be a small part of this topic, and so should be assigned less space.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It does actually seem to be a real POV fork of Book of Genesis; there's such huge overlap. The two articles don't reference each other directly other than as 'see also', and they cover the same topic in different ways, and there's a group of editors on the talk page that are trying to exclude material from at least one of them.

These are classic POV fork things.

The main ways out of this is to do a subarticle, this one would be a subarticle of the other, or merge them back together.

There's also NPOV issues with the very prominent Creationism banner down the side, but a refusal to countenance any scientific criticism.GliderMaven (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the article topic about narrative or myth?

The current version of Genesis creation narrative uses myth-words three times more frequently than narrative-words. The frequency list data for narrative, myth, and their "Related terms" in Wiktionary are:

• narrative 22
• narrator 4
• narrate, narration 0
• myth 56
• mythology 16
• mythic 3
• mythological 3
• mythical 1
• mythicize, mythologem, mythopoeia, mythopoeic, mythopoesis, mythos, pseudomyth 0

Hoping to help refocus this long-standing WP controversy, Keahapana (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Terms such as "myth" and "narrative" are completely superfluous to the adequate identification of the subject of this article. Preferable titles for this article include "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, since the academic sources all identify it as a creation myth, your whining about "preferable titles" is simply an excuse for not paying attention to reliable sources. jps (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—it doesn't seem to me that you are making a sharp enough distinction between an article title and the text in a body of an article. You are arguing for terminology in a title that need not be there. We have available to us titles such as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" that adequately identify the subject of this article. Can you please tell me why you want to add more material to the title? Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on the creation myth of every religion should be titled using the same format. Bus stop's proposal is not going to achieve that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

According to you, Wikipedia should not distinguish between living religions and dead ones, because they're all the same from YOUR point of view? Man, that's CRAZY!!! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you. Yes, it is my opinion. I have a lot of opinions based on fairness and equity. I find it a very logical and non-biased position to be in. No chance of personal religious beliefs or systemic bias getting in the way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What other encyclopedia has ever treated living religions as if they were already dead? (Never mind the Marxist Encyclopedia or Soviet one!) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

At no point have I spoken of describing any religion as dead or alive. Please stop misrepresenting me. It's often a strategy of those with weak arguments, and you don't want yours to seem that way, do you? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's no strategy, it's common knowledge what the specific major religions widely practised in the world today are, in the field of Comparative Religion - ever heard of it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't see what that has to do with anything. A dead religion, whatever definition you give it, has to be given equal treatment in Wikipedia to your preferred one. We cannot even hint here that any one religion has more or less credibility than any other. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And again I ask, who has ever taken this bizarre approach before? Especially in the way of reputable encyclopedias? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I often have radical ideas. Tell us what's wrong with it, not that it hasn't been done before. That won't convince me I'm wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the burden is on me to refute someone's radical idea or it becomes enacted by default! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 is right from the standpoint that there is no way to verify when a religion is dead or not. A classic example is neopaganism. Clearly not a dead religion, but if we were having this discussion 100 years ago, you'd probably claim otherwise. We have no way of knowing what the full panoply of beliefs are. Declaring some to be "dead" and others to be extant is simply beyond our remit. jps (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are both quite wrong, there is no controversy about what religions exist today and this is perfectly well known in the field of comparative religion, which neither of you seem to have studied or have much of anything other than contempt for religions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no global census that can determine which religious beliefs are extinct and which are not. That's simply not possible. We simply don't know what every person's private beliefs are. jps (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that "creation myth" is the most common term in academic writing, and certainly not in common discourse. Google scholar provides 5,960 for "genesis+"creation myth"",[1] but "genesis+"creation story"" returns twice as many (13,200). Even "genesis+"creation narrative"" returns 3,140 hits, while "genesis+"creation account"" returns 5,930 hits. "genesis+"cosmology"" returns 36,800 hits. There is no doubt that the term myth is used, and of course google hits can be misleading. But it seems that there is no consensus in reliable sources to use the term myth. TFD (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a classic example of our systemic bias at work. See how hard it is to avoid? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There definitely is systemic bias in reliable sources, but it is not our role to correct it, merely to explain various views in proportion to their acceptance. TFD (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance by whom? HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Their acceptance in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's circular. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it circular? TFD (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I really don't have the time nor energy to help you learn debating terms. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I will rephrase what I said. The relevant policy is in the "Use commonly recognizable names" section of "Wikipedia:Article titles": "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." "Genesis creation myth" is not "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)." Whether or not there is a systemic bias in reliable sources is irrelevant to the naming policy. There is nothing circular about that. (I assume by circular you mean tautological.) TFD (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that the #Sources which deal with this subject all indicate that it is most plainly and clearly identified as a creation myth. WP:SOURCECOUNTING is a problematic way of trying to figure out which is more popular. You need to read the sources to decide which are reliable and who is actually dealing with the subject as we deal with it in the article. jps (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop WP:SOURCECOUNTING please. Read the #Sources and see what they say. jps (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what you are doing, except you are counting only three sources. There is no question that reliable sources use the terms myth, narrative, account, story, cosmology and others. The best way to determine which is most commonly used is to find a rs that says something like, "The term most commonly used is...." Failing that, the best way is to see which terms are more frequently used through counting. How else do we resolve WP:COMMONNAME? TFD (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to actually read the sources and try to figure out what their content is. You are trying to count how many WP:GHITS you're getting when you use a search engine on some database. There is a big difference between bibliometry and actual competent scholarship. jps (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The personal attacks on Opponents of the move requesters need to stop now. You are not more intelligent than anyone else here and you need to realize that there is a place for truly neutral language, as opposed to the popularity contest of which word shows up more often in Google (or any other source). Story/narrative/myth/legend/teaching, whatever word you want to use, the reality here is that creation stories - across all cultures, not just those of the Abrahamic religions - are significant and important; they often contain deeper "truths" about who a people are and what matters to them than can any cold recitation of scientific facts. Thus the language used to describe these traditions is equally important. In English, the word "myth" generally carries the connotation of "stories that are not true." It is one thing to call the stories of ancient societies such as ancient Greece or Rome a "mythology," as these are "Dead" sultures we study from a distance, but to call stories of living cultures a "myth" is, in various degrees, insulting. Articles about the Japanese, the Hopi, or anyone else where there are living adherents of these cultural traditions should ALL be renamed more neutrally as a narrative/story/tradition rather than the perjorative "myth." It is not fundamentalist lunacy to say that one can simultaneously believe in the "truth" of hard science and the metaphorical/spiritual/philosophical "truth" of theology. So let's show respect for real people by using truly neutral language. As was said by one more eloquent than I: "..But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Thomas Jefferson) Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And who are you to say the Greeks had it wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Um - because virtually no one today says Apollo and Mercury are real entities. Next are you going to be arguing on behalf of Flat-Earthism? What people think today as opposed to yesterday does matter to an encyclopedia, and you are saying it doesn't, which would be weird and possibly even dystopic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia policy at all. You're just making up what you want to be the rules. jps (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's nonsense to suggest that non-scientific belief's today should be given more credibility than beliefs of another time. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I know scientists in different countries have various hypotheses, but you seem to represent the more intolerant face of science, the one that says everyone suddenly loses their right to believe anything else or have their beliefs described in an impartial encyclopedia... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And there you go again. Making up words that you claim represent my view. I've mentioned before what misrepresentation says about your argument. Just stick with what I've actually written, and discuss that, not something else. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The quality level of "debate" here isn't even worth it! "How can we tell if a religion exists or not? Hmmm, suppose there's really no way to tell if a religion exists or not? Hmm, what then?" Can't argue with a clown act! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So now you've moved to describing me as "a clown act". Well done. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't help it if you haven't been competent enough to do the due diligence of actually reading the #Sources, investigating whether the term creation myth is in any way pejorative or in any way detracts from possible "significant and important" "truths'. In fact, it seems to me that you simply refuse to look at the reliable sources. You just don't want to deal with the subject in a way more than using your own personal prejudice. And, as HiLo rightly points out, we don't discriminate on the basis of dead or living beliefs at Wikipedia. WP:RNPOV is the relevant policy. jps (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And there is ANOTHER personal attack. My point is showing respect for people who are living right here, right now. If you sincerely wanted to reword things "Ancient Greek religious creation narratives" I would not argue against it (or for it for that matter). And you don't know what my own religious views are, so make no assumptions. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is the relevant statement about your "showing respect". There is no requirement anywhere in Wikipedia policy that we show respect for people's sensibilities about their mistaken belief about what an academic term means. Otherwise we would rename the Big Bang to satisfy those who are offended by its sexual overtones. jps (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—information related to this story being a "creation myth" properly belongs in article text, not in the title of the article. "Creation myth", as in "Genesis creation myth", constitutes gratuitous information injected into the title. The two possible titles of "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" adequately identify the subject of the article without containing additional information. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep saying it's "gratuitous", but your explanation as to why it is was based entirely on your own personal prejudice against the word "myth" even though we are using an academic definition of a compound term, creation myth. You are claiming the information is gratuitous. Fine. Show me the policy on Wikipedia where it says we must "avoid titling articles with words that Bus Stop finds gratuitous". Maybe it's in the policy WP:FATUOUSARGUMENTATION? jps (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is arguing from "personal prejudice against the word myth". They are arguing that the word "myth" is popularly understood in a way different from the "academic definition". We have an entire article (Evolution as fact and theory) to deal with the different meanings, popular and academic, of "theory".

