Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Let's look closely and carefully at what these quotes are saying

Per RS policy, these representative references are evidence that the opinion exists; whether we think they use bad logic, good logic, or no logic, at least they prove that the opinion is out there, and really honest-to-goodness does exist. As such, they should not be endorsed, but they should be attributed as the POV of their respective authors.

• "Many scholars would be content to interpret the Creation story or the Fall as neither history nor myth. It is not history, according to them, in the sense that Gen. 1-2 or Gen. 3 describes past events that actually happened. But neither are they myths, at least in the historical-philosophical definition of myth. The truth is that scholars disagree about the definition of the word. One recent writer (G. B. Caird) has isolated nine definitions of myth and another [J. W. Rogerson] documents twelve aspects of myth. This proliferation of definitions of myth is the reason why one scholar would look at Gen. 1-11 and say it is free of myth, while another scholar would look at Gen 1-11 and pronounce it entirely mythical." -- The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (part of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament) by Victor P. Hamilton, 1990, p. 56-58.

• "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." -- P. Grelot, Le Couple humain dans l'Ecriture, 1964, as translated in Creation Theology, Jose Morales, 2001, p. 161

• "While they do not teach science, the early chapters of Genesis are history and not myth. -- Genesis: Part 1: God and His Creation Genesis 1-11, Gayle Somers, Sarah Christmyer, 2004, p. 102

• "It would be very difficult to classify the material in Genesis as myth. Israel had one God, not a multitude. The nation of Israel had a beginning, a history, and a future hope. They saw God, rather than gods or other supernatural creatures, as the primary actor in the world. Their worship was not cosmic, natural or superstitious, but a reenactment of their own rescue from Egypt and a celebration of God's factual intervention in history and their hope in his promises. If Genesis uses elements of mythological language, it is to display a deliberate contrast with pagan concepts and to show that the Lord God is sovereign over such ideas. For example, the ancients worshiped the sun as a god, but in Genesis the sun serves the Creator's wishes (1:14-18). The book of Genesis is a cemetery for lifeless myths and dead gods. Genesis is not myth.-- Commentary in newest edition of NLT Study Bible, Tyndale Bible Publishers (2008)

• "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." -- conservative religion scholar Carl Amerding, The Old Testament and Criticism, 1983, p. 11.

• "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

• "...The Bible Is Not Mythological but Uses Mythological Ideas. Biblical thought should not be called "mythopoeic," neither should any of the resultant biblical narratives be termed "myth". The OT uses ancient Near Eastern mythological ideas figuratively and symbolically without any commitment to the underlying theology of the mythological world from which they have been borrowed. Biblical narratives, such as those of the Creation (Gen. 1:1-2:3), Paradise (2:4-25), Fall (3:1-24), and Flood (6:5-9:17), may appear to be of the same type as Ancient Near Eastern myths, but are different due to the impact of the transforming forces of Yahwistic faith." -- International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article entry "MYTH", 1994 edition.

• "The creation story is not a myth but neither is it a modern scientific textbook... The Genesis creation story may be a parable, written for the understanding of the ancients. But in no way is it a myth." -- The Patterns of New Ideas: 300 Ideas for Products, Inventions and Improvements, Mark Meek, 2004, p. 186-187 (Category:Science)

• Not enough for ya? I'll find more! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Til the sources above that actually do adress the issue head on are all from avowedly Christian publishers like William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Emmaus Road Publishing, and Tyndale House Publishers. The authors are writing to a religious audience and are using convenient definitions of myth in order to call this something else. No scholar of myth would say that myths have to be polytheistic, but the Tyndale book uses this qualification in order to distance Genesis from "myth". All of this is just Christian polemics and not neutral scholarship. You have proved nothing. In fact you only prove what those who oppose you are saying.Griswaldo (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I'm not trying to prove that the POV is "right" - only trying to prove that the POV is widespread, and should not be ignored. So who "didn't hear that"??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) If you disagree that these sources are reliable for purposes of establishing that the POV exists then what we should do is take them to WP:RS/N where I am confident the regulars will cheerfully explain to you that one cannot pretend a POV doesn't exist and is invisible when there are tons of sources for it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So these are altogether different references? Let's all make sure that when references are used in articles that they're verifying the claims attributed to them. Good plan? And let's also agree to focus on sources that talk about the creation story specifically. And narrow it again to those who are actually defining the term "myth" the way it's meant in this context-ie, not a synonym for "false", "untrue" (it also doesn't mean 'polytheistic'.) And then let's narrow it once more to only serious references-which disqualifies the last one immediately. What have we got left? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Gunkel, it means "polytheistic", and according to Bultmann it doesn't. Plenty of "reliable sources" agree with both. Why are we being partisan? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, plenty don't. Nobody uses that definition anymore - it's an anachronism that is now discredited. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK so how can it be universally "discredited" if some sources today are still using Gunkel's definition, and explicitly attacking or criticising Bultmann for calling the Bible "myth" ? Are you saying those who write this are "nobodies"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, I shouldn't say "nobody". No serious scholars of myth and religion do-it's now seen to be an arbitrary and self-serving distinction made for no other reason except to set Christianity "apart" from others. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So these scholars are not serious, but write in jest? Your POV is showing, methinks. Even if they are not regarded as serious by your sources, that's not the point. The point (once again) is that the POV exists and we should stop pretending that it doesn't exist or doesn't count, because some editors might agree that it doesn't count, but others wouldn't. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have an opinion about sources. The Patterns of New Ideas: 300 Ideas for Products, Inventions and Improvements, for example, is not a serious scholarly resource for this topic. Gunkel and Bultmann were serious, but they're long gone and scholarship has evolved since their day. All I know is I haven't come across anyone using that definition to define myth anymore, and many references to explain why it's since been tossed aside. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And I don't mean to belabor this, but can we focus on good sources and talk about those? I've worked to pull together numerous sources on myth--nobody's using Gunkel or Bultmann except in a historical sense. They are pretty old. So why are we talking about them? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, why am I finding Gunkel referring to Genesis 1 and 2 as "myths"?[1][2] Professor marginalia (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether the original German has that word there, or if it's just a bad translation on the part of the translator. But on p. xiii (introduction) of that translation, you can clearly see his famous and oft-cited argument that Genesis contains no actual myths, represents itself as a historical setting, and is quite unlike myth in a number of other ways. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Til, further down the page the first book linked to by Prof. M clearly discusses more than one myth that went into the composition of Genesis. I have no idea what you are talking about.

• "The history we can elicit with greater or lesser probability from Gen 1 is as follows. An ancient myth, details of which point to Babylonian origins, came to Israel in the ancient period and persisted there for a long period. Originally polytheistic, it gradually became monotheistic. Another, also very ancient and foreign myth concerning the primordial peace was added to it. P encountered the material in this state, cast over it a new structure which explained the Sabbath and, through an energetically engaged redaction, stamped it with strict supernaturalistic Judaism and the priestly spirit."

There is a direct quote. Gunkel clearly not only uses myth, but has no problem referring to monotheistic as well as polytheistic myths. If you aren't trolling I don't know what else to call this type of behavior.Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, on page xii, the one you refer to, we find this:

• "'Myths'--one need not fear this word--are narratives about gods, in contrast to legends whose agents are humans. Now the mythical accounts of Genesis have come to us in faded colors ..."

On the following page Gunkel does equate what he calls "pure myths" with polytheistic tales, but he still makes statements like, "Isreal's monotheism wants to know only either of myths in which <xiv> God acts alone ..." So here you have Gunkel favoring this very esoteric definition of myth when he suggests that Genesis has no "pure myths", while at the same time using myth to refer to Genesis or elements of Genesis more loosely. Of course we do not use his definition of myth here in the first place, and Til knows that for sure. Please see myth of creation myth. Scholars don't use this definition either. And if that isn't enough consider that the term this book prefers to use is not "history" proper but "legend", as in "the patriarchal legends follow the primal legends in Genesis." The relevant parts of Genesis, to Gunkel, are "legends transmitted with mythical echoes." All of this comes from pages xii-xiv, which Til directed me to in his very dubious claims. I stand by my original assessment.Griswaldo (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, you finally found page xiii where he argues that Genesis does not contain any myth. He seems to contradict this on other pages, but I still don't know if the German has "myth" in every instance that the translator puts it. Regardless, Gunkel's definition of myth did not end with Gunkel, but led to a whole school of thought (by yes, scholars) that myths must be polytheistic that is still encountered in recent books. The polytheistic definition was continued and expanded by Wright. Another good scholarly source that is more neutral than this article, is the 2001 Handbook of biblical criticism, where the entry on "mythology" has some helpful comments about the various divergent opinions on what it is, and making it clear that there is no consensus on this whatsoever between the schools of thought. So wikipedia's pretense of scholarly "consensus" on what mythology means, is contradicted by a number of more impartial sources like this. But you resort to name calling me a troll when I point these things out, just for pointing them out. Don't make Wikipedia deny reality, stick it's fingers in its ears and pretend this fairly common POV just doesn't exist and is unworthy of mention, just because you don't LIKE the POV of these authors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On page xiii it says, "Israel's monotheism wants to know only of either myths <xiv> in which God acts alone--as in the creation, then, however, there can be no actual "narrative" in which action and counteraction produce a new reality--or in which the action takes place between God and people." It's a very different myth than its older Mesopotamian predecessors. And yet it's still a myth. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and as I tried to show above Gunkel's definition of myth is not as hard as Til claims. He probably thought it was because it has been abused in the past by later Christian polemicists, who are the only writers using this definition any more, and they do so as part of a very specific polemic that attempts to distance anything Christian from the term myth. But we've said as much already over and over. I really think it's time to ignore Til's trolling and to deal with the disruption in other ways if it continues.Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Til that neutrality should be upheld in this article. The editors would be wise to remember that a large amount of people around the world accept this account as history, not myth...--Gniniv (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources say myth, not account. Wikipedia is supposed to follow the sources. We don't need anyone's personal religious interpretations. Also please do not add {{citation}} or {{dubious}} tags to properly sourced statements you don't agree with. Please have a look at WP:BRD. I have undone your edits. Some of these might have been appropriate, some clearly are not. Discuss on talk page and try to reach agreement about your changes. DVdm (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me! I am merely questioning why this article is being written from a hostile viewpoint with no consensus being reached on whether the Genesis account should really be called a myth or not...--Gniniv (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Til seems to have come up with sources that question pushing Genesis to the myth category so quickly(See above)...--Gniniv (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

When are the editors with an interest in this article going to reach a consensus?--Gniniv (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have left a remark and request on Til's talk page. DVdm (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unduly-weighted creationism