This Ngram shows that the word "narrative" has overtaken "myth" in connexion to Genesis in the past couple decades. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That Ngram is very poor small number statistics, as far as I can tell. Additionally, when I say, "personal prejudice", I mean that people are associating the wrong meaning with a word out of personal prejudice towards that meaning. Compare to someone misinterpreting the term Big Bang as an orgy. While we might insist that a creation myth says nothing about the truth-value of the story it describes, this doesn't satisfy the personal prejudice of those who think myth necessarily connotes falsehood. Similarly, if I insist that the Big Bang is the term used in academia to describe the origin of the universe, this does not satisfy the prude who insists that there the words conjure images of particular kinds of sexual deviance. jps (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Admin note: I realize this is a heated subject, but please comment on content and strength of argument, not on other contributors. Blocks will likely follow soon if people keep insulting each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Because I don't even know where to begin commenting in this thread, I'll just stick this at the bottom. First, I would like to comment how silly I think it is for jps to write an essay and then cite it 8 times in this page, as if that somehow brings greater credibility to his point. Of course we have to count sources. If we had 100 sources, and 90 of them referred to it as a "Duck", and 10 of them referred to it as a "Pochard", the article would be titled "Duck" because (A) that's how most people refer to it and (B) that's how it's referred to in the majority of reliable sources. Since we have no such clear majority in our sources, we are left with the option of describing the subject in a way that is recognizable, unambiguous and neutral. The current title meets these requirements. In this particular comment section, an editor tried to count the number of times a term is used within the article to determine the correct term. This is an interesting approach, but ignores all the synonyms for the word "narrative", such as "account" (7), "story" (16), and the most generic "text" (18). It's still not how we come up with titles for articles. Ἀλήθεια 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you won't take the time to do actual research; to read the #sources provided, then you wouldn't have to do absurd bibliometry. If you have a source which explains how this tale is not a creation myth, please provide it. jps (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—I am trying to understand why you favor the title "Genesis creation myth". Do you feel that there are any shortcomings at all to the titles "Creation in Genesis" or "Creation according to Genesis" as possible titles for this article? Obviously the two titles I suggest do not contain the term creation myth. But why is that important? Do the two titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" adequately identify the subject of this article? What, in your opinion, are the shortcomings, vis-a-vis your suggested title of "Genesis creation myth", of the two titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis"? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not creation in Genesis. The article is about the creation myth in Genesis. "Creation in Genesis" would be an article about anything that was created in Genesis... it's an ambiguous title. "Creation according to Genesis" is a bit worse. It is treating Genesis as an actor rather than a compendium. Genesis doesn't profess or explain, it is just a compilation of myths and sacred histories. We are trying to identify the subject of the article which is the creation myth in the Book of Genesis. As I said above, I think creation myth in Genesis would work too, but this is a simpler title. jps (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I question that, I think this is about inserting the word "myth" into a title to prove a WP:POINT. JMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you WP:AGF, I am insisting because we are describing a creation myth, which is the proper academic term for the story. The term is not "creation narrative" nor "creation story" (though I have no doubt less serious sources -- less reliable ones -- might use all kinds of imprecise labels for what this particular tale actually is). If you just step back from your personal prejudice about the word "myth" and consider that the academics who use the term are NOT being disparaging nor trying to malign believers, I think you might understand where I am coming from. jps (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@jps. To assert the article is about the creation myth in a discussion which is an attempt to identify what the article title should be is a bit of circular reasoning. Genesis is rich in specific, written language that would identify the genesis story as sacred literature, a sacred story, and this fact of written story should head or title the article. What that literature is based on, which would include myth could then constitute the article. This is an inclusive approach. Using myth in the title is exclusive to content and sources that approach the genesis story from other angles and opens the door for exclusion of content later on. It is imperative that the title of this article be named in a comprehensive way so that legitimate reliable sources per their weight in the mainstream cannot be excluded at some later date because we implied exclusion in the title now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC))

IMHO, jps is being way more logical here. Sacred stories/ literature are, by definition, myths. As he pointed out, the academic term for a story/narrative/piece of literature used to describe the creation of the world by supernatural figures is "creation myth". Therefore, the only logical way to title an article about the way Genesis describes the creation of the world by supernatural figures is "Genesis creation myth" or some variant. Rwenonah (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

jps—you are assuming there is "personal prejudice"[2] against the term creation myth when in fact the term is simply not necessary for the formation of a totally unambiguous title. The two titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis" adequately identify the subject of this article. They are not ambiguous. You say "Well, it's not creation in Genesis. The article is about the creation myth in Genesis. 'Creation in Genesis' would be an article about anything that was created in Genesis... it's an ambiguous title."[3] It is not an ambiguous title. No reader would find the title "Creation in Genesis" ambiguous. It would never occur to a reader that this "would be an article about anything that was created in Genesis"[4]. The reference in the title is obviously to the important components of the world that come into existence as events unfold in the story of Genesis. Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to make an Ockham's Razor case for article titling, but I don't think you're doing a very good job. "No reader would find the title 'creation in Genesis' misleading." you state. But that's not the issue. The issue is that the title is properly about something else. It's not an issue of understandability, it's an issue of specificity. When Lot's wife was changed into a pillar of salt, that pillar of salt was created by God. In a proper article on the subject of creation in Genesis, there is no reason to exclude such creative events, though perhaps these events would be better placed in an article about miracles in Genesis). This article, in contrast, is about the creation myth in Genesis, which is much more specific and clear as to the subject matter. We don't title articles on the basis of whether people would be likely to correctly guess what the subject of the article is about. We title articles on the basis of the policy I outline above and for which you have not provided a convincing counter-read. jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your preferred titles may not be ambiguous, but they are definitely non-neutral, because they treat the Genesis myth differently from other creation myths. That's virtually the definition of non-neutrality. All religions MUST be treated the same before you can claim neutrality. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48—the entity under discussion need not be characterized in any way whatsoever. It can be referenced without characterization. Where these titles not available to us—"Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis"—we would probably resort to using a title that characterized the entity in one way or another. The entity might be characterized as a "narration" (as it is presently), or as a "story", or as a "creation myth". But we have available to us the possible titles "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". Therefore insertion of the term "creation myth" in the title would be completely superfluous. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a radical idea (by your own admission) that is previously unheard of, that you are demanding for virtually non-existent beliefs (eg flat earth) to be considered equally the same with belief systems that are known to have major significant followings nowadays (eg the Greek Orthodox). It will never work and there is no obligation upon wikipedia to implement such nonsense no matter how many times you angrily stamp your foot. Then you try to fudge around the debate by seriously pretending that it isn't known whether religions have followings today. Um because we have sources in the real world that we can read to tell us they have followings. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Wikipedia be as neutral towards the believers in a flat earth as the believers in the correctness of the Greek Orthodox Church? Is it purely a numbers game? jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Per several comments above: No, actually literature is not by definition myth, and we aren't dealing with religion here. We are dealing with a text used by some religions, considered by some sources to be sacred, by others to have literary characteristics, among other characteristics/definitions. To treat the genesis story differently from other creation myths we have first to determine if the genesis story per the sources is a myth at all. and only a myth. That's what this discussion is, in part, about. You are assuming a fact, when this discussion is about whether that so-called fact, is a fact, per the sources, at all. Do you see how circular this argument is?(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC))

No one said "literature is by definition myth". We said this article is about a creation myth. It is also literature. I don't see any arguments that actually dispute this (they actually only say that others might dispute this), and our article explicitly states that the subject of the article is a creation myth. jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is very easy. Just treat all religions the same. Only those wanting one, or a handful, treated differently have a problem. I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You want religions that are widely adhered to today to be treated like the ones that are generally discarded. This is the epitome of "pov pushing" and it seems to belie a distinct hostility to religion, perhaps because in your mind they should all be discarded, and you cannot understand why all other editors would not share your vantagepoint. Otherwise I cannot understand how you can expect wikipedia founded on NPOV to engage in this polemic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. That's ridiculous. Asking for all religions to be treated the same is not be POV pushing? It's precisely the opposite. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you are asking living religions to be treated just as if they were already dead. This is indeed a radical approach and you are demanding this project support your activism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that implying that some religions are more likely to be true than others is much more a form of activism and a non-neutral POV. We MUST treat them all the same. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's okay, I am confident that as long as this is an open-source project that can be accessed by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc. from all over the world, your vision of treating them identical to a bunch of defunct creeds will never gain acceptance. Unless you could succeed at restricting all Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. editors from the project since you have already determined for them that their beliefs are false! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about "a bunch of defunct creeds". Some creeds died because peoples were invaded. Does that make their religion false and less worthy? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't presume to say what religions are false or worthy, but if there's no evidence of a sizeable number around to speak for a belief, we generally don't treat it as a "significant point of view"... this is not just the case in religion, but in any topic. We might mention that it was a past belief and point out that the belief is no longer represented today, for whatever reason. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That still suggests that we give more credibility to religions with more current adherents. Anyway, that was never relevant to my point. It was you who brought up dead religions, not me. Are you suggesting that we have to be nicer to religions with the greatest number of adherents? That seems ridiculous to me. Religion is religion. They must all be treated the same. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that shifts my argument into a strawman. I never suggested any grading scale of one living religion against another. Religions (the ones practised today) have always been treated as a category in their own right. All of the religions practised today should be treated impartially. Think of it as BLP but for peoples' ideas and philosophies and belief-systems. Religions NOT practised today have never been put in the same category with the living ones, though. You essentially want them all put in the dead category which imo may reflect a bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If anything's a straw man, that is. You're not discussing my main point. I didn't think you would, but it's always fun trying. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Til is essentially arguing for religious favoritism toward "living" religions. He has not specified a metric, but presumably we're meant to determine if a religion is "living" by headcount. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You are arguing that ideas that have no one living today to speak for them be given equal weight. That just shows how hare brained your argument is getting because no tertiary source or public encyclopedia has ever before attempted such a radical experiment. Once again, I must question the education of those who express doubt as to what religions exist, since this was the first thing I learned in Comparative Religion class. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Religious favoritism"[5]? I have a novel idea—why not focus on arriving at an appropriate title for this article? The subject matter of the article is unambiguously identified by titles such as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". Characterizing the subject matter as a "story", a "narrative", or a "creation myth" should be considered a drawback to titles using that naming convention. Furthermore I think it is a waste of time to try to make this article's title conform to what are argued to be the naming conventions found at ostensibly comparable articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So clearly you don't believe in treating all religions equally. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for treating religions or belief-systems that exist now equally. Treating them like religions that don't exist, defies all logic and renders the purpose of an encyclopedia worthless. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Do you have a source for that? Do you have a list of "living religions"? How does one qualify? HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to quantify how many adherents makes a religion meet your "living" standard for differential treatment. Is a cult with 42 members a "living religion"? If 41 of them commit suicide, leaving one to carry on their message, does just one adherent qualify as "living"? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the metric you use to determine when a religion does not exist. Evidence of absence as in that instance is a very difficult task. jps (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

These questions have little bearing for us on this talkpage because there is no dispute that the biblical religions are alive and well and not only living but widespread. However, I can try to indulge your query, I thought you understood "significant point of view" for project purposes. A cult with only one believer is hardly widespread and will not be significant for most purposes on most articles, unless maybe worthy of note on the dedicated article in question, eg "Heaven's Gate (religious group)". An example with slightly more adherents is the Nuwaubian Nation, estimated at around 500 faithful, who believe the Nuwaubian Scripture, written in 1996. Their opinions will probably not merit much of a mention on most articles, however on the article "Nuwaubian Nation" we do take note of their teachings, as impartially as possible per policy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If and when Wikipedia:Significant Point of View becomes a guideline or policy, I'll be willing to entertain such an argument. However, there is no such policy or guideline and so I think it unwise to be making any determination for Wikipedia on such a basis. jps (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to gratuitous commentary in a title. We are talking about a case in which material that belongs in the body of an article does not belong in the title of an article. In this case the characterization of this entity as a "creation myth" is entirely superfluous to the minimal amount of information necessary in a title to unambiguously identify the subject of the article. We know exactly what this article is about when we encounter its title as "Creation in Genesis" and "Creation according to Genesis". There is no ambiguity there. You are arguing to add "extra" information to the title. As another editor pointed out, that is WP:POINTY. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Responded to above. "Creation in Genesis" does not adequately identify the subject of the article, which is the creation myth in Genesis. jps (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Other articles about creation myths invariably use "creation myth" in the title (e.g. Japanese creation myth, Anishinaabeg creation stories, Cherokee creation myth,Choctaw creation myth,Creek creation myth,Korean creation myth, Chinese creation myth . Why, then, are we treating this article differently?Rwenonah (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah—There is no need for a title that contains a contrived element ("creation myth") favored by some. The term has its origins in academia which is a setting not always coincident with for instance a religious setting. There are also artistic settings such as literature and visual art which also may draw upon this subject. We need not characterize the subject of this article at all as such characterization is avoidable and I would argue preferable. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Invariably"? As of today's count, there are 106 pages in Category:Creation myths. Aside from the main article on creation myths, and the list of creation myths, there are only 10 other articles that are titled using the pattern of "XX creation myth". That means that more than 90% of articles that deal with "a symbolic narrative of how the world began" are titled some other way. Like this one. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I find it absolutely hysterical that in a vain attempt to bolster the claim of supposed "consistency" among similar article titles, Rwenonah was required to pipe 5 out of the 7 examples - [[Japanese creation myth]], [[Anishinaabe#History|Anishinaabeg creation stories]], [[Cherokee mythology#Creation myth|Cherokee creation myth]],[[Choctaw mythology#Choctaw creation|Choctaw creation myth]],[[Creek mythology#Creation|Creek creation myth]],[[Hwanung#Creation myth|Korean creation myth]], [[Chinese creation myth]] - and among these one doesn't even contain the word "myth" in the article! Further evidence that no such consistency exists. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah's question has been answered straightforwardly so many times ad nauseam that I just know that there is a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on with regard to people putting the blinders on and literally not hearing or comprehending anything that doesn't support their view. Another reason to treat those religions differently is that nobody takes their creation narratives seriously and there is no literature arguing "these are not myths" -- they are different cases, like different individuals, and in the cases where there IS such a literature, it means there are multiple contrasting points of view regarding the mythological status of that particular case. Saying "we should treat all these cases the same even though they are different", when viewed through the discipline of logic, is a form of putting the blinders on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

How is a religion where "no one takes their creation myths seriously" different from one where its creation myth is taken seriously? (and for that matter, lots of people don't take Genesis seriously either). No one has yet successfully offered a reason to treat the Genesis creation myth differently from other religions. Rwenonah (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC) And what is a "creation myth"? It is defined in the corresponding article as "a symbolic narrative of how the world began and people first came to inhabit it." What is the article's topic? The narrative in Genesis of how the world began and people first came to inhabit it. The only logical title is "Genesis creation myth" (the creation myth in Genesis). Creation narrative redirects to creation myth. Rwenonah (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to speak to this point and go on record as saying that I am NOT opposed to this move on the basis of whether or not this is "taken seriously". I think that line of argumentation is totally off point. However, I would suggest there have been several reasons offered that demonstrate why the Genesis text should be treated differently. First, it should be treated differently because reliable sources treat it differently. There is no one way that the text is universally referred to. It is called (among other things) a story, an account, a narrative, a record. Second, the reason that reliable sources treat the Genesis text differently is because it is fundamentally different. I'm not aware of any other cultures, people groups, or religions that have a story about the world's origins in this format - a single, complete, canonical narrative text that has existed essentially unaltered for thousands of years. Where there are close comparisons, such as in the Enûma Eliš, the article is not titled a "creation myth", but rather is described as such. Third (and I think maybe this is the point being made by those advocating for "living" religions being treated differently), the reason that there is such a diversity of opinion in reliable sources is that there is such an abundance of scholarship on this text as compared with others that are less well known. This is most certainly related to the number of modern adherents, but it's not the number of adherents that should cause us to treat this subject differently. Perhaps you might even consider that it's actually quite the other way around! The mere fact of just how remarkably different this text is could be part of the reason there are so many modern adherents. It's worth at least considering. Ἀλήθεια 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't as unique as you make it out to be. Many religions have extensive writings (Babylonian religion, Hinduism and Buddhism, to name a few) which have existed since long before the BIble. While, as you've pointed out, the parallels aren't exact, the creation myths in those articles (where they exist) are explicitly referred to in the titles as "creation myths. Then again, those religions don't even have creation myth articles, which bears out your point about the abundance of scholarship (and enthusiasm) on this topic. Rwenonah (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

True, there are extensive writings from other traditions, but are can you point to any culture, people group, or religion that has a single, complete, canonical text such as we have in the Genesis narrative? Or are they (as would be expected from a creation myth) a collection of oral traditions with multiple variations? Hinduism has not one creation myth, but rather at least three. Buddhism, on the other hand, has no accepted creation myth, as questions on the origins of life are moot according to that tradition. Interestingly, for the world's second largest religion, Wikipedia refers to the "Islamic creation narrative". Ἀλήθεια 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How about the Mayans and their Popol Vuh? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Once again, the point being made relates more to comparative mythology than anything else. In the case of the Bible, I believe that there are variations of various books that serve as a testimony to the fact that the canonization process itself was contentious, with one priest caste/class/family winning out over another in establishing the canonical version.