I find the section on creationism to be far too unduly weighted. Discussions of Genesis rarely include a lot of focus on creationism. I question whether a section is even needed. Mention should be made of issues related to literalism, but the large inclusion here is really outrageous. Extreme culling is requested. Please comment here and maybe we can begin to remove some of bloat. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The section used to be smaller but it was also wrong, conflating creationism with literalism and such. I reworked it into a section discussing changes to the story's interpretations in the aftermath of science. But once it was again expanded into five sections (5?!) it's too much. It doesn't need all the subsections, one, but the article shouldn't give undue weight to, say, YEC at the expense of other interpretations, or linking literalism with creationism. I do think the "interpretations" section should be reworked altogether and it should include literalist interpretations without trying to equate it with creationism. I might be more inclined to dump all the creationism stuff rather than trying to trim it. This article desperately needs more narrative and less of the powerpointy surface brushings. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps...Just (in the view of preserving WP:Neutrality) think for a moment what you would do if a similar proposal was vetted on the Athiest or Science article....--Gniniv (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Genesis creation account (whether true or not) so its content should reflect what it is saying, not just secular criticism of literalist interpretations..--Gniniv (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what WP:Neutrality would have to do with this. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously......--Gniniv (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In the view of not starting an edit war, I am going to request page protection on this article until this issue is resolved...--Gniniv (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You can consider this an absolute final warning about bad faith RPP requests to halt progress of an article when you disagree with the majority. This isn't up for discussion and your activities are being closely scrutinized by multiple admins at this point. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just my disagreement. I believe other editors have had problems with the POV in this article.--Gniniv 02:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean Til Eulenspiegel who has recently been blocked for his actions here? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think S.A and others raise a good point: the problem here is one of presentation, context and weight. It is not surprising that the creation myth be interpreted literally by some adherents - across the globe, many different creation myths continue to attract literalist agreement. But the tone should be comparative and explicatory. This too often veers into language that muddles the point. For instance: Both the vast age of the earth, now estimated by scientists to be about 4.5 billion years, and the common ancestry of all life ascribed by evolution, are disputed in literalist creationism. Disputed implies there's a dispute to be had. Denied would be the mot juste. So I agree, the section should be shortened and recast to note that some people continue to adhere to the Judaic creation myth. This is not the venue, however, to discuss the various permutations of these beliefs. Eusebeus (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ScienceApologist. While a discussion on biblical literalism certainly may have its place in this article (notable historical proponents, contemporary adherents, prominence amongs theologians and biblical scholars, etc.), this amount of detail on creationism doesn't. In the present form the "Creationism" section comprises about 7.5% of the total number of words in article. Is that due weight? Gabbe (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole section should be truncated heavily and should not contain subsections like it does. A very brief paragraph about how the literal reading of the text is important to creationists with the right links to the right articles is perfectly fine.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree here. As the Genesis creation myth is obviously, in their world view, the very reason of the Creationist's existence to begin with, it seems appropriate to have their views on board in this particular article, specially if these views are wildly different. The subsections can of course be replaced with a bulleted list. DVdm (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's work a rewrite below. I kicked the process off. Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Creationism. DVdm it is appropriate to summarize something essential about creationism but this articles is about the text and not the various culture wars, some historic, some present, that have included disagreements over how to interpret the text. Those have their own articles here. Literalist interpretations also remain in the vast minority even within Judeo-Christian circles.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Each having their own articles here doesn't allow for a clear and detailed overview of the standpoints and their differences. This article is indeed, like you say, about the text, so i.m.o. it is the only (and perfect) place where we (read, you and they) can describe what what they do with their text and how they settle and have settled their conflicts thoughout history. At least, it's where I would go looking for such an overview. If there aready is an article with such a detailed overview, then perhaps it can be pointed to in the new version of the section you are creating. Otherwise I think this article is the place to keep it. DVdm (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Revised and Expanded Answers Book

Please do not use sources that are just the opinions of famous creationists for articles that aren't trying to document the opinions of creationism. The source The Revised and Expanded Answers Book is fine to source the opinions of Ken Ham and the other creationists, but it is not deserving of inclusion here at all. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use sources (such as Anderson, Bernhard W. (1997). Creation Ver Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament. ISBN 0-13-948399-3.) that are just the opinions of secular elitists for articles that are trying to document the history of the Genesis Creation account. Cheers!--Gniniv (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bernhard Anderson, a Methodist pastor, was not really "secular". I really hope you are not practicing WP:POINT in revenge editing. Reverting your revert would be a great expression of good faith. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My BaD!!!--Gniniv (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What parts of the my revision do you think are most objectionable and not open to compromise? (Please be specific)--Gniniv (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Every single part. I can detail it point-by-point if you like, but essentially the entire thing is objectionable. Start from the previous version and we'll discuss each inclusion one-by-one if you want. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Before we do that, I do need you to detail it point by point...--Gniniv (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[3]

1. Already cited at the end. Read it.
2. No discussion that it is dubious on the talk page.
3. Doesn't conform to the source given.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Point addressed at top.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• For objection (1.) We need more citations in that paragraph because it makes several claims (specifically idientifying the Genesis Creation account as another Flat Earth myth, which has no foundation), with only one reference.

• For objection (2.), Sources need to be from differing perspectives to uphold neutrality.

• For objection (3-7.), It is okay to include sources from authors that disagree with a majority consensus as long as WP:Weight is upheld.--Gniniv 00:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For objection (1) - forget it. The source doesn't "specifically identify" it as another Flat Earth myth.

For objections (2) and (3) do the real work first, produce these sources, present them for discussion. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For objection {1) the paragraph currently states and I quote

Ancient Near East cultures conceived of the world as a flat disk surrounded by water, in which the habitable earth floated rather like a bubble.[6] Modern critical scholarship sees this cosmology underlying Genesis 1-2, but with important theological differences: The Mesopotamian myths ascribes the creation to multiple gods who created man to be their servant, but the Hebrew re-telling is almost totally de-mythologized, emphasizing instead the supremacy of Yahweh, the single god (Elohim) of Israel.[6] (Emphasis added)

--Gniniv (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's actually number 2, not number 1. So let's address that paragraph there. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

for (2) and (3)

YEC and literal biblical sources List:

• The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Edited by Don Batten, Ph.D, copyright 1990, thirtieth printing: April 2004, ISBN 0-89051-161-6
• Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphreys, copyright 1994, Eighth printing: April 2003, ISBN 0-89051-202-7
• Old-Earth Creationism on Trial, by Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle, copyright 2008, First printing: June 2008, ISBN 978-0-89051-544-0
• On the Seventh Day, edited by John F. Ashford, Ph.D, copyright 2002, First printing: June 2002, ISBN 0-89051-376-7
• The Discovery of Genesis, by C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, copyright 1979, ISBN 0-570-03792-1

Hows that for a start? I have plenty more if thats a problem!--Gniniv (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You've listed some books. What claim or claims do you argue should be sourced to them? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My original edit on this article sourced the first reference with the following statement:

An alternative view would be that the supposed dual accounts are merely different emphasis on a single account, with the first showing the chronological order of creation, and the second presenting man as the guardian of that creation The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Edited by Don Batten, Ph.D, copyright 1990, Thirtieth printing, April 2004, ISBN 0-89051-161-6, Chapters 2-3

.

Fails WP:PROMINENCE, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't heard of Biblical literalism?--Gniniv (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have as can be seen from here. The answer to this question doesn't address my point in the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, it's a Master Books publication. They're essentially a self-publishing house. Please read WP:V. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Master Books is an arm of Creation-Life Publishers, and their books are in wide circulation amongst the creationist movement, thus making them WP:V. Obviously you have heard of it!--Gniniv (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ICR is a deprecated publisher and has been impeached as an unreliable source for anything but the opinions of the board of ICR. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not WP:V at all. The question is WP:DUE. We have enough articles about contemporary US creationism. This is not one of them. It is unclear what any of this material is doing here, as it's irrelevant. The fact that topic A (Genesis) is relevant to topic B (US creationism) does not imply that topic B is relevant to topic A in any way. inversion fallacy. The entire "creationism" section is beside the point and should be exported. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed WP:ONEWAY is extremely relevant here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You should of followed my advice and not immediately open a RFM. A RFM requires all involved parties to agree to the RFM, your unilateral nomination will undoubtedly fail due to that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We will see....--Gniniv (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The only other option is what i have been doing....--Gniniv (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you go through WP:DR, you'll see that there are a number of options that should be exhausted first before filing a WP:RFM. Gabbe (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality RFC

Needs an outside opinion on neutrality level--Gniniv (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from talk page head Thparkth (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Freind, Specify exactly what you want to be decided Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're replying to the wrong person - this is Gniniv's RFC, I just moved it. Thparkth (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - it's not entirely clear what the scope of this RFC is. Are you referring to the article as a whole? A specific section? A particular point under discussion on the talk page? For the purposes of this comment I will assume you mean to discuss the neutrality of the article as a whole.

In my opinion neutrality should not be a problem for this article. It should simply describe the Genesis creation narrative, explain its history, and explore (without endorsing) the major ways in which the text is interpreted, with suitable attribution and sourcing. For the most part, the article already does this very well.

The "Creation-evolution controversy in the United States" section does not belong in this article because that is a separate topic which is already covered in detail in other articles. Of course this article should note that some Christian groups interpret the passage literally, and briefly describe the various distinctions within those groups, but it should be no more than a single paragraph.

Thparkth (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of creationism section

Here's a very quick attempt at a rewrite by compacting the current section and cutting out some stuff to boot. Clearly this is just the beginning and I think even this is too much. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Creationism

See also: Creationism and Creation-evolution controversy

Biblical literalists are committed to interpreting the Bible by adhering closely to the explicit words given in the text. Since the 18th and 19th centuries literalist interpretations of Genesis have been in conflict with the growing body of scientific evidence, that now estimates the age of the earth at around 4.5 billion years. Strict literalists view Genesis creation as a historical event that transpired exactly as written, but do not all agree on how literally to interpret the creation account in Genesis. "Young earth" creationists, for instance, maintain that the Genesis creation took place between 6,000 and 10,000 years in the past, and that the seven "days" of Genesis 1 correspond to normal 24-hour days. Creation scientists, maintain that the science behind the age of the earth and evolution is flawed, and claim to have scientific evidence of their own that fully supports the Genesis account. "Day-age" creationists believe that each "day" in Genesis's opening represents an "age" of perhaps millions or billions of years while Progressive creationists infer that each day of creation represents an eon of development rather than a 24 hour day, but place importance on both the numerical and naturalistic features in the account and claim these Genesis passages can be seen to have anticipated later scientific findings regarding the creation of the planet and solar system. Gap creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis.

References

It's reasonable, except that the title shouldn't be "Creationism". It is a misconception that the low-brow creationism as it developed in the USA in the 20th century is equivalent to "Creationism" as a whole. What this is really about is the "re-emergence of creationist thought in the United_States", i.e. a modern reactionary movement (directly comparable, and indeed parallel to, Islamism). But the summary is certainly fair enough and preferable to what we have now. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone object to at least starting with this? Dab has a point about the main content of the section as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The bit about creation scientists could probably be cut as superfluous since they are largely YECs. The distinction seems too fine for such a short mention here. --PLUMBAGO 18:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Could the title be "Biblical literalism" instead? I'm happier with "Creationism" than dab is, but associate it with YEC. Another thing, should the "See also" be "Main article"? --PLUMBAGO 18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think it's better to leave it all out unless we find a way to describe it factually as well as succinctly. For example strictly speaking creation science includes ID which is not Genesis literalism. And Gap creationism isn't a US phenomenon, it goes back to Augustine. The young earth creationism isn't a modern American interpretation (e.g. its dates are Ussher) though it was revived and recast in modern US evangelicalism. It's too much minutia to include, though. I'm wondering if the labels like creation science are drawing more emphasis than the interpretations. Would it help if instead of labeling the text described the different interpretations of features like "day", "image of God", and the so-called indeterminate "gap" between Gen 1 and Gen 2? More in keeping with other features in the Exegetical points section (which I think should be reworked too)? I think we could dispense with the "science" aspects altogether--interpretations have shifted over the years, science is just one of many influences on those interpretations. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Professor, inasmuch as "gap creationsim" is discussed in Augustine, it is certainly a valid topic of within a discussion of creation in Christian theology. It's just that venerable ancient authors like Augustine tend to be ousted by evangelicalist red herrings. The views of the Church fathers, and also views of 17th century thinkers, should certainly be discussed, but they should be discussed in historical context, and not be lumped with current-day crackpottery.