The same is true with respect to the Japanese creation myth, also the story is more complicated because there were two canonical versions with respective orientations to different audiences; i.e., one domestic, and the other international/continental. In later years other version of the myths surfaced in different contexts.

Accordingly, aside from the fact that I don't see RS differentiating literary genre on the base of "canonical" status, it is not unreasonable to state that the case of the Bible is not unique in that respect.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hindu texts definitely do not take the form of "an oral tradition with multiple variations", since there are multiple complete, canonical texts which lay out the creation of the world and predate the bible by several thousand years. The only major difference is the fact that there are variations (and its really no surprise that variations came to exist in the three thousand years by which these texts predated Genesis). As I said, the parallels aren't exact, but Genesis isn't unique enough to justify not titling this article "Genesis creation myth" on the basis of it being the only "single, complete, canonical text" of its type. Rwenonah (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break II: All myths are narratives. Stories. If it isn't a story narrative, it isn't a myth. The creation narrative in Genesis is, by definition, a particular kind of narrative known as a creation myth. Creation myths are a genre. And this is an encyclopedia where readers deserve quality content, not pretend content or content reshaped via special pleading to satisfy niche interest groups or "insiders" accustomed to their own manner of defining things. There's no need to drill it into readers heads by repeating the term "creation myth" ad nauseum. Story works, narrative, "account" - there are lots of perfectly valid words to use to avoid overly redundant usage or awkward sentence construction. But it needs to be identified as a creation myth, in the lead, and just as overuse isn't justified, neither is undue under-use as with awkward euphemisms or otherwise tiptoeing gingerly around the fact. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose a simple poll

Not helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK folks, all of the above is generating more heat than light. The combination of threats and baiting is not helping anyone. Everyone is getting a little too heated and snarky, and it's time to cut the endless dialog and discuss the move request itself - NO ONE is going to change their mind, I suspect. Somewhere along the line, if this keeps up, someone is going to go to one of the drama boards for relief (admins are already being called upon), then when that drama has filled up a couple of thmb drives worth of text, then someone will open an ArbCom case, and if history is any indication, several people are going to get sanctioned along the way. It's going to be Chelsea Manning or Climate Change or "T/teh" Beatles all over again. So, instead of going through all that (though perhaps that could be the goal of some participants, I don't know), let's just cut to the chase: Here is the bottom line: This move proposal takes a relatively stable, neutrally phrased article title that might annoy a few people but harms no one, and proposes to replace it with a title that, should the move request succeed, will unquestionably inflame a significant number of readers, who will complain even louder than this current group of editors, and that will undoubtably set off yet another round of this debate. Though Til's rhetoric is a little too hot, that is, I think, the point he was trying to make. On the other hand, those supporting the move may have dug up a lot of useful evidence, but it is being presented in a way that will win them no friends or allies. All I'm seeing is a lot of terribly tendentious argumentation that are at best WP:SOUP, possibly constitute some rather nasty WikiLawyering, and at worst are poking the WP:BEAR. So let's end this now and just do a straw poll of those who are following this discussion. If you voted above, it's hard to find in the wall of text, so everyone just please re-state your position as SUPPORT or OPPOSE here. Montanabw(talk) 04:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC Polling Votes only here, NO commentary Those who support move: Those who oppose move: Montanabw(talk) 04:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)) This is a pointless exercise begun in bad faith by someone who didn't even try to conceal their obvious POV. Simple polls are for simple people, and we're not supposed to vote here anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this, although I consider the action to be an attempt to control and own this discussion. Montana was making a good faith attempt to summarize the massive amounts of text in this discussion. Every editor commenting on this page has a point of view, that's what this discussion was for. Further, simplicity, which requires the intelligence to reduce complexity to the most vital points and elegant patterns should not be confused with ignorance or lack of intelligence as is suggested here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC))

I agree that it was a good faith effort by Montana, but it was ill-advised. The personal attacks against Montana for doing this were much worse than ill-advised, unfortunately. The closing admin will be able to see the different lines of reasoning and the !votes. In similar discussions I've seen an editor do the closer a favor by listing the !votes in a separate section. That would have been a better choice than expecting each editor to return here (many without even being aware of this idea) to re!vote. At this point, I think it would be best to leave it to a wise closing admin to sift through the arguments, personal attacks, !votes, policies, and history here. I also think that it's time to close this, since there is much more heat than light being generated now, in spite of the command to "Let there be Light." First Light (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that this discussion should be closed by an uninvolved editor/admin, and thanks Montana for the attempt to move the discussion beyond, "the arguments, personal attacks, !votes, policies, and history here."(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC))

Sources from scholars who argue "not myth"

Since this has significant bearing on how this article is to be appropriately titled, I thought it wise to create a discussion section to gather sources from books written by notable scholars and from peer-reviewed academic journals. The purpose of this is not to try to preclude the article from stating the current scholarly consensus that the narrative found in Genesis 1-2 is classified as a "creation myth", but rather to demonstrate from reliable sources that it is also classified in other ways.

• Von Rad, Gerhard (1973). Genesis: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 63. ISBN 0664227457. "In essence it is not myth and not saga, but Priestly doctrine, i.e., ancient, sacred knowledge, preserved and handed on by many generations of priests, repeatedly pondered, taught, reformed and expanded most carefully and compactly by new reflections and experiences of faith."
• Greene-McCreight, Kathryn (1999). "Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the "Plain Sense" of Genesis 1-3". Issues in Systematic Theology. 5 (5): 185. "Here, then, is the significance of Barth's classifying the biblical creation narratives as saga and not myth."
• McCartney, Dan (2002). Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible. Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company. p. 213. ISBN 0875525164. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "...biblical history is not myth, but a true story, told with theological purpose and vantage point. It may use the images and linguistic forms of its environment, but slipping in the term myth by redefinition really results in a reduction of the uniqueness of the biblical history."
• Kissling, Paul J. (2004). Genesis, Volume 1. College Press. p. 96. ISBN 0899008755. "Secondly, this view forgets that Genesis one is antimythological polemic, not myth."
• Rogerson, John W. (2005). Davies, Philip R. (ed.). The Old Testament World. Continuum. ISBN 0567084884. "...there is nothing comparable here to what we find in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Greek myths..."
• Waltke, Bruce K. (2011). An Old Testament Theology. Zondervan. ISBN 0310863325. "I will argue below that Genesis 1 is an ancient Near Eastern cosmogony, but let me emphasize here that its content is essentially historical, not mythological."

Respectfully submitted, Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, most of the sources above seem to have a Christian (or at least monotheistic) theological orientation. While adherents to a monotheistic religion might try to strictly differentiate between monotheistic mythology and polytheistic theology by calling the former "saga" instead of myth, scholarly consensus considers all creation stories to belong to the genre of myth.

Simply posting a quote from a source that states told with theological purpose and vantage point reveals the theological bias.

Further attempts to differentiate between types of myth belong to a second order pursuit. "Uniqueness" is a characterization that seems to imply a comparison with polytheistic religions and their myths (haven't read the source), and to evaluate Genesis as an evolutionary (irony) step theologically. The problem is that this article is not about comparative mythology or comparative theology, it is about the specific version of a creation myth found in Genesis.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble sharing your perspective that sources for "monotheistic" or "theological" viewpoints are a priori illegitimate and should have no place in articles about monotheistic or theological viewpoints. This seems to be a presumed given behind much of your words, but perhaps if you could explain it a little to me too so I could understand the presumed given. We aren't saying these sources aren't biased. As with any article, they are evidence of a point of view and all we have to do is report on them impartially, not rebut the sources ourselves and declare them incorrect and their opponents correct because that's what some editors here think. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What the article is about is determined by the sources, and I agree that what we have to do is report what those RS say per their weight in the mainstream. The multiple view[points including that Genesis is myth can be sourced. What we can't do is determine which of those sources is the "right" one and use that determination to title the article. The title should be inclusive per weight of all the content and their supporting RS. Seems to me talk of adherents and religions is a sidetrack to this which I'd favour bypassing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

The mystery of the origin of this document is one of the greatest debates that has raged for many centuries and it is no less a controversy now, in the big picture. There are at least three or four conflicting schools of thought that don't mind promoting themselves as the "mainstream" - but it is in fact controversial, and dishonest not to report it as controversial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, which is why the article must contain per weight those controversies not per how the controversy portrays itself but per the overarching sense of all the sources. And is is because there are controversies that we cannot as editors choose any one, as right, or accurate, or fact, but must in the title of the article use words that can include the multiple schools of thought on the subject. We must use a neutral title.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

People who believe Genesis is literal history do not get a say per WP:FRINGE. People who think that myths cannot contradict other myths have to show why this is so (and that is not done in either of the sources that do so above). The only thing left is "saga" which is plainly a euphemism. We are told to avoid euphemisms explicitly in the policy about titles of articles. In short, there is no controversy to teach. jps (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Til I don't consider the sources or the pov to be "illegitimate", but a minority pov in academia. If you look at my earlier posts, I've referred to a relatively less "supernatural" dimension to the Genesis creation myth; accordingly, I can appreciate the pov of the "Plain Sense", and even go so far as to acknowledge that there may be scholars that genuinely assign a theological import to that "Plain Sense".

However, I find that to be a pov of a secondary order with respect to what could strictly be characterized as one of the qualities of the myth, per se. accordingly, I find that to be a pov that appropriately should be addressed in the body of the article, and not necessarily have bearing on the title.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so the first two sources argue for Genesis creation saga. I cannot tell from the the context of the third source whether the author thinks that the creation myth in Genesis is history, but the last source definitely claims that. That has to be a WP:FRINGE position (our article doesn't even touch that claim with a ten foot pole), so arguing for Genesis creation history is more-or-less a non-starter. The other two argue for Genesis creation antimythological polemic, but that's really more of a comparative mythology point rather than anything else. To claim that something cannot be a myth when it takes issue with other myths is a simple fallacy and cannot be the basis for making decisions. So, I'm at a loss. The strongest case you have is Genesis creation saga, but I note that there is nothing that says sagas cannot be myths and the Karl Barth argument is one that is geared specifically towards modernization of theological argumentation -- easing the religious into an acceptance of mainstream scholarship through euphemisms. It's rather good this didn't catch on because Evangelicals today would probably think that "saga" had the same characteristics of "false" as myth currently carries.

In short, I appreciate the attempt, but don't think it compares to #Sources. These are not serious rejoinders.

jps (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@jps - You are totally missing the point. There are reliable sources that argue for myth, and reliable sources that argue against myth. The object then is to find the title that is neutral - that (almost) no one argues against. Can anyone find any sources that disagree that the passage under consideration is a "narrative"? To date I haven't seen one. And you are completely wrong in stating that Genesis as history is a fringe position. It is far from the majority view, but it is a very significant minority view. In fact, we specifically deal with this in the genre section (not, as you claim, refusing to "...touch that claim with a ten foot pole") - It can also be regarded as ancient history, "part of a broader spectrum of originally anonymous, history-like ancient Near Eastern narratives." In your preferred sources above, you might note that only one actually uses the term "Genesis creation myth". All the others are actually quite agnostic toward what this article should be titled, and merely speak to content issues, which have long been settled. Other titles suggested or implied (but not mandated) in your list of sources (which by the way is far from ideal in terms of scholarship and WP:DUE) include Creation biblical narrative, Genesis creation story, Creation in Genesis, and Creation in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Ἀλήθεια 14:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the sources which "argue against myth" are either not reliable (in that they are promoting WP:FRINGE viewpoints such as a literal Genesis account of history) or are claiming euphemistic balance (e.g. "saga") which is not a valid reason for renaming the academic term creation myth. In short, no reliable sources have been presented which argue convincingly why this article is not about a creation myth found in Genesis and #Sources strongly argues otherwise. jps (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If we had one set of articles titled "creation narrative" and another set titled "creation story," would there be all this drama over one set being treated differently than the other? I doubt it. It's the word myth that is causing the problem and that is because it is such a loaded word. Some sources use and it some don’t. The U.S. Library of Congress has 695 listings under the subject ‘’Bible, Genesis,’’ many of them have being subcategories with dozens of titles themselves, including ‘’Bible. Genesis--Commentaries’’ 429, and ‘’Bible. Genesis--Criticism, interpretation, etc.,’’ 400. And that’s only books. There are thousands of scholarly articles on the subject as well. Picking and choosing a handful of sources can prove nothing, and surveying them all, even if feasible, would be OR. The obvious solution is to use a neutral word like narrative in the title or no descriptive noun at all. If people feel that leaves other religions slighted, then make those titles neutral too.—agr (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note - jps formerly Science Apologist was indefbanned once for his misuses of applying FRINGE policy and apparently allowed to edit again with a promise to stay away from this. I had no involvement with this and do not know the details. But he has again used the pejorative term FRINGE in application to the positions of the Nicene Creed, which were decided by a consensus that is still adhered to by the Nicene Churches. It is my fear that jps intends to have Wikipedia officially endorse his perception that all of the Nicene Churches are FRINGE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion above, its Ἀλήθεια who misses the point; jps said that calling the creation myth in Genesis real history is a fringe position. I hope no one disagrees ; that is simple common sense, and the article rightfully ignores that position. In my opinion, the sources saying not myth don't compare to these #Sources, especially as they contradict each other and all offer different opinions on what Genesis is. Rwenonah (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is complete hogwash and smacks of anti-Christian bias. Plenty of people disagree. That's the whole point of the multiple (at one count, more than 10 books written by prominent PhD-level scholars and some half-dozen peer-reviewed academic journal articles) reliable sources that have been offered, demonstrating that the article can't ignore that position. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You hope that no one disagrees that is a FRINGE position? Sorry, I for one disagree. This is the position of Nicene Christianity and you are saying jps' view is "mainstream" and everything disagreeing with jps is FRINGE. If this continues it may need to be arbitrated again. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that the creation myth in Genesis is real history (e.g. creation actually happened exactly as described in Genesis, and this position is a valid interpretation of history)? Or that that position is not fringe? Rwenonah (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rwenonah, that's what all these sources are saying. There are differing, competing views of history. Not everyone thinks the same as you do and there's no reason to falsely portray that everyone thinks the same as you do. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the idea that creation happened literally as described in Genesis is fringe, since it totally discards all of history that occurred before the existence of humans, including evolution. Are you saying Young Earth Creationism is not fringe? There is a scientific consensus that evolution happened and the earth is 4.54 billion years old. Rwenonah (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember that there is a significant amount of ambiguity in the text itself, and almost nothing that describes how creation happened. The narrative never claims to be a scientific textbook. Plus, you are assuming that historical narrative always reads exactly as it does in this modern era. The point is, there is no need to saddle this article with the overly specific label of "creation myth" when there is a perfectly acceptable alternate title. Ἀλήθεια 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you agree that Young Earth creationists are fringe, then? Even putting aside the ambiguous parts, Bible literalists are still fringe, especially if they apply their beliefs to history and science. While Genesis doesn't claim to be a scientific textbook, plenty of people use it and its positions as one - and they are fringe. The article even says this. Rwenonah (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no instances of mainstream academic historians identifying this myth as a historical narrative. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think you're advocating a WP:FRINGE idea here that this myth is history. There are myths which are history (Troy comes to mind) but this isn't one of them. jps (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"A myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form." That definition fits creation in Genesis to a t. Since it's about creation, calling it a "creation myth" is the logical next step. The guidelines for titles are :"the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Creation myth resembles other articles of the type better than does "creation narrative". Narrative is vague, and not at all precise ; myth is more precise, since it implies historical and religious significance. Both titles are short, natural, and easily recognizable, but on the whole, myth better fits the guidelines and is supported by the sources. Rwenonah (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: Do you admit that by insisting that "narrative" is not sufficient, this is indeed what you are seeking to signify by "myth", your perspective viewing Nicene Christianity as "FRINGE"? I thought "myth" was being dressed up as an innocuous term devoid of making any sort of judgement calls (which is obvious nonsense), but still somehow just "better" than "narrative" - well not only better, but somehow "essential". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