Now, all Christian theology is in one way or another a commentary on creation according to Genesis, but there is also the gospel of John and other places where Christian theology can be informed on creation.

The problem with this article is that it purports to discuss Genesis, but it is constantly weighed down by later Christian (and to a lesser extent Jewish) theology. The article currently is organized along the lines of

• the Hebrew narrative itself
• Exegetical points
• Interpretation
  • h3 subsection "Theology"

The implication is that everything outside the "theology" section is based on current state-of-the-art Hebrew philology, not on historical (ancient, medieval, early modern) theology. THe entire question of "how did Christian theologists historically interpret this" should be contained under "5.3 Theology". The US creationist thing should be under 5.3.3 or so, as a very poor and very late addition to a venerable theological tradition.

My point is that this article by virtue of its current toc structure, is not the place to discuss the history (and present) of views of creation in Christian theology. The best solution would be the creation of a dedicated Creation in Christian theology article, where the specifically Christian tradition of interpreting Genesis in the light of the New Testament would be on topic. The best we have so far is Creationism#In_Judaism_and_early_and_medieval_Christianity. This will not do. People wishing to work on our coverage of creationist theology in bona fide Christian theology need to work on that section, not on this article, and they need to create a {{main}} article to that section dedicated to the topic of Christian theology specifically.

I am not sure inasmuch the topic of Creationism#Re-emergence_of_creationist_thought_in_the_United_States qualifies as Christian theology. It appears to be mostly pseudoscience and litigation, but I am sure there must be some theology behind it. Such literature would of course also be on topic in the Christian theology article. Most of the literature that is piled up by the cultura warriors however does not appear to be academic grade theology but rather pulp literature aimed at indoctrinating the uneducated, and various attempts to blur the lines between theology the natural sciences. This aspect, at long last, is an US issue and should not be allowed to contaminate either our discussion of the Hebrew text and its tradition, nor of the reception of the Hebrew text in Christian theology. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Creation in the Book of Genesis

The argument over myth vs story vs narrative has turned into an endless debate. As the above surveys show, there is no one commonly accepted name for our subject. Our policy on article titles WP:TITLE says "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." The simplest solution is to pick a title that does not characterize the subject of the article in any way, such as "Creation in the Book of Genesis" or even "Genesis chapters 1 and 2". --agr (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Also, does this help? Our Interwikis in other wikipedias: Arabic: قصة الخلق في سفر التكوين ["The story of creation in Genesis"]; Catalan: Creació segons el Gènesi ("Creation according to Genesis"); Danish: Skabelsesberetningen i Bibelen ("Creation in the Bible"); Greek: Κοσμογονία της Γένεσης ("Cosmogony of Genesis") Korean: 천지창조 ("Creation"); Hebrew: בריאת העולם (יהדות) ("Creation of the world (Judaism)) Dutch: Scheppingsverhaal (Genesis) ("Creation Story (Genesis)"); Japanese: 天地創造 ("Creation");

Polish: Stworzenie świata według Biblii ("Creation according to Genesis"); Russian: Сотворение мира в Библии ("Creation in the Bible"); Finnish: Raamatun luomiskertomus ("Creation according to Genesis"); Tagalog: Paglikha ayon sa Genesis ("Creation according to Genesis"); Yiddish: מעשה בראשית ("Creation of Earth")

Note the complete absence of editorial comments incorporated into the title, in these encyclopedias. And I'm sure that were any to try in these languages, the contributors to these encyclopedias would immediately respond by saying "Sorry, but here we try not to incorporate editorial comments into our titles. Try English wikipedia!" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is constantly a disruptive issue because there are different kinds of POV warriors who keep coming back to it and disrupting the page with their endless nonsense. Changing the title to either suggestion above will not save us from this. Better to simply stick to WP:UCN as much as possible and then drive off the nonsense when it reappears.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As the surveys above clearly demonstrate there is no single common name, even among scholars. The way to deal with POV warriors is to simply remove any POV from the article title. --agr (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer Creation in the Book of Genesis over Genesis creation narrative since the word narrative I think, at least to me, makes it sound like a true story more so then myth or a title that doesn't have a descriptive word in it. But my original concern, again, is the neutrality with this myth and the other myth's page names. So the discussion needs to focus more on not just THIS article but ALL myth articles in this category, to make sure they're equally treated. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 55 articles and 4 sub-categories in Category:Creation myths. Of these 4 article titles include the word "myth," 2 "myths" and 1 "mythology". Two more use "mythology" as disambiguation. None of these articles refer to a single literary work. The "myth" articles describe stories that are found in more than one work, often after painstaking scholarly reconstruction, or even taken from more than one tradition. Most articles about creation stories do not include the word myth in their title (e.g. The legend of Kintu, Legend of Trentren Vilu and Caicai Vilu, Enûma Eliš, etc. So I don't see where there is a problem with equal treatment. --agr (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh you didn't realize, its the "myth of equal treatment".Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Creation in the Book of Genesis" is better, but we need to know what the RS call it, not what Google Scholar calls it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

What is the justification for adding the title neutrality tag to the entry other than the fact that someone doesn't like it? There should also be an ongoing disagreement over neutrality. The discussion should be ongoing for some time and remain unresolved. We don't just tag entries the day after someone objects to something. That's simply disruptive. We need to establish a disagreement, try to hash it out on the talk page, and if it can't be hashed out we go to the tagging.Griswaldo (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's rephrase that... What is the justification for removing a tag which indicates there's an ongoing discussion, when there is one, except that you don't like it? We got nearly 3 pages of replies to the discussion, a good number of which were objections, just yesterday! I understand you think the conversation is unjustified. You've made that quite clear numerous times now. But it is taking place, and indicating that is more than appropriate.

Jess

_talk
edits

15:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree the massive conversation right above this indicates the article's neutrality is in dispute. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Two days ago several editors appeared here and started complaining. Their concerns have been answered and there is no ambiguity regarding neutrality that actually relates to Wikipedia policy. Please explain what remains to be discussed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing disagreement over whether the title of this article is neutral. I hope you answer the question I posed above, because I think if you can prove that the RS used in this article favor "creation narrative," you have made your point, and you will have my support at least. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative -> Genesis creation myth

I take issue to the page being called "narrative" as opposed to "myth." I understand there was a monster discussion recently resulting in a move, just a quick count of !votes shows about a 68% support, which doesn't seem very high. The big thing it seems as if we're giving this myth special consideration over the many many other creation myths. Example: Mesoamerican creation myths, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth, Tongan creation myth. Theres also a ton of * mythology pages for various belief systems, and other * creation myth pages that redirect to other belief structures. None of which blatantly replace "myth" with "narrative". The naming of this page is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be moved back to Genesis creation myth, for the same reasons you've outlined that I had mentioned in the last vote/discussion. I'm not sure that this discussion should be revived so soon after the last discussion, however. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)I think it should, it's an egregious infraction of WP:NPOV, the discussion to change this page shouldn't of been limited to just this page, but all creation mythology pages. To treat this myth differently is POV pushing. Since the move discussion wasn't for all creation myth pages, then it should be considered invalid. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Raeky, the argument you have made is a legit one superficially. however you if you look in "Category:Creation myths". "Anceint cultures" use that naming scheme. However no "Sacred Texts" of Modern Religions are singled out as creation myths. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So your saying this myth is better then other myths? It's still clearly under the academic use of "myth" and "mythology." To label this myth separate, or special, from other religions is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Either rename them all to avoid the word "myth" or rename this one back. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it needs to be a mass move of every other living religion's creation myth. As it is then POV to Favor them as myth. Wikipieda is written for "Average Joe" not Anthropologist, Religous Studies Proffesors and such. I agree this is a Creation myth but average Joe comes here and freaks becuase it an attack on their Religion. We have no idea what Anicient Sumerians Called thier Creation Myth thus we Call it Sumerian creation myth. but this is Living religions a sacred text thus we don't pass judgement on whether it is more or less true than the mormon one. The last move discussion was an overwhelming support for this tittle after Two massive Stalemates with no consensusWeaponbb7 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What average joe you talking about? A Judeo-Christian average joe? What about those Hindi average joes? or Atheist average joes? they not matter? Wikipedia always takes the academic approach to writing articles in this matter, and in academia it's a myth. I mean if we're talking about United States average joes, probably around 30% of them doesn't even know what the word "narrative" means, since the functional literacy rate is pretty horrid among adults. Should we just convert the English Wikipedia into the Simple English Wikipedia for those "average joes?" — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To add, your "overwhelming consensus" was about 68%, or 17.5 supports to 8 opposes. Doesn't seem overwhelming to me, clearly not a WP:SNOW case. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you too look through the archive link i provided below at the beginin of this discussion. As it appears You have your mind set on the current "injustice of POV." I doubt I can change your stance. I just warn you that this type of page move brings out the worst in people. The "narrative" term is actually more commonly user then the phrase "Genesis Creation myth" and Narrative was the Big Compromise. I can't stop you sense you made up you mind already. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly after such a hugely long drawn out fight and stale mates, that being able to ram through a "huge compromise" change makes it justified right? After any such huge discussion like that the people who are not the die-hard POV pushers would of long given up making it far easier to ram threw a decision. I can't imagine how someone looking objectively at this can't see how this is not a neutral point of view with the other creation myths. Only someone who firmly believes this myth is 100% true, the word of God and the like, can justify that. By renaming this belief system to a non-myth page name is... wrong. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You already seem to be acting WP:BATTLEGROUND mode I advise you to calm down I am not an Enemy. I am an anthropologist, I beleive in Evolution (as its a Quarter of my displine) and get pissy with Bible thumpers. I am no Fundementalist as you seem to be implying. Niether was it "rammed through" it was typical "7 Day Discussion" for page move. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose by all the Christianity stuff on your user page and how you're referring to Genesis as "Sacred Texts" would of lead me to belief your likely biased. If that is an incorrect assumption, I apologize. By "rammed through" I mean after months of discussion and 6 page move proposals, wearing down the opposition enough that enough has given up would be "ramming" through a nomination. You'd think after 6 failed attempts that would of said enough that there wasn't consensus to rename, but if you keep WP:TE enough I suppose you can accomplish your goal? I don't think a nomination after such a protracted discussion and so many failed attempts is valid, but thats just me. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Review the arguments made here becuase there gonna come up again Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• I doubt that 68% support is sufficient consensus for a major issue of NPOV such as this, and I also doubt that it should be decided by consensus. I think there will be a clear right on this issue. It's my impression that "creation myth" is the most proper way to describe it. While the words "creation narrative" are more often used, "creation myth" is used in academia. The sources should be checked to determine if I'm right here. Wikipedia determines what is the most correct way of labeling something according to the most reliable sources and names articles accordingly. Thus what we need to determine is not which name is most popular, [4] [5] but which appears most in the most reliable sources. I think this is what WP:TITLE says, and it should be simple to follow. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

we had two Stale mate of No consensus and i think 6 page move proposals (SINCE JANUARY 2010) totall this is the way consensus has swung. I am not opposed to a page move maybe mediation or something like that. Lets not jump on the Pagemove wagon again Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your second search wasn't in quotes, "creation myth" in quotes nets About 307,000 results and "creation narrative" nets About 98,200 results, so by those highly-unscientific numbers myth is 3x more popular. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I just yanked this out of Archive 10, I highly encourage you to look at all the arguements in previous discussions

	Genesis creation account	Genesis creation myth	Percentages
General search	1,660	1,140	59% / 41%
1800–1899	4	3	57% / 43%
1900–1949	4	45	8% / 92%
1950–1969	29	84	26% / 74%
1970–1989	185	219	46% / 54%
1990–2010	624	606	51% / 49%
Results lost	814 (49.0%)	183 (16.1%)

Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is neutrality with other creation myths, if we search scholar.google.com for "creation myth" we get about 10,800 and "creation narrative" we get about 2,270. We can play with numbers all day, but in academia your going to find the word myth used the most. Look at all the pages of past archives on creation myths for this being explained a zillion times. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here is a link to the definition of the word myth. The term has come to mean something that is false, which explains why people oppose its use, although that is not the original meaning. Also, I suspect that when the term first entered the English language it was used to describe Greek mythology not the Old Testament. Is there any reason why we cannot use the term "story" instead, which refers to an account that may or may not be true? TFD (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We discussed that too. Some felt story was little better than myth since it implies some on made it up .again Encourage people to look in the archive 10 Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I think the lead of Mythology sums it up quite succinctly, with referecnes, "the academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on its truth or falsity." — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If we have to have a foot note to explain "how it is neutral" then its not neutral. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
      • If people think it's not neutral, it doesn't mean it isn't. NPOV is not the average of laymen's opinions. A lot of people believe in astrology but the only NPOV position on astrology is that it is falsehood, because that's what academic consensus says on the topic. --Cyclopia^talk 23:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTACADEMIA - Wikipedia is not: Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is relevant to a style issue (and one I agree with), not one of content. If we can use "myth" and explain why it is better to the average reader, then we are ok. --Cyclopia^talk 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If we have to go at exteneded lenghth to say to reader "your so ignorant. Look it is neutral due as we use it" its no neutral Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be as patronizing as you suggest: people come to an encyclopedia to learn after all, and -guess what?- they could also learn that "myth" means something different in other contexts. And even if it was: why would it be not neutral? --Cyclopia^talk 00:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)Well, scientific consensus of all of physics, paleontology, genetics, cosmology etc. is pretty obviously stating that it is, indeed, false. So what is the problem? --Cyclopia^talk 23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipeida is agnostic on all religous topics. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If we're agnostic then how can you justify one religions views being labeled "narrative" while all the others are labeled "myth"? Your contradicting your argument here... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment WP:NPOV applies within individual entries and not to entry titles as they compare to each other. Please see WP:NAME for entry naming conventions. This was all discussed at length. "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis creation myth" are on par in usage. Genesis creation story is far and away the most commonly used, however, and "story" and "narrative" are synonyms. BTW, most other creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the name. Please review the category and see Voluspa, Enuma Elish, etc. No one is going around adding "creation myth" to their titles.Griswaldo (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe your wrong in saying NPOV is irrelevant for article naming. And just because there was a protracted discussion with 6 failed attempts in a row to rename the article then a successful 7th attempt was made means we can't discuss it anymore. If anything it just is showing a pattern of WP:TE that finally wore down the opposers till they go their way. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also please understand that the entry had a very bad title for quite some time -- Creation according to Genesis. That tile, and not "genesis creation myth" was the long stable one. This title is far superior to both. The last thing I want to say is that this page is unfortunately hampered by a great number of extremists ... of two varieties ... who have little concern for academic usage and real scholarship. On one side are individuals who want all reference to "myth" gone because this account is to some degree factual or otherwise meaningful to them. On the other side we have people who only show up here because they follow the afore mentioned religious editors to this entry from others that deal with the culture wars arenas surrounding "evolution" and "creationism." This entry is about an ancient story. If you have nothing to add here other than culture wars nonsense please do us all a favor and don't. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• How about we head to WP:MEDCABAL with this? any objections? i think mediation with a Neutral Third party not involved in this discussion would help. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I don't think after an hour and a half of discussion would qualify it for MEDCABAL... give it a few days, let more people weigh in, not everyone who watches this page that could comment has even been given the opportunity too.. I'm not oppose to mediation, just think it's a bit premature at the moment. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I didn't participate in the original discussion only because I wasn't aware it was taking place. There needs to be uniformity across all religious articles to adhere to WP:NPOV. If consensus dictates that they should be narrative, then fine, but singling out one to be different is an egregious violation. This discussion needs to take place again, and it needs to be listed (if a change to narrative is warranted) across the board in all other Category:Creation myth articles too. Jess ^talk _cs 00:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a red herring of whale sized proportions. Name one entry that includes content about a creation narrative that is part of a living religion or belief system that has "creation myth" in the title. That's right there are none.Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think that no one still believes in the Chinese creation myth, Mesoamerican creation myths or Ancient Egyptian creation myths, you haven't researched this nearly enough. I've personally met people who believed in all 3, and to be quite honest, my life experiences are fairly limited. Also, please scale down your tone. This is quickly leading into personal attack and assuming bad faith territory. If you must, please respond below (at the end of the thread) so I can keep up with the replies. Jess ^talk _cs 04:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you'll need more than your personal experiences to satisfy our standards. While there are Neo-pagans (and various new-agers) who have "revitalized", "resurrected" and/or "reconstructed" most well known ancient belief systems those are not comparable because those very belief systems survived in scholarship and not in living traditions. You know as well as I do what I meant and you're just playing games. I will scale down my tone when you all scale down the disruption. We have too much of it already from both directions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This last reply is unambiguously WP:ABF territory. You need to work constructively with other editors or there's no point in continuing this discussion with you. Jess ^talk _cs 04:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course why would you - WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I'm glad that I've given you a convenient excuse for it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what your agreeing to there is uniformity. Living Religions are not called myths, and anceint Religions that no one adhere to we name "Culture Creation Myth" and even then if there is a source text we still dont name it myth. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "We can play with numbers all day, but in academia your going to find the word myth used the most." If the WP:RS are from academia, Wikipedia should reflect that terminology. We write for the common man, but we reflect the most reliable sources; we do not reflect common wisdom unless it is in accord with RS. Again, people here are arguing popularity; they are also acting like this is a vote. Those are false standards, and should be dropped. The popularity that matters is within academia. Could someone confirm for me whether I'm right about it? Sorry, not a scholar on this subject :P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the most common name in scholarship. It is not "Genesis creation myth."Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well if you say so. Seriously, how does this contribute to the discussion? We have statistics with links posted above. Do you have anything to support this assertion? Jess ^talk _cs 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Weaponbb I didn't agree there is uniformity. I agreed this change breaks necessary uniformity. Even if we accept your argument, then the creation myths of all religions which currently have adherents would need to have their articles renamed to "narrative". I've seen absolutely no argument which indicates why this article should be changed without others, so either 1) this was a change intended to be made across the board, in which case having the discussion on this article was wildly inappropriate, or 2) the change was only intended for this article, which is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Jess ^talk _cs 02:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there an WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT convention taking place here?

1. The long standing name of the entry was not "Genesis creation myth", but Creation according to Genesis. The change to "Genesis creation myth" was recent and was controversial ever since it happened.
2. Most other entries about creation myths do not have "creation myth" in the name. See Enûma Eliš, Mashya and Mashyana, Völuspá, etc. If you look at the creation myth category you will find less than a handful with "creation myth" in the name and all are from ancient or otherwise non-living civilizations which also contain the name of the civilization in the title.
3. "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common name used in dispassionate (non-religious) scholarship about these passages. Genesis creation story is. ("Genesis creation account" is even more common but once very old sources and avowedly Christian sources are removed it is probably not).

What else do you need to know? Please stop making assumptions about what happened when this name was decided upon without understanding 1) the recent history of this debate, 2) the category of entries similar to this one and 3) even more importantly the relevant scholarly usage of the various terms being debated. Are there two identifiable myths in the narrative covered by this entry? YES THERE ARE, which is why we don't shy away from using the term "myth" in the entry itself and we resist the recurring calls to remove the term from the entry. However, we also follow WP:UCN and reliable sources tell us that "Genesis creation myth" is not the most common label for this narrative so we find a more suitable alternative. Personally I'd vote for "Genesis creation story" but at least narrative is a synonym, unlike "myth".Griswaldo (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, please respond at the end of the thread... inline replies are just hard to deal with.
• Second of all, that there are less than a handful of articles named "myth" in the category says nothing. There are only a handful of articles in the category to begin with. Those which don't include "myth" have very specific names. An alternate proposal would be to rename the article "Genesis" in line with that precedent, but to avoid conflict with the disambig page it would have to be categorized as mythology like the other articles, and I imagine you'd probably object to "Genesis (mythology)" as well.
• Thirdly, please support your assertions with data. Everybody's making assertions here, and yours are no better than anybody else's.
• Fourthly, (and repeated from above), please scale down your tone. This is quickly leading into personal attack and assuming bad faith territory. Jess ^talk _cs 04:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

On your fourth point please understand that we're plagued by disruptive trolling of all kinds here. Make of that comment what you will. The data is in the last archive, all over the place. It would be very instructive if you all actually familiarized yourselves with the extensive discussions that took place back then (especially since there have been many inaccurate statements/assumptions about those discussions flung about already). Several refined scholar and Google books searches were made and they all point to exactly what I claim about "Genesis creation account" and "Genesis creation story" being most prevalent. If you don't believe me concerning the type of sources that comprise the former option then I guess that's the one you favor? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, per "... and I imagine you'd probably object to 'Genesis (mythology)' as well", you are clearly clueless as to what I would support or object to. The alternative name that I would happily support based on personal preference is "Judeo-Christian creation myth", but that name has never had any traction and, admittedly, is not common in reliable sources either. But it is one of my personal preferences and I've mentioned that several times in the those pesky past discussions you refuse to look at. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you feel that this discussion is warranted, it is happening now. Statistics and links have been provided above which clearly indicate a higher prevalence of "creation myth" than "creation account". If you have statistics that are relevant, please cite them instead of making assertions that they're out there somewhere. Furthermore, we can make this even simpler; I see no reason to humor your argument that the popularity of a myth should determine its classification. Can you give me a solid reason (other than a blanket assertion) that this article should be handled differently than, say, Mesoamerican creation myths, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Sumerian creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Pelasgian creation myth or Tongan creation myth? 04:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Jess ^talk _cs

The statistics above show that "creation account" is more prevalent. I'll reproduce the others since you are hell bent against looking in the archive. For shame. BTW congratulations listing every single entry about a specific creation myth, or set of such myths, that use the term in the title.Griswaldo (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Past search results

Note in these two that the time frame is limited to the last 20 years. This is why "creation account" lags behind (as I explained above about removing old sources ...)Griswaldo (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(copied from archive) Here are the results I get for 1990-2010 for the following phrases in both Books and Scholar:

Google Books

• Genesis creation myth - 233 [6]
• Genesis creation account - 624 [7]
• Genesis creation story - 637 [8]

Google Scholar

• Genesis creation myth - 55 [9]
• Genesis creation account - 292 [10]
• Genesis creation story - 370 [11]

I've provided the links for immediate verification. What I did was - exact phrase delimited to the last 20 years of publications. Myth lags way behind.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(copied from archive)Updated results of your analysis (1990–2010), with totals for Genesis creation account including results for "Genesis creation account", "creation account in Genesis" and "creation account of Genesis"; totals for Genesis creation myth including results for "Genesis creation myth", "creation myth in Genesis" and "creation myth of Genesis"; and totals for Genesis creation story including results for "Genesis creation story", "creation story in Genesis" and "creation story of Genesis".

Google Books

• 689 results for Genesis creation account
• 606 results for Genesis creation myth
• 743 results for Genesis creation story

Google Scholar

• 925 results for Genesis creation account
• 177 results for Genesis creation myth
• 1,500 results for Genesis creation story

In Books results, "account" and "story" are higher, but not dramatically so. In Scholar results, the results for "account" and "story" are dramatically higher. To the extent that valid conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, I think you are partially correct. So, I want to make clear that my "strong oppose" in this section applies only to the suggestion to rename to "Biblical Creation", and not to any other proposal. Noting that, I must again repeat the point that publications which prefer "creation account" or "creation story" over "creation myth" seem to have a greater tendency to adopt the point of view that the Genesis creation account/myth/story is factual rather than approaching the issue from a neutral, academic standpoint; see e.g., [12][13][14][15][16]. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that everyone is trying to skirt the issue and play with numbers. All of those stats have one key thing in it Genesis and they're by nature biased, since all those sources include Christian author's books which by their very nature is going to avoid the word myth. What matters is how it's used in academics and specifically in academia is the Genesis account worded differently then other creation beliefs? Thats the issue we're bringing up. The stats I gave above clearly show that "creation myth" has far more sources, but if you tack on Genesis, your results get skewed by Christian authors who are NOT academics for the most part which is irrelevant for this discussion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fairly obvious"? Can you back that assertion. You have clearly not looked at the 1500 Google scholar hits linked to above because I assure you they are publications written by academics in well known journals of sociology, history, etc. You have to add "Genesis" to actually get the correct content. Part of the problem here is that this story is important in scholarship outside of the realm of "myth" studies. Adherents who believe in this story -- literally, allegorically, metaphorically, etc. etc. do not necessarily engage it as a "myth" (in the scholarly sense). In scholarship on the various practices of these adherents (even if these practices are purely discursive) treating the story as a "myth" may be misleading and unhelpful. It has nothing to do with being non-academic Christian writers. When discussing the ancient context it might be most appropriate to call the story a myth, but in context of the more recent history of Judaism and Christianity it may not be. In the end, once again, we follow the scholarship here. Once again the scholarship, which is disspasionate and non-religious, favors "creation story" ten times as much as "creation myth" when discussing this content.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to side with Griswaldo here. After carefully re-reviewing the past search result information it seems obvious that the most popular term to refer to this myth is as "creation narrative" or "creation story. This isn't the case in popular usage for other, dead creation myths, because there's no politically correct urge to do so in our modern society. Even reliable/secular sources avoid the "myth" term for what I would imagine are PC reasons. So even though the terminology may appear more biased and euphemistic compared to other creation myth article titles, we are following policy here by keeping the current title. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 11:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We're also not supposed to be using google results to determine things like this for us in the first place. This Christian says myth is the proper and scholarly term, even for those who believe it is literal history.Farsight001 (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly backwards. We look to common usage WP:UCN and to determine common usage in academia we use tools like google scholar. What we are not supposed to use are our own opinions and feelings about these things.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. I'll have to dig a bit to find the policy, but I remember very clearly reading one that states that we are not to be using google searches like this for any real decisions in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There's this. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please take note that this is not a "Google search" but a "Google Scholar search". Google scholar is far from perfect but it provides a rough idea of how common a certain term is in scholarly publications. Its always good to actually take a look at the results as well, but I've done that, and like I said we're talking about respectable peer reviewed journals and books put out by academic publishers. How would you suggest measuring common usage? It clearly has nothing to do with what you "believe as a Christian", as you stated.Griswaldo (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE specifically mentions Google Scholar and Google Books as being more reliable than Web searches and encourages their use. "Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept." --agr (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is bias, no other creation myth is called a narative, why therfore should the christian one be so described?Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What other creation myth are you comparing this one to, and why on earth are you referring to the creation myth of the Hebrew bible as simply "Christian"? Please see agrs last comment in the section below this one.Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(for the record, and since I was aked to give a "statement" -- in light of this discussion, the page has been tagged with {{POV-title}}. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

This one Creation myth in general, Thge same page has links to a number of pages that describe the religion narativbes of various religions as myths. No secificaly creation myths, but that just meanss that hte myth of the Judeo-Christan creation myth has recvied more attnetion on wikpedia. If your bleives are not mtyhs then niether are the Hoppi indians. Also we have this Chinese creation mythl.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please use normal sized fonts so we can read your statement. I've questioned the tagging below.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a difference here between "scholarship" and "reliable source." Griswaldo says "Once again the scholarship, which is disspasionate and non-religious, favors "creation story" ten times as much as "creation myth" when discussing this content." If this is true of reliable sources, then he's right. If it's merely true of "scholars" (however ""dispassionate"" or non-religious they may be) then it might not be. I doubt Google scholar is a good tool for determining which sources are actually reliable. However, looking at the sources which are fit for use on this article might be a better idea. If the sources used for this article are reliable, and they use "creation narrative" most, then that is the title we should use. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Creation myth article. "Creation narrative" redirects there. It seems to be a longstanding convention on Wikipedia to call these stories "myths," but they are also sometimes called narratives. Very often they are called "myths" in living traditions as well, just make a search of "myth" in the article. The field of Comparative mythology is called what it is, leading me to believe that "mythology" is the scholarly term for these narratives. The Religion and mythology article makes clear that the term mythology is used for living traditions, even though that has been changed to "narrative" at some points in the Mythology article. Using the term "narrative" seems to be politically correct, but not scholarly, from this brief perusal I've done. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This bears quoting here:

"The relationship between religion and myth depends on what definition of "myth" one uses. By Robert Graves's definition, a religion's traditional stories are "myths" if and only if one does not belong to the religion in question. By Segal's definition, all religious stories are myths—but simply because nearly all stories are myths. By the folklorists' definition, all myths are religious (or "sacred") stories, but not all religious stories are myths: religious stories that involve the creation of the world (e.g., the stories in Genesis) are myths; however, religious stories that don't explain how things came to be in their present form (e.g., hagiographies of famous saints) are not myths.

It should be noted that most definitions of "myth" limit myths to stories. Thus, non-narrative elements of religion, such as ritual, are not myths." [17] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC?

I noted one of the sections above refers to an RfC, but I don't see an RfC tag anywhere. I personally think going ahead and filing an RfC as per WP:RFC might be a good way to get more editors with some knowledge of the subject involved in the discussion. Personally, I don't see any particular objections to the existing title right off, although I think that "Genesis creation story" might be a slightly more common phrasing, and I myself at least don't see the word "story" as being particularly prejudicial. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is over and the user blocked... long story but not the same conversation as this latest debate Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mesopotamian myth

No attempt to be sneaky, Gris. There is too much emphasis in lead on Mesopotamian. Please note the number of time Meso... is mentioned in lead. Rather than a major focus for the lead, it's more of an "O, by the way...." It is secondary source material that appears no where in the Genesis source. By moving it down and putting all the Meso... material together, it better qualifies for inclusion in the lead. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afaprof01 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 July 2010

Don't know what you was trying to pull but your edit wasn't JUST about moving Mesopotamian out of the lead paragraph, but removing quite a bit more, like creation myth. Theres three references backing up that opening sentence, so it's very well sourced and unlikely to change. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

AFAProf Please Remember WP:AGF Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit was hard to follow with the diffs. If you did incremental changes, and did them slowly, it might work better. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to "Myth"

My questions above haven't been answered, although I hope they are well founded. I'm basically asking whether the WP:RS for this article preponderantly say "creation myth," "creation narrative," or use some other term. I believe that under Wikipedia rules we are obligated to base our decision on the article title on this information, or similarly reliable and agreed-upon data, not the votes of editors or the popularity of the term in popular culture or Google scholar results. I also believe (see my posts above) that the current data favors "myth." That seems to be the scholarly term for creation stories. So I would like to jump start this discussion and see what foundation there is for objections to renaming the article to "Genesis creation myth." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

B-critical this is clearly not how it works. You do not get to demand evidence when you have produced none for your own position and simply reject out of hand the evidence produced for the position you do not agree with asking for other evidence instead. Google scholar simply compiles references that use one term or another. The fact that "creation story" and variants thereof come up 10 times as much as "creation myth" and variants there of in reference to the content of this entry is significant. If, it can be shown that these hits are deceptive then we can discount them but you have to do that work and clearly you are unwilling to do so. Did you look at the actual hits? Go back to the links provided above and click through and tell me which of the first 20 (or 50, or 100) references are not reliable sources. You'll find that they mostly are from reliable sources like the journals Sociology of Religion and Journal of the History of Ideas. You cannot claim that evidence has not been provided that this is the most used term in reliable sources because it has. Do the work and stop asking for other people to do it for you. Also, keep your eye on the ball because this article is not Creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if this is true, then you have proved your point. However, others seem to disagree. And no, I don't have to be a scholar on this subject to add something to the conversation. I only have to ask the right questions. You've given a good answer, and if what you say is correct -and I rely on other editors who know the subject area to check that- then you're right. To recap, if the sources you have are reliable, just as reliable as the ones used in the article, and if they use the terms as you say, then there is no reason to rename the article. I certainly was taught at university to call the Genesis account a myth, but perhaps that is not the most common scholarly term. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In a class on comparative mythology it would most certainly be called a myth. In any number of other courses from sociology to history this would most likely not be called a myth. The particular academic context matters quite a bit. This creation story comes up in a variety of scholarly contexts and many of them have no interest in how it compares to other such stories cross-culturally or historically. Myth as a category is not particularly meaningful in these contexts. Now, these same contexts do not often, if ever, engage other Mesopotamian creation stories. Those stories are much more squarely fixed to academic contexts that do find the category of "myth" useful. The discrepancy is due to drastically different histories of cultural practice. But that doesn't even matter to us. What matters is that this story is not referred to as "the genesis creation myth" in most of the reliable sources that discuss it. Do these sources agree, for the most part, that in the ancient context in which it was crafted calling it a myth makes sense. Absolutely, but that context is only one of many historical contexts for this story since its part of a very rich living tradition. If you cannot wrap your head around this then please, as you suggest, do leave this to people who have some knowledge of the relevant fields.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be much obliged if you moderated your tone. I did not come here as your enemy, and I am quite happy to give your position my support if it is correct. I came here responding to concerns on WP:NPOV/N. If you really want to make editors your enemies, and thus sabotage your ability to be heard, then rock on. Otherwise, try and find allies where you can. I came here not to push a particular point, though I did have a initial opinion, but to formulate a method for decision making based on Wikipedia convention. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"part of a very rich living tradition" -- I see. So everybody else is dead. If you keep insulting other traditions by inferring that they are "not rich" and "not living", you can easily lose all credibility here. But I guess this whole discourse proves the point. Some people resist the term "myth" because they insist on making Genesis look better than everybody else's stories, e.g. rich and living. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Where did I say that "everybody else is dead"? I would never deny, and have never denied that there are not many "rich living traditions" -- take your pick of any living religion. Thanks for the straw man of me as a religious bigot. There are of course some religions that were dead for hundreds of years and are now being "reconstructed" by contemporary practitioners (and I suppose this includes ancient Mesopotamian religions). These religions may be "alive" now, if you accept that they are linked to the older traditions they are claiming to revitalize, but they've missed a good thousand plus years of historical development and that's simply a fact. As you point out, some people resist the term myth, even in contexts where it is appropriately applied to Genesis, because they are driven by a self-interested religious polemic. I don't deny this at all and have been consistently arguing against these people on this very talk page. See for instance the religiously motivated definition of myth as always "polytheistic" to de facto exclude all the stories from the Bible. Such arguments are polemical and do not belong here. However there are other academic contexts in which "myth" is a meaningless or misleading category to apply to this story, because these contexts are not interested in the literary structure of Genesis and/or how it compares to other similar stories. In sociological scholarship on Christians who believe in a literal Genesis creation "creation myth" has no meaningful place in the discussion. In historical scholarship of intellectual history that touches, for instance, on theological developements vis-a-vis the Genesis narrative, "creation myth" once again is not a category worth invoking. All of this is reflected in sources from these fields, and all of this is what contributes to the 10:1 ratio of usage between creation story and creation myth. Please refrain from, in so many words, calling me a religious bigot. Please also understand that I'm not religious, and if someone had a gun to my head and I had to chose my favorite tradition it would probably not be one of the big three monotheisms. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the tone, but please understand that there's a context here which you may not be aware of. The title of this article was initially Creation according to Genesis. The article was quickly renamed to Genesis creation myth with a "consensus" of 3-4 editors and it was done before anyone noticed. This resulted in a months-long and extremely acrimonious fight over the title. The compromise title was Genesis creation narrative, because narrative, or story, can be seen as supportive or not to either side of the controversy. There are many, many reliable sources which do not use the term myth, and the common user of Wikipedia is more likely to look under creation story or creation narrative. Wikipedia naming policy (WP:UCN) says that we don't use technically correct titles for articles when the common usage differs.

As part of the compromise, the first two chapters of Genesis are still called a "myth" in the article's lede, because that is a technical term in use, even if not everyone uses it. Griswaldo was here during the melee, and having someone suggest going back to Genesis creation myth set him off. It almost set me off as well. Despite WP:AGF, and I am assuming good faith on your part, because I see no evidence to the contrary, it's a touchy issue. The whole fight took place earlier this year, so the subject is fresh. I hope that explains why he kind of lost it, and I hope that he will chill now, because it's clear that you weren't around during it and didn't realize what the context was. But can we please let this go? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lisa for the history rundown. I think if others will let it drop I am willing to do so. I do think that the method I proposed, if followed, would have lead to a more stable decision on the article title, based on sources rather than editor compromises. Compromises are always unstable. Sound arguments on sources are much more stable, and can be argued in mediation much more easily. So yes, if no one else continues to object I'll let it drop, but just so you won't have to go through it again, you might want to formulate this argument with full statistics (I mean the argument that "narrative" is used more by WP:RS). Then next time you can trot it out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that was done before. It's somewhere in the volumes of archived discussions here. I'd hate to have to rummage through that, but you may be right that it'd be useful. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure it would be, it could have prevented all this. If you want my advice, dig it up and copy it to a userpage (; BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current title is not based on editor compromise its based on common usage in reliable sources. I'm getting seriously sick of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Many good faith attempts have been made to explain this to you and others over the past couple of days. There are 10 times as many sources using "genesis creation story" than there are "genesis creation myth". I've told you they are reliable sources and asked that if you do not believe me please go through them and show me which ones are unreliable. If you do not then there is no discussion to be had here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what you claim, since you say that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS. Such statistics haven't been done, so far as I know, on the actual sources for this article. And you are right, that if people more expert on the subject than I am do not wish to pursue this, then there is no discussion to be had. I came here to pose that question, you have answered it for your part. As long as no one contradicts you, then you've got it (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Argument

I'd like to clear up the NPOV argument against the current title because it seems contradictory on its face. Two arguments are made by the same crowd and they are as follows

1. "Myth" is a standard academic term that does not bare the popular meaning of "false" and therefore is not a violation of NPOV when it is used in reference to a "sacred story". Yet ...
2. This article title is a violation of NPOV because other belief systems have stories that are labelled myth when this one is not.

How could number 2 be even remotely possible as long as there is nothing negative about the term myth? This is a complete contradiction. Either there is something inferior about "myth" or there is no neutrality issue between different Wikipedia articles because the use or non-use of the term.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question is that, while calling other creation stories "myths" is not a violation of NPOV because there is nothing negative about the term myth in scholarly circles, calling this article something else is a violation of NPOV because it singles it out for special treatment relative to popular culture. Relative to the popular culture concept that "myth" means "less true," this article is singled out. It is also less than scholarly, since myth is the academic term. Thus, the violation of NPOV is in singling out this article to seem more "true" relative to other creation myths in the eyes of the non-academic world (by not calling it myth). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Genesis creation myth", is not the academic term and it wont be otherwise just because you constantly repeat yourself. I'm sorry but this is, once again, a prima facia contradiction. You cannot claim academic usage as it suits you and popular usage as it suits you as well. You cannot have it both ways. If you are making an argument based on neutrality you have to start from either premise or the other: 1) Myth has a negative connotation or 2) "myth" does not have a negative connotation. You cannot claim that it does not and then base an argument on the idea that it does. Your above response is completely nonsensical. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not "myth" is the academic term in the WP:RS, I leave to other editors for confirmation or denial.

I in fact do claim both: myth does and does not have a negative connotation, depending on whether you are taking the perspective of scholarly or popular culture. For the purposes of Wikipedia, if "myth" is the scholarly term, it does not matter if it has negative connotations in popular culture. And if "myth" is the academic term, renaming this article to "narrative" to avoid popular negative connotations is against NPOV. These arguments are well established, but I do see some merit in clearly restating them here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... actually, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it does matter if it has negative connotations. It matters if it's not in common use. Did you take a look at WP:UCN? Wikipedia does strive for clarity, and does not attempt to use technically correct terms when they will so clearly be misunderstood by most readers. Since the creation story in Genesis does not need to be called a myth, even by those who consider it to fall into that category, and since it will be seen as pejorative by most readers, there's no reason to use it, and ample reason not to.

In terms of comparing this to other articles, there's precedent for breaking from a template when cause exists. For example, recently, someone decided unilaterally to change "Category:Fooian Jews" to "Category:Jews of Fooian descent" based on the same argument you're making. I think there were 24 separate categories that were affected ([18]). The change was overturned, despite the fact that there are categories such as "Category:American actors of Armenian descent" and "Category:American actors of Russian descent". I think it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Wikipedia doesn't need to be obsessive-compulsive when it gets in the way of being a useful tool for the average reader. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading the naming conventions. They say "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article...Common usage in reliable sources" which was the basis for my whole argument that we should go with whatever the RS of the article used most. It's a matter of RS, not of popularity. If you look at their examples I think they are all what RS would call the subjects. It goes on "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words...True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." Myth is not neutral in common usage, but if the RS were to favor it then we would use it. You're talking about WP being useful for readers, but if a reader is reader is redirected from their original search to something more scholarly, that is in itself useful. Anyway, unless anyone else has objections I see no reason to pursue it further. I simply wanted to make this argument for how we decide the thing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current title was not chosen because of WP:NPOV -- it was not chosen because of the popular usage of the term myth. It was chosen because of WP:NAME. Per WP:UCN, "Genesis creation story" would be preferable but "narrative" is a synonym of story. Any argument that claims that we ought to determine the title of this page based on the popular usage of the term "myth" is on its face inapplicable. The current use of that rationale isn't just inapplicable but its completely contradictory as I've already stated. If "myth" bares a negative popular usage and we are worried about this, then the argument to name this entry "myth" because there are a handful of others that also use the term is completely against the whole point of WP:NPOV. If you are worried about the negative use of "myth" you ought to be arguing for removing it from all entries, not for adding it to another entry. The WP:NPOV argument is completely and entirely nonsensical.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What Griswaldo said. Please, people. It is one thing to keep discussing a title issue for months on end, it is quite another to keep discussing it while consistently ignoring the actual rationale for the title and the WP:NAME guidelines. This isn't usenet, and we don't have discussins just for the hell of it. Try to either present an intelligent and coherent case aware of the issues involved or else leave it be. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I should just note here that, putting all misunderstandings such as the above aside, my original request for statistics showing that "narrative" is used most in the WP:RS for this article has not been met with actual statistics. It is claimed, if I recall right, that the sources in the Google Scholar search are RS, and that they use the term more. Lisa said such statistics exist, but they would be hard to find. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I live to serve:

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

Give me a moment and I'll add current numbers. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisa that's not what he's looking for. These numbers were already produced by me above. Be critical claims that numbers from google scholar are useless and demands some other form of "data".Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Google Books:

230 Genesis creation myth

254 Creation myth in Genesis

334 Genesis creation narrative

409 Creation according to Genesis

453 Creation story in Genesis

458 Creation narrative in Genesis

474 Biblical creation

479 Genesis creation account

497 Genesis creation story

497 Creation account in Genesis

Google Scholar:

87 Genesis creation myth

98 Creation myth in Genesis

130 Genesis creation narrative

137 Creation according to Genesis

198 Creation narrative in Genesis

405 Genesis creation account

508 Genesis creation story

695 Creation account in Genesis

1,080 Creation story in Genesis

2,950 Biblical creation

So if we're going by these statistics, "Genesis creation myth" comes up as the least common in both Google Books and Google Scholar. The words "account" and "story" are the most common modifiers, other than "Biblical", but "Biblical creation" would create a scope much wider than merely the first two chapters of Genesis.

Genesis creation narrative, admittedly, is in the middle of the pack. But like I said, it was a compromise. I don't personally have a problem with "story", but I know there are those who consider it to imply that it's "just a story". I don't personally have a problem with "account", but I know that there are those who consider it to imply that it's an account of something that actually happened. Narrative avoids both of those problems, because no one denies that it's a narrative.

I don't know what kind of stats he wants if these are indicative enough for him. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Google searches are like... an easy button. They're imprecise in that Google indexes darn near everything, even Google Scholar isn't very discerning of what kind of quality it indexes. We have quite a few references used on this page, what do they say? How many of them use myth or some other word? Do we even need a polarizing word like "story" "myth" "narrative" in the title, why not neutral like "Creation according to Genesis" or some other neutral title. My whole concern here was neutrality with the other myths, and the word narrative is not very neutral with how we title other myths in this category. Either they're blatantly labeled a myth or they're given a neutral title without a descriptive word. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Lisa and Griswaldo are right unless the sources which are actually RS for Wikipedia use something other than the Google searches. I don't know enough to make that determination. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raeky about Google searched, even Google scholar includes some of the most unreliable sources I've ever seen on some subjects. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Doug it takes no time to actually go to Google scholar and examine the first few hits to see where they are coming from. This is how we are meant to use Google Scholar in these types of discussions in the first place. I have looked, and the sources appear very legitimate in this case. Google scholar needs to be used with caution, but what is the alternative tool for figuring out common use in scholarship?Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm wondering about. I think the determination needs to be based on sources considered reliable for this article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If it would settle the debate, let's everyone start working through the list to find what these sources used call the story and get on with life. (I'm betting editors will continue to find a reason to change it to something else, but why not do it anyway? The arguments over google hits are getting stale.) Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been demonstrated over and over that there are a number of different terms used by large numbers of reliable sources. We aren't going to count noses here, because then we're going to start fighting about what counts as a reliable source, and it's going to be like lawyers trying to keep out jurors they think will be prejudicial to their case.

Fact is, narrative and story and myth and account all have pluses and minuses for different people. The most egregious, in my opinion, is myth, because it clearly has a common connotation of being fictional. I could just barely understand why anyone would consider "account" to be prejudicial, but to claim that "narrative" implies that it's true is pushing the good faith assumption close to a breaking point. Works of fiction contain narratives. There's absolutely nothing, anywhere, that even suggests that a narrative is a true account of anything.

If you want to change it to Creation in the Book of Genesis, go ahead and propose it. Creation in Genesis was one of the suggestions that'd been made during the last round of this ridiculous fight, but feel free. Genesis creation narrative is 100% neutral, but then, so is Creation in the Book of Genesis, and so is Creation in Genesis. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The statement "The most egregious, in my opinion, is myth" is an illustration of bias here, This is clearly a mythology, it's in the category creation myth, it uses the word myth heavily. It's unquestionable that in the academic community it's treated as a mythology. Your opinion in changing it to "Genesis Creation Mythology" ? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, if it's reliable enough that no one objected to having it in the article as a source for fact statements on the general understanding of the subject, I think it would count. And personally I'm not concerned with neutral, I'm concerned with WP naming conventions, which are about RS, not neutrality. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Raeky it is not "treated as a mythology" throughout "the academic community". It is treated as mythology in academic contexts within which it makes sense to treat it as mythology. The story maybe contains two myths, but in some contexts it makes absolutely no sense to discuss them as myths. I'm sick and tired of repeating myself on this. The academic contexts which involve this story are much broader than comparative mythology. Please try to understand this. We might be able to discount Christian theology itself but we cannot discount secular historical and social scientific scholarship about Christians (and Jews) and their belief systems. The latter forms of scholarship rarely have use for the category "myth" because it does not help explain why and how these religious practitioners are engaging the Genesis story. None of these scholars are going to deny that this narrative contains two myths yet that does not mean that they will call it the "Genesis creation myth". Instead they opt for a more general moniker like "Genesis creation story" -- remember that all myths are stories after all. In doing so there is no denial of "myth" (that's only done by religious polemicists). Our current entry is exactly in line with this reality. We do not use the term creation myth in the title but we make no bones about discussing the ancient story as a myth.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way this would not be taught as a myth is if your teaching it from a faith based point of view where you assume it's true or based on truths. That is NOT a neutral point of view. Any respectable university is going to teach this as MYTH along the same lines as all the other myths in this category. There is no reliable sources that will backup the assertion that this is true and not fairy tail, so it's treated as a myth academically. Show me where it's not? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Academically a "myth" is not something that is "untrue and a fairy tale". You seem to think that scholars and teachers take a position about the truth value of the story when they research or teach about it. Why would they? Myths are not interesting to scholars and teachers because they are "untrue" but because of how they are structured, how they may function psychologically and sociologically, how they compare to other similar stories cross-culturally, etc. etc. Once again, I think we all understand rather clearly that within a belief system this story might be taught as "true" but within scholarship the truth value is irrelevant, and that's what you seem to fail to understand almost entirely. What makes it of interest to invoke the "myth" category in one academic setting and not another has nothing to do with truth value, and everything to do what "myth" as a category implies about the story and those who are engaging it. Once again, in some contexts that category is informative and in others it is not.Griswaldo (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. Key aspect of a myth is a supernatural element, and academically I doubt you'll find any reputable universities supporting supernaturalism as anything but false. Belief in a mythology or supernaturalism is accompanied by faith, which is outside the realm of academics. The reason the word myth is used heavily throughout this article is because it is, a myth. There is a huge biased push to keep that out of the title, I suspect one reason is how it's linked on other articles, really doesn't look good to link to the creation myth on a Christian article, but to the creation narrative, thats acceptable right, even though it's a myth? I don't see you disagreeing that this is a myth and part of a mythology? So why would labeling it as such in the article title be a bad thing? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT -- for the last time I support the current tile (but would prefer "Genesis creation story") because of WP:UCN. Raeky there are clearly religious editors here who do not want "creation myth" in the title for reasons of their own faith, but our determination should have nothing to do with this, and indeed it doesn't. These same editors want "myth" removed from the entry content, and has that happened? NO it hasn't. Why not do you think? Have you stopped to think for one second how someone could both support the current title while supporting the use of "myth" in the entry? The appropriate application of policy in both instances is why.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Lisa, if some editors claim that the terminology used by the sources used are more reliable than google hit counts, I think it's better to go see what they say than simply guess about it. But I'm guessing that with so many editors so extremely sensitive even about straightforward words like "story", "account" and "narrative", that whatever the results are will be again challenged as "implying" something and be challenged as not NPOV. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but looking at the sources is a really good start to stability. this one supports "myth", I think. It's the first one I tried. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How does that one support "myth"? It appears to support "account".Griswaldo (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that has more hits, thx BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Creation myth", "creation myths", "Genesis myth", "Genesis myths" - "No results found". "Creation account", "creation accounts", "Genesis account", or "Genesis accounts" - on 21 pages. As I have time, I'll be making notes of the sources I can check out on my user subpage. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We might want to agree on a standard series of search terms to use to standardize the searches? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming we're going for a "common name" here, we want to focus on what it is called apart from how it is categorized, defined, or described. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Right... if I understand you correctly. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In my first efforts here I've tried some different tricks to determine what the authors might be calling it when it's first introduced, but it isn't always delivering what we're after because some of the texts assume the reader doesn't need to be introduced. So in some cases I've had to search simply "creation" or "genesis" and see what turns up. For obvious reasons, many of these authors' terminologies won't be useful here--for example some simply call it "Genesis 1 and 2". Anybody is welcome to edit my user subpage to help record what these sources say on it. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Myth

What's all this clarification of what is meant by "myth"? A myth is a myth...it's not literally true, and story, symbolic, allegorical. It strikes me as being pretty obvious what is meant by "myth" in relation to this article. The Eskimo 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. Apparently no so obvious to some. I will hence-forth read prior discussions before posting embarrasing questions. The Eskimo 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good question, the embarrassment is all the focus on it BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this was good, because it's indicative of how most people reading Wikipedia are going to read the word. Having it in the body of the article, where it can be explained that it's only being used as a technical term, is okay. Having it in the title, where it clearly gives the wrong impression, is not. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this fracas without involving myself, but I think a fresh voice might help, whether you agree with my points or not. I've been sifting through the arguments and drama, and as someone in college myself (going into senior year as a history major, focusing on Asian history), I hear the term myth far more frequently in casual academic conversing. Besides being less verbose and having fewer syllables than the alternatives (which itself is an argument for it, as titles should be as compact as possible), it's also not separating Christianity from other religions here. Unless there's a dicussion to move every single aforementioned article to something like Chinese creation narrative (which isn't even a redirect, don't know what you make of that), the title in and of itself violates WP:UNDUE in relation to our other articles. It's obvious promotion of Christianity, because the old and current arguments for Genesis creation narrative consisted largely of 1. IDONTLIKEIT arguments against myth, and 2. the argument that "It's a religion, so it shouldn't be dismissed as a myth, which has a pejorative meaning in everyday speech", which is far more toxic than 1. If I wanted to test the limits of WP:POINT, I'd go over to Chinese creation myth and propose it be moved like this page, and see what kind of response I got. Probably very few positive repsonses, because relatively few people here on English Wikipedia are attached to the subject matter. As someone who lives in the United States, I can attest to the hysteria that accompanies every instance where Christians are forced to recognize that they, too, are subject to the 1st Amendment, and cannot force themselves on people, just like other religions (a la Pastafarianism). That's not quite what's happening here (I'm most certainly not implying people are "forcing themselves" on anyone here), but the basic argument I'm making is the same- people are attached to this subject, and are arguing for different treatment because someone around them (who would share the same viewpoint) wouldn't understand. In fact, only 1/6 to 1/5 of the world's population practices Christianity, and the world's majority, which isn't attached to it, would use academic terms. I'm not sure why no one's brought this up, but Google Scholars in English, and English language sources in general, would be inherently biased, because most English-speaking countries have a Christian majority, and those that don't (Liberia comes to mind- 40% animist, 40% Christian, and 20% Muslim) tend to have very limited Internet access and less literature. I don't really care what pejorative meaning it might have to someone less literate than myself, that's their problem if they don't understand, and they can use a dictionary if they're confused. And yes, I would be making the exact same type of argument if this article was named something like Genesis creation fallacy, because that's the exact same undue issue- it conflates the Genesis creation myth into something that's undue weight (or lack thereof) in proportion to other articles dealing with creation myths. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I promise all future comments will be much shorter, but as someone who just came to this conversation, I had to deal with several days of conversation in one post. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Christianity"? I'm not a Christian. And this business of insisting on a rigidly consistent naming pattern, regardless of common use, is bordering on OCD. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blade, to echo Lisa's response consider that this creation myth was around for hundreds of years before Jesus every existed. Why do call it Christian? It is very telling when someone does consider this a "Christian" myth because it invokes a particular culture wars discourse ... one that very unfortunately blinds people to the realities of WP:UCN. Your argument is not new, in fact it is repeated over and over again by the same people who apparently continue not to hear the bona fide rationale for the current title -- you very clearly did not mention this rationale yourself in your response. The title is based on WP:NAME and NOT WP:NPOV or aspects of this policy like WP:DUE. WP:NAME is the relevant policy for naming Wikipedia entries, and it suggests we use common names. I've tried explaining, to no avail it seems, some of the reasons why this particular story is most often not referred to as a myth when it is named in scholarship, despite the fact that those who might more readily call it something like "Genesis creation story" would still tell you that the story does indeed contain two myths. There is no contradiction here. A dog breeder will tell you that a beagle is a hound despite the fact that unlike its relatives the redbone coonhound or the foxhound it does not bare the term in its name. Please also consider that only five other entries about specific sets of creation myths have the term in their names. If you can find a better common name for those entries then by all means please change them. For instance Norse creation myth redirects to Völuspá and Babylonian creation myth redirects to Enûma Eliš. I believe you have posted in all good faith but I beseech of you if you are going to enter this debate and claim to have read through the prior discussions that you show some evidence of this in your own arguments. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Let me start by saying I'm not accusing anyone here of "forcing themselves on anyone". What I meant by that is, as a resident of the United States, I'm used to hearing Christians insisting on demands that their religion be treated better than everyone elses (read the backstory behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's unfortunately not an isolated event). Anyways, what you have with Norse and Babylonian creation myth is a common Old Norse and Babylonian name, and I'd indeed be happy if we could use the common Arimaic or Hebrew name or something like that here. That's not a joke, calling it by its original name in the original languages it used would be a good idea. If we don't go that route, then we have other options. I get what you're saying with WP:NAME; my issue, upon further reflection, is not with keeping everything the same name, or special treatment. It's more that myth is the more historical term, and that's generally what shows up in texts before the late 19th century. 20th century American Christianity/Judaism is very different from what Judeo-Christianity historically was/still is in certain places, and should not be given undue weight. It's tough, because American Christians and Jews are very vocal, but they really represent a (large) minority among even modern Christians and Jews. I understand that myth has taken on a new meaning in recent years, but I can think of innumerable examples of words that have different meanings, but are still used today in their original meanings to describe certain things (a bachelor's degree comes to mind; not the best example, but you know where I'm going). But honestly, the title where it's at isn't horrible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it מעשה בראשית, while accurate, would share in the problems that myth has. Which is that it isn't useful for the average reader. Wikipedia is supposed to be usable by non-scholars.

Myth is not the more historical term. And words mean what they mean, not what they meant once upon a time. In the King James version of the Bible, "Thou shalt not kill" meant "do not murder". But words change over time. Both connotively and denotively. You know very well that the word "myth", right now, in July 2010, outside of academia, means "made up story". Check any dictionary you like. Go around to people you know and ask them, context free, how they'd define the word "myth".

Unfortunately, I think you've displayed a little chip on your shoulder when it comes to Jews and Christians and their beliefs. Which is a shame. You're reaching and reaching to find a way to call the biblical creation story a myth, and I think you're quite aware of the connotation that will carry. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's true I do have a strong distaste for both religion and atheism (strong agnosticism doesn't cater to either), I am trying to be pragmatic. I can see this as something where two reasonable people can disagree, and indeed have. I'm trying not to let my personal views, which are quite abrasive, seep into this, although in hindsight writing anything before I had any coffee this morning was probably a bad idea (you have no idea; I'm a zombie in the morning, and I'm still recovering from a Rush concert on the 19th). Now that it's early afternoon, I'm in a better frame of mind. I'm not sure why you'd think narrative doesn't have the same connotations- I remember writing narratives when I was a kid in school, which meant we had to create our own fictional story. If it's a choice between narrative, which (as far as I know) is commonly used as a euphemism for fiction, or myth, which is often used the same way, but has a more standard academic definition for classification purposes, then I personally would go with myth- I think of straight fiction when I hear the word narrative, religious stories when I hear myth. I've always viewed all religions as such, so I've always (even when I was a Catholic) thought of Genesis as a myth. It could just be that I'm weird (which is entirely possible, I've proven that on many fronts),but most of the people I speak to at college seem to think the same way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Myth is definitely not the historical term for Christians. For centuries, to Christians, "myth" was precisely something other than the stories of the bible. Some religious polemicists still try to define myth in this way today in fact.Griswaldo (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And on Wikipedia, we don't simply let organizations define themselves; that's akin to saying we should definitively say that Fox contains "fair and balanced news" because they say so (I'm one of the only college students in the country who voted for John McCain, mind you), or saying that Jimmy Jones was a true messiah because he led however many hundreds of people to "heaven" in the forests of Guyana. We take what they call themselves into account, but there are other views as well, and they need to be reflected. Just because past Christians didn't refer to their religion as a myth doesn't mean that their definition is correct. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I never said anything remotely like that. You claimed that the traditional word for this story was "myth" and I pointed out that it wasn't for centuries and also made it clear that this was for polemical reasons. Thankfully, today, we don't consider these polemics legitimate when discussing the genre of these stories. Also, no one refers to a "religion as a myth". Myth and religion are quite separate things. You mean Christians don't refer to stories from their religious cannon as myths? They didn't, but now many do in fact. However, none of that changes the very basic fact that scholars do not call this story "Genesis creation myth". Please understand that WP:NAME is about what something is named and not how it is categorized -- see again Beagle vs. Bloodhound and the category hound. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that you say that, I was taking your comment out of context- I know it sounds like a cop-out, but I just reread it, and now I know what you're saying. Greek mythology refers to the religion, so that's not quite true about religions not being myths. If you want to talk contemporary religions, the word for Shinto stories in Japanese basically translates as lore, which in Japanese is synonymous with myth (I know a little Japanese, and I understand their culture is decidedly different). However, you're correct on other things. In fact, I always did refer to my religion (when I was religious) as a myth, and other Roman Catholics I know still do, but I can also accept that I'm something of an oddball. Again, though, what problem does the word narrative solve; maybe this is just my oddness (and feel free to point it out, I don't get offended), but I view narrative as being just pure fiction, and myth as being a definition for religious stories. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in The Blade of the Northern Lights. As Griswaldo says "none of that changes the very basic fact that scholars do not call this story "Genesis creation myth"." That is the basic fact here (and I do believe it is fact). Go read WP:NAME, and you'll see it's all about WP:RS. People on Wikipedia are perpetually too willing to get into arguments and not focus on what is really necessary for resolution. We have a clear guide here as to what to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights, if you're really so interested maybe you have the time to go through the RS sources and prove what term is used most. See Prof. M's [19] page here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Be careful who you give snark to, thank you. Anyways, your complaint aside, no one has answered this question- how is narrative any less implicit than myth? Narrative strongly implies fiction; myth implies religious stories. And as an aside, just because a reliable source says something doesn't mean that they 1. don't have a COI and 2. are right. It doesn't give you free license to force a POV title in. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, just a general complaint. Make of it what you will. And next time, could you try to avoid being a dick? I'm new to this particular conversation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a RS, it doesn't have problems such as you describe for the text it's being used to source. And yes, according to WP:NAME, RS usage does give Wikipedia the right to use a POV title. And while I do not know what you mean by being a dick, as I have been unfailingly polite here, you have my apology if in fact I was a dick unintentionally. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, sometimes text doesn't reveal people's true intentions. I may have just misread something (I've got PDD-NOS, so it's already very hard for me to read people). But NPOV is a core policy, so if we don't go by that then there has to be very strong consensus. And 68% isn't strong consensus, especially given how many IDONTLIKEIT votes there were (not saying there weren't any reasoned ones, just that there were a lot with major logical flaws). Not only that, reliable sources sometimes misrepresent things; look at the 1986 Hvalur sinkings, which were falsely labeled "terrorism". Don't bring that discussion here, it's just a demonstration that sometimes reliable sources with COIs can, knowingly or otherwise, misrepresent something (in that case, it was very deliberate; here much less so). Don't worry; one thing I've learned is not to hold grudges over the Internet- even though we may disagree here, there'll probably be some other issue where I'm with you 100%The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I have some autistic tendencies too. I think what happened is that I was basically disagreeing with you, but I tried to put something welcoming first, kind of to take the sting out of a first contact. But it backfired because it seemed sarcastic. WP:NAME specifically says that a title may be POV: "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words." That's what I'm going by. I acknowledge that RS may have bias, but I also think that Wikipedia policy specifically says that WP doesn't correct such bias, and may reflect it. My own POV here is to call it myth. I just don't think that's what WP policy says we should do, unless that's what the RS do. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias

If "myth" is to be deprecated in favour of "narrative", we should avoid WP:BIAS against Babylonian and gentile narratives, and so on. I modified the article accordingly. Consistency is appropriate. Since this was reverted, rather than edit war I've changed back just the most blatant example of bias in the lead. . dave souza, talk 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave you should have come to the talk page first. Clearly this is a lot of discussion here about related issues. The edit you made was very pointy. I've reverted the lead to how it was for a while ... not sure who changed it recently but it very clearly identified this narrative as one of many Mesopotamian myths.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very telling, almost all those changes from myth to narrative (only one not is "gentile creation myth") was in references to other religions myths. Seems strange why those are clearly labeled myths in this article when much of the article wiped away the references to the Genesis myth being a myth. Definitely looks a little like WP:BIAS. It's really getting taxing. It's probably time we take this up a level and either go to unofficial mediation or directly to official mediation for the title and how we treat this article compared to the other creation articles. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on. If you think there is a problem suggest a way to fix it. Dave's edit was very pointy given everything here. Part of the problem was that someone altered the lead. The lead had, and now again does, explicitly state that this is one of many Mesopotamian myths. Does the rest of the entry call it a narrative only? Lets look and discuss, but enough with the politics already.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically you are going to argue against WP:NAME, saying that in spite of what the RS call it, we should call it something different to make it NPOV? Or are you disputing the argument that the RS generally don't call it a myth? Just want to have things clear from the beginning here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm arguing against basing just what we can find sources to call it, those are afterall mostly Christan and English sources, globally is it called story, narrative or account more then myth? Can you make that assertion that it is or isn't? NPOV and BIAS states we shouldn't and it should be treated on equal ground with other myths. By having a descriptive word in the title, and narrative in this use is descriptive, it's putting BAIS on the article. Also, yes, the word narrative is used throughout the article. And I think this needs to go to mediation at this point since there is obviously nothing being accomplished here. — raekyT 18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources generally do not call it "Genesis creation myth" but the two myths discussed are still categorized in that fashion. Talking about the "creation story" in the text would follow common usage most predominantly, but I agree with Dave that the content of the entry might be a bit skewed in how it presents the matter. I'm starting an actual content discussion below.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Raeky, please see Prof. M's content analysis of this. You should help the effort, but so far it does indeed seem that story and narrative are more common than myth in the sources we use in the entry ... "account" is the most common.Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So Raeky you are saying that we need to do a GLOBAL analysis of reliable sources, sources which would be RS for this article, and can only make a determination based on that? Or, again, are you saying that even if the RS say "narrative" we should use myth for NPOV relative to other articles/myths? I think answering these questions is in fact accomplishing a great deal. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think, as I've always stated since my first post on this, is that this article be treated no differently then the other myths. As for WP:BIAS it does state we should try to treat articles more with a global approach. So yes, how it's treated in other languages and globally is important. But regardless, WP:NPOV would mean we would want to be neutral to other creation beliefs, not give any one specific myth more creditability. WP:NAME assumes a vacuum, and doesn't take into account groupings of articles, or related pages like this, so it's not the end-all-be-all policy that we must follow. — raekyT 19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAME - "This page describes Wikipedia's policy on choosing article titles." No policy functions in a vacuum but this is the policy we need to follow. Policies are also written with other policies in mind.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It also states, "Where articles have descriptive titles, choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject." — raekyT 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you really mean then that we should change the five other entries with "creation myth" in the title, since narrative is much more non-judgmental than "myth" given its lack of specificity? How could you be passing judgment on a subject that is most often referred to as "story, account and narrative" by choosing one of those more general terms instead of "myth"? Makes no sense.Griswaldo (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, are you saying we should change the other titles to something that sounds non-judgmental? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's what he's trying to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between changing this title to myth and the others to something other than myth. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time I took a few university classes on mythology, ancient near eastern religions, and folkloristics. I think wikipedian's are stressing the terminology more than academics are. It was perfectly acceptible then to call the Babylonian creation myth the Enuma Elish or the Genesis creation myth the Genesis creation story or the Biblical creation account. I think there's been a tendency to assume more significance to "myth" in naming convention above and beyond the practice among those actually studying and writing about them. Flipping randomly through a text I have that's all about creation myths, here's a survey of titles used to refer to them individually (they're grouped in chapters by geography first, then sub-headed in various ways, such as by particular ethnic or religious sects). I've linked what I found to be the closest fit to an article here.

• "Rig-Veda X, cxxi: Prajapati (The Golden Embryo)" - Hiranyagarbha
• "The Enuma Elish" - Enuma Elish
• "First Creator and Lone Man" - Mandan#Religion (no redirect Mandan creation myth)
• "The Koran, Sura XLI-The Made Plain" - Fussilat (empty stub) with content here Creation myth#Islam (no redirect Islamic creation myth or Koran