All religious creation tales must be treated equally. Myth, narrative, whatever. But Wikipedia must not imply that some have credence and some don't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, how does "narrative" imply any credence? If it did your whole argument might make some sense, but it doesn't... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How does "myth" imply less credence? If it doesn't, please stop objecting to it. The point of my post was the one you have argued most strongly against, treating all such tales equally. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Several scholars have stated openly that "myth" implies less credence, and it's not like this is something that hasn't been discussed - the debate by scholars on this could literally fill several bookshelves. This is controversial. ANd you are still dressing it up as some majestic, noble "fight for equality" because you want to treat living religions "equal" to dead ones (just because in YOUR mind, they are) and I find it a disgusting tactic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. A little logic here. If "myth" implies less credence, then "narrative" implies more credence. Therefore, by wanting us to use "narrative" you are asking us to give more, even some, credence to some religions. Uh, uh. Not on. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As for logic, that sounds like a false premise, because it isn't so: "If myth implies less credence, then narrative implies more credence" Eh? You haven't demonstrated that false conclusion. It isn't so, because a word can also be neutral, and "narrative" happens to be neutral by most accounts, there is no body of literature complaining that word is not neutral, there's only a few wikipedians raising a completely unfounded and unsourced, original complaint that the word "narrative" is not neutral. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Come off the grass. If one of two words carries less credence, the other carries more credence. To argue otherwise is to argue nonsensically. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me you've never studied formal logical thought, as you ought to recognize that as a false dichotomy, one of the most basic of fallacies. It isn't all black or white. There is neutral ground. "Narrative" is clearly in that neutral ground - according to all sources except for a few angry wikipedians. Again, thanks for calling me nonsensical and other entertainment. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm tempted to call you abusive and/or incompetent because of the number of times you have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented what I've said. I did not call you nonsensical, and such a claim makes the rest of what you say here appear even more so. You are the one failing to understand logic. You are mixing up two concepts. You are adding nothing constructive to this discussion at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I have formally studied logic, You are the one who is arguing that if term a connotes "less credence" therefore term b must connote "more credence" (when in fact it doesn't, because it is neutral) and conflating that with using the terms "more" and "less" to describe the two terms relative to each other. And you are the one calling that "logical". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That post is utter nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. Formal studies don't make you right. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen you say the least little logical thing in this debate YET, HiLo48... You say if term A ("myth") means "less credence", therefore term B must mean "more credence". Hmm, let's try it out with a few term B's... Term b = pineapple. Therefore, "pineapple" implies "more credence" and is not a neutral word, because after all, it does have more credence relative to "myth". Hmm, why don't we just say then the principle is that ANY and ALL English words that imply "more credence" relative to "myth" are therefore NOT NEUTRAL? After all it just worked for "narrative"..! What's next, Captain Logic? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. You said you studied formal logic theory. You didn't say you passed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure I did, not that that changes the nature of logic one whit. Logic stands on its own without my help. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In your view, there is no difference between a living religion and a dead one, because in your view, they are all "dead" and should all be treated equally dead. But what's really amazing to me is that you expect the rest of wikipedia to share your prejudice. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not there's a living or dead religion associated with the myth is irrelevant to the issue. The "living/dead" aspect is completely irrelevant. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has been able to explain to me why it's irrelevant, when in any area other than religion, it makes a difference if a viewpoint is widespread and current, or something obsolete that was believed centuries ago but not believed by anyone today. And I would love to see a convincing explanation why this should be irrelevant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the logic doesn't apply. The Whig party is dead, the Republican party isn't, yet one is as accurately defined as political party as the other. Mithraism is dead, Catholicism isn't, yet both are still accurately defined as religions. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Til... You are the one pushing the live vs dead religion thing. Nobody else. I think it's up to you to demonstrate how and why it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It has always mattered because if something is widely believed today, we say "this is widely believed today" whereas if something is not believed today, we say as precisely as possible when and where it was believed. The is the type of information encyclopedias provide, have always provided, and will always continue to provide. There's no precedent for lumping living religions into the category for dead ones in any categorization scheme, and I'm skeptical that would really be a good experiment. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You were doing fine up until the final sentence there. It was not a logical extension of the earlier ones. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the distinction is irrelevant. Creation myths aren't a categorization reserved for stories from dead religions so it's a specious line of argument. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The hazard of this discussion is that Til believes the distinction is meaningful. However, I agree with you that it isn't. There are no policies or guidelines on Wikipedia which would have us distinguish between living and dead religions. Til suggests, "Significant Point of View" which I think he wishes were policy, but it isn't. jps (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Up is down, impartiality is "prejudice", and partiality is "neutrality". What's more amazing to me is that you expect the rest of us to accept your topsy-turvy framing, Til. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to resort to the old tactic of trying to single me out as if I were the only person in the world who feels Genesis isn't a "myth". That tired old lie won't fool anyone, there are possibly billions of us everywhere you look and that is the whole point that all of these sources are trying to get through to you as well. If you are going to have a bullshit encyclopedia that tells the public "Your beliefs are false because we are smarter than you" while allowing access to that bullshit encyclopedia to the public, I can promise you that far from settling this, that is a recipe for all out war. Is that what you want? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Religions are religions. There are no policies or guidelines which recommend treating living religions different from dead ones. Additionally, "dead" religions often come back ; Hellenism (religion), for example. The simple fact exists that creation as described by Genesis is an example of a creation myth, whether you think Genesis is true or not. No one is telling anyone their "beliefs are false". That is your misrepresentation. As for "all out war", wikipedia is not censored based on whether or not people will be offended by something. See the Muhammad article's guidelines on the use of images, for example.

Moreover, I am not calling Nicene Christianity fringe. What I am calling fringe is people who take Genesis's description of creation and history literally (e.g. evolution never happened, one man and woman gave birth to the entire human race, etc.). I'm hopeful you'll agree with me on that. Rwenonah (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath too long hoping that I am obligated out of "peer pressure" (or worse, fear of retribution for "heresy") to accept your view of the world. I do not. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "obligating you to accept my view of the world". Calm down. I was just hoping you'd agree Bible literalists were fringe, so that the discussion could progress. Evidently not going to happen. Rwenonah (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - if you do not stop asserting that this current and vastly widespread doctrine is covered by FRINGE I am going to take this complaint higher. FRINGE doesn't mean whatever you disagree with and therefore whatever you think, shared by a tiny minority in selected ivory towers, the "mainstream". This is pure abuse of the term FRINGE and "Mainstream" for purposes of PUSHING A POLEMIC POINT OF VIEW AGAINST THE ARTICLE TOPIC and none other. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down. Why not take a quick break and have a cup of tea or something? I'm not saying "whatever I disagree with" is fringe. Young Earth creationism is fringe, however, especially if applied to science and evolution. You may complain if you wish ; I am perfectly willing to defend my actions. I have abused nothing, I am not pushing a polemic point of view. I am simply trying to improve the article (you're welcome). I understand you may be passionate about this topic, but please try to stay calm, it makes the discussion much easier and your comments less disruptive. Using fewer Caps-locks and pejoratives would be a an excellent start.

Ironic note- ivory tower originally had a biblical meaning : noble purity. So if we took the Bible literally, you would be calling me and the tiny minority you speak of "noble and pure" by Judeo-Christian standards. Rwenonah (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That is typical of how you make totally false statements, relying on wikipedia articles as your authority. The wikipedia article states that ivory tower originally had a biblical meaning, noble purity. It does not follow from that the literal interpretation of "ivory tower" in Song of Solomon has anything whatsoever to do with me calling you anything. It's as if any assertion you attempt to make regarding the Bible is almost guaranteed to be illogical. The ivory tower is more like Gilgamesh and Enki in a ziggurat, expressing their contempt and fear of the multitudinous denizens of the KUR. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's simply a possible misinterpretation that I found entertaining. Rwenonah (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Earlier statements by Til imply he might not agree that the Sun came before the Earth. I don't think it's safe to assume any acceptance of elementary science from him. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem. I'm here to point out that there are abundant SOURCES representing the WIDESPREAD view that Genesis is not a myth. Whatever I may believe or not believe myself is of no consequence to you or anyone else here. Why is this so hard for some editors to "get" and not others? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, in context that was not an ad hominem. Someone who "formally studied logic" ought to understand why. Your arguments fail on their own lack of merit, not on anything else you may believe. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to be able to come up with a rational rejoinder beyond making bald assertions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to explain to you why it was not an ad hominem? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What sources? The ones above? They contradict each other and offer far worse possible titles. Myth better fits the guidelines and is supported by better sources. Rwenonah (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not distort the argument, the purpose these sources are being used for is to demonstrate that the term myth is controversial in application to this narrative. These sources are only scratching the surface, for the more you look, the more you will see that scholarship is NOT a bunch of "experts" all sitting around agreeing with each other that this is a myth as you falsely pretend (for whose benefit - those who have read nothing?) There is TONS of debate about SPECIFICALLY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A MYTH (and what that is supposed to MEAN anyway) by theologians and scholars, and it could fill several pages this size. For you to ignore it and pretend that it's all been settled now, go home, we won and only OUR books count now, is sheerly stupendous. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The only sources offered have now been impeached by both myself and Prof. Marginalia below. I don't think you have made a strong case. jps (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, as usual it is wikipedia editors arguing their own expertise and pov versus the published viewpoints by theologians, and declaring themselves competent to "impeach" them and unilaterally declare these viewpoints (shared by at least hundreds of millions), and entire schools of thought you don't like, unworthy of any consideration. Not that anyone might call that tactic "arrogance", of course... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I didn't get that PM "impeached" the sources. I got that he actually read them, and discovered that scholars indeed are ambivalent about whether or not this qualifies as a "myth" and that there has been plenty of unresolved debate on this. I actually "thanked" him for his review which I rarely do, because I thought his suggestion to also expand the article with some of this information, was excellent. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me you're looking at people in the wrong field of study. We should be more interested in the views of mythologists, not theologians. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"More interested"? So you are saying we should be partial rather than neutral? The mythologists who choose to study this as mythology, are more valid than the theologians who study this as theology? People who look to theologians and Bible interpreters and commentators should just stop because you think they are deluded, and should just realize that the mythologists' take on this is more "interesting"? Same old circular arguments for purpose of pushing your polemic point of view rather than actual neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Myth is a form of literature, theology is the study of religious beliefs, which can be expressed in any of various forms, one of which is myth. Studying texts is something that both mythologists and theologians do, but categorizing a text as belonging to the genre of myth is more likely a task that falls within the specialized competence of mythologists.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Numerous scholars have challenged this particular classification for many reasons and it is intellectually dishonest to turn a blind eye to this widespread point of view and claim the authority to overrule them, this is forcing wikipedia to engage in your polemic which is why I think more editors don't buy into it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When more scholarly statements from RS describe a matter in a certain way than others that manner of characterization carries more WP:WEIGHT, and is the prevailing view. That's not polemical.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's basically an "appeal to authority" that your favored scholars are right, and the ones you don't like are wrong. Not that anything's been resolved, proved, or settled. We just pretend there is no controversy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - those who are attempting to dismiss academic sources as not reliable simply because they come from a viewpoint that is not majority (or as it might seem at times, simply not your own) are completely misapplying WP:RS. In fact, the policy specifically states that reliable sources do not have to be neutral. Nor should they be so. The point of the policy is that reliable sources come from journals that are peer-reviewed and books that are published by companies with editorial oversight. It gives additional weight to sources that are cited by others. All of these apply to a vast number of sources that argue against characterizing the Genesis text as myth. I still haven't seen any reliable sources argue against characterizing the Genesis text as narrative. And please stop arguing about living vs. dead. It's not a helpful argument. HokieRNB 17:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All of these apply to a vast number of sources that argue against characterizing the Genesis text as myth. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on sources listed above:

Von Rad explicitly describes the Yahwist creation story (Genesis 2) as creation myth on page 98.

Barth employs unorthodox definitions of "saga" and "myth" to help elucidate his own neoorthodox, Cristocentric reading of the OT. He would differentiate between how one is to interpret an account of a divine, non-historical, non-literalistic supra-literal, intuitive, imagistically/poetically rendered creation event (saga, to Barth, qualifies while myth does not) and how to interpret one describing a divine, non-historical, non-literalistic, intuitive, symbolically rendered creation event (which he'd allow as myth). This seems like a clear diversion into Dante's Nine Circles of Exegetical Esoterica. The search term "Genesis Creation Saga" delivered ~~81 hits~~. Next.

McCartney-haven't read it. Except where the text speaks specifically to the Genesis creation account it isn't sufficient here.

Kissling-again, speaks of priestly account only, consciously withholding the statement from the yahwist account.

Rogerson-abbreviated passage here has been deceptively cherry-picked. Reading the text surrounding it, if this was an inadvertent mistake, it certainly wasn't easily come by.

Waltke-deceptively cherry-picked again. Like the prev. cite, passage spoke to priestly, not yahwist, sections and Waltke earlier distinguished between myth in its academic sense (which he thought Gen 1-11 qualified) and myth in its informal, disparaging sense (which he did not think applied).

IMO, none of these sources adequately satisfy the objections posed. There is justification for a subsection to discuss how the priestly account departs from the mythic style and form in the creation myths of its near eastern forbearers. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Some more opinions from scholars and academics for wikipedian self-styled authorities to originally rebut

• "Through these texts [Gen. 1-2] we see what is the immediate source of the sacredness of marriage, love and fruitfulness. It is not a mythological archetype, as the neighbouring pagan peoples imagined. It is the creative word of Yahweh which gives expression to his enduring will." -- P. Grelot, Le Couple humain dans l'Ecriture, 1964, as translated in Creation Theology, Jose Morales, 2001, p. 161

• "Its purpose is clearly to point to the creative power of Jahwe. Therefore to speak of mythological "elements' in the Old Testament is very confusing at best. There are no "mythological sections" that are "analyzable" as such. There is only a deliberate utilizing of a number of non-Jewish figures and images. All of this demonstrates the anti-mythological tenor of the Jahwe cult as well as the vital power of absorption in the Jahwist faith." -- Studies in Dogmatics: Sin, G. C. Berkouwer, 1971, p. 83.

• "...The biblical narrative treats events of Israel's past as history, not mythology, for what happened to Abraham onward, and even prior to Abraham all the way back to creation, took place in a time-space continuum. Its world and people are the world and people we know today. Ancient mythology, while holding a great deal in common with the world of today, deals primarily with creatures and events of a different order. The nearest analogy in the biblical narrative is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, though even there the LORD God is carefully described in non-mythological terms... " -- conservative religion scholar Carl Amerding, The Old Testament and Criticism, 1983, p. 11.

• "...How to define "myth" is another matter altogether. While most, if not all biblical scholars would agree that the word myth may denote what produces myths, or may mean the understanding of the world that is contained in them, agreement would end as soon as these generalizations were made more specific. Some would argue that myths are produced by a pre-scientific outlook and that the world-view contained in myths must retreat as science advances. Others would regard myths as the product of a way of knowing different from science, expressing truths independently of the knowledge, or lack of it, of scientific causes." -- J.W. Rogerson, "Slippery Words:Myth" in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth by Aland Dundes, 1984, p. 63

• "In using the terms myth and mythical in relation to Genesis, we encounter greater misgivings. Not only do the terms have unsavory connotations in popular usage, but an impressive array of biblical scholars have argued that both myth and mythical modes of thought are absent from the Bible. Myths are what the Egyptians and Babylonians believed. 'The God of Israel has no mythology,' declared G. Ernest Wright. 'The religion of Israel suddenly appears in history, breaking radically from the mythopoeic approach to reality.' This position follows the earlier lead of Hermann Gunkel who had argued that myths are "stories about the gods", and since a myth requires at least two gods to make a story, the Old Testament contains no myths, though some mythical materials are alluded to... Obviously if one restricts the term myth to polytheistic materials, biblical materials are not only not mythical but anti-mythical..." -- The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers, 1984, p. 99. [NOTE: This author does go on to argue that in his view, this idea of myth "may be" too restrictive to be useful for his purposes; but at least he acknowledges that other significant schools of thought actually do exist -- like any serious scholar does.]

• "Perhaps the most important thing that can be said about the creation days - which are not the same as sun days - is that there is nothing particularly mythological about them. The world that comes into appearance and comes to appear progressively distinct is a world which is plainly perceptible to all humans as humans, believers and non-believers alike. The creation account addresses the world as we know it, as humans have always known it and will continue to know it... Yet just as the creation account is not a mythological cosmogony, so it is not a scientific explanation. Rather, it addresses my pre-understanding (Vorverstehen) of the theatre of existence prior to any explanation, mythical or scientific." -- "The Phenomenology of Symbol: Genesis I and II" by Frank Flinn, in Phenomenology in Practice and Theory: Essays for Herbert Spiegelberg, William S. Hamrick, 1985 p. 235

• "Genesis' story is not a myth, for it does not in fact tell us anything about what things were like when there were no things. Its tohu webohu is not an antecedent nothingness-actuality like the Great Slime dismembered by the Babylonian Marduk, nor yet an eternal egg or womb or pure potentiality of primal matter..." -- Systematic Theology, Robert Jenson, 1997, p. 11

• "Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible Genesis 1-11 is presented as 'history', not 'myth' or 'fiction'." -- Richard E Averbeck, "Sumer, The Bible and Comparative Method" in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Evaluations, 2003, p. 109

Can I just ask, are you reading and comprehending these sources (or at least the quotes)? Or are you simply quote mining Google Books for phrases like "not myth" and copying and pasting? I haven't got the time to consider all of what you've copied and pasted (perhaps some others can look at a source or two too), but in this last example the author seems to be talking about the authors' intended presentation of the material. That's it -- it does not in any way refute the fact that this article is about a creation myth. Please stop cluttering this page with seemingly robotic copying and pasting. Ben (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a really lame attempt to wave off what these scholars are saying, that's the best you got? Actually there are plenty more relevant RSS I could copy and paste here if these aren't sufficient. I mean every time it goes in the same cycle: Myth proponents demand sources saying Genesis isn't a myth, I provide sources saying Genesis isn't a myth, they respond that these are disqualified because they say Genesis isn't a myth and repeat the demand for sources saying Genesis isn't a myth. So my task then is to find sources that say Genesis isn't a myth, only they can't say Genesis isn't a myth or they are disqualified. What a clever way to send me on a fool's errand - there is no way to do it! Not with such an unreasonable litmus test as "a source is only reliable if it supports our pov". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE - This has gone around the bush so many times that at one point I asked Jimmy Wales's opinion on these quotes. His response was something like (pardon me for paraphrasing but I dont remember the exact quote) "What's the big deal? You guys asked him if he could find any academic sources saying Genesis is not a myth, and he found several. Now you guys have shot yourselves in the foot." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and on top of everything else, Genesis creation narrative has been indisputably been shown to be the COMMONNAME in academic literature even, and GCM one of the least common. Why are we even arguing this yet again? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is the title of this thread supposed to mean, and how does one fit a meaningful Edit summary after it so it can be clearly seen in an Article history? And how many non-Christians are among those scholars? HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since wikipedia by policy does not stigmatize any particular religion, it does not matter. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You are paranoid, aren't you? I'm not suggesting Wikipedia take a discriminatory approach. Quite the opposite in fact. I'll rephrase. How many of the scholars and academics are presenting views completely untainted by their religious beliefs? HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What would be the difference between "tainted" and "stigmatized"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm asking the questions here! We need impartial sources. Are they? HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, per WP:RS sources don't need to be impartial when they are for the purpose of representing a viewpoint or demonstrating that it exists, just like on any article, you should know that... You are attempting to stigmatize the sources on the presumption that they would be illegitimate if they could be shown to be speaking for a religion you wish to stigmatize, though this is prohibited by NPOV. (And actually I don't think all are Christian, some may be Jewish, agnostic or what have you, it isn't supposed to matter or be the Spanish Inquisition, mr "I'm asking the questions" bossman...) This is an article about the Bible, and you are saying for this one article we cannot use any Bible scholars, we must use only "mythologists". What a load of crap. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If all you have as sources from which to derive rebuttal quotes is scholars whose views are driven by their religious faith then you have nothing. No, we cannot use such sources! I don't think you have any idea how to create objective content. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your pov / opinion is rather meaningless, since NPOV policy forbids us from stigmatizing any particular religion and not others. We are allowed to consider Bible scholars on every single Bible article. Even this one. And once again, your attempt to brush the sources under the carpet because they MIGHT follow a faith you deem illegitimate is an epic fail because these are peer reviewed scholars and even mythologists, and I don't think they are entirely Christian either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with whatever I deem legitimate or illegitimate. This is not about stigmatising one religion. It's about treating it just like any other. You know, I'd love to see Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules applied to religious articles. Christian opinion should not influence the content of articles on Christianity. Buddhist opinion should not influence articles on Buddhism. Etc, etc, etc. What do you think? HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And Scientists opinion should not influence content on articles on Science (or perhaps just limit the views of quantum physicists to articles outside of their POV). Mathematics experts opinions on math articles, plant scientists on plant articles, Literature specialists on articles about literature. Then we could just put our own opinions in articles. More seriously, most of the people who qualify as experts and reliable sources are currently from the West and English speaking world, which is predominantly Christian and Jewish. It does add some systemic bias to religion articles, but we can't throw out expert reliable sources because we don't like the religion they were born into and/or practice. Reliable Sources on history have a similar systemic bias from the Western POV. That said, I don't think that even a diverse gathering of religion and humanities experts would definitively define all of their foundational texts as "myths." First Light (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where a numerical superiority of RS from Christian theological seminaries and the like have been demonstrated over and against the rest of academia.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I'd love to see User:HiLo48 come down off his high horse, because you don't just get to enact ridiculous policies off the cuff because you think they'd accomplish your bigoted goal of removing Christianity's voice from wikipedia. So Christian sources cannot be used on Christianity articles now because of COI? Then I guess it can't be used anywhere. So I guess you win, you eliminated Christianity from wikipedia. Dupe, Christianity is one of the largest or possibly the largest religion on the planet (even I know that and you ASSume I am Christian myself) We are not talking about a fraction of a percent of the populace here, we are talking about a vast proportion. And you despise it, that is clear. You are so desperate to utterly remove your enemy, Christianity, from wikipedia that you will propose any blatant foolishness just to try to eliminate it and declare it "FRINGE" and make it inadmissible on any article about Christianity. Sorry, but the reasons we have never done that are so frigging obvious they defy belaboring. We have ALWAYS considered Buddhist opinions relevant to Buddhist topics, Jewish opinions relevant to Jewish articles, Muslim opinions relevant to Muslim articles, Bahai opinions relevant to Bahai articles, and we aren't going to stop no matter what kind of bigoted whistle you blow to tell people to stop. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Til writes "your bigoted goal of removing Christianity's voice from wikipedia", "you eliminated Christianity from wikipedia", "you are so desperate to utterly remove your enemy, Christianity, from wikipedia". Get a grip, Til. We weren't even discussing deleting anything. This whole discussion has been about changing one word in an article title. That's it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The clever arguments presented above include the one that sources representing the views of Biblical scholars and theologians should be a priori discredited from consideration for a particular Bible article just because they *MAY* be "tainted" by religion. This is the most extremely polemical attitude I have ever encountered and I do not think my response was wrong. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Til's approach to debate is to take something an opponent says that he doesn't like and apparently cannot fairly refute, then completely misrepresent it in an attempt to make it look foolish and bigoted. In doing so he paints a perfect picture of himself. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

＠First Light All experts are highly encouraged to participate. There is WP:BIASED, but such bias is not necessarily against NPOV and often in accord with WP:YESPOV. This is not a simple or straightforward question because there are historical junctures at issue. One such juncture would appear to be the influence of Greek thought on the Hebrews, perhaps contributing to a more rational (less supernatural phenomenon) rendition of creation myth. At any rate, for the sake of the structure of the article and consistency in the treatment of other such stories regarded as sacred in other traditions, I think that the title needs changing. I find "narrative" to be too close to implying an actual historical sequence of events that serve as the basis of the story, and that indirectly supports Creationism, which I find problematic for an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, "story" might be a compromise, but myth in the formal sense seems to carry more weight with respect to the sacred in academic discourse. The problem with that is that there is a historical background of Christian disparagement of (polytheistic) myth (again, see Christian myth) in conjunction with promotion of the more rational monotheistic "stories" of the Bible. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I argued heavily for 'myth' in the last discussion on this topic, at this point I think story may be an even better option. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would find "story" preferable to "narrative".Rwenonah (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What about simply "Creation in Genesis"? Why do we need a descriptive noun?--agr (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's vague. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I too would find "story" less biased and more natural sounding than "narrative". But though "story" doesn't give undue credence, we'd still have an issue of not being consistent with "creation myth" in other article titles. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How many times do various editors need to point out that none of the other currently widespread religions use "creation myth" in their titles, the only precedent is with cases where there is no dispute that it is a myth. Reminder once again, it's a faulty analogy because here it is established there is a dispute. And when "consistency" is made an overriding reason it often covers a slippery slope - otherstuff that was edited by other editors where you were not part of the decision process became a fait accomplis, so its easier just to transfer that decision over here by insisting on "consistency" as the overriding concern, than it would be to explain how it could be logical to do the same here in a totally different case with different editors. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop favouring modern, widespread religions over older ones. There is no reason to treat them and their creation myths differently, as has been explained to you many times. Moreover, many modern religious articles use "creation myth", see Japanese creation myth. Also, no one is insisting on consistency as the "overriding concern", simply a factor to take into account. DO you have any objection to "story"?Rwenonah (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

IMNSHO, attempts by partisans to twist the definition of "creation myth" to exclude monotheistic creation myths like Genesis are frivolous and smack of special pleading. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that you ask, no, I have no objection to "story", other than that "Genesis creation narrative" has been shown to be by far the COMMONNAME in academia. I don't see how we could possibly hope to get more neutral and impartial words than either "narrative" or "story" other than the suggestion to avoid labels altogether with a simple title like "Creation in Genesis". All those titles would make sense because they do not involve any gratuitous judgement calls about the genre of the text, which is in truth hotly disputed in academia as demonstrated. But since the current proposal does not involve any of these other titles, I suppose that would take another move request.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's OK to make "gratuitous judgement calls" about religions that aren't yours? Your bias and POV pushing is blatant. It's OK to have a bias. We're all biased in some way or other. But some of recognise our biases and work hard to put them aside in discussions like this. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not agree that it's OK to make gratuitous judgement calls about religions that aren't mine. I am not sure I follow what your point is with that accusation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure. I'm sure that you cannot think logically on this matter. I guess that's to be expected when it comes to religious adherence. But not here! HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly are you trying to say here? I'm afraid you've totally lost me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought so. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So I don't suppose you will enlighten me as to what the heck you are attempting to communicate will you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried. In response you've made so many posts of the sort "So your'e saying that...", and got it completely wrong, I see little point into trying to educate you further. I think I write reasonably good English, and to encounter someone who repeatedly claims I'm saying something different from the words I actually write, suggests either incompetence or deliberate misrepresentation. It doesn't strengthen your case. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So do you have any actual point to make here, or just taking the opportunity to wax magisterial? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I've made my point already, several times. You have failed to or refused to comprehend it, or perhaps comprehended it and refused to accept it. I won't go on. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You suggested that I think it's "OK to make gratuitous judgement calls about religions" that aren't mine. But you refused to explain how you could think I would ever think this. So this just is not really going to be a very productive exchange, since I don't understand what you meant by this, and you won't tell me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks

yes, slip of the mouse.. Thanks for fixing it. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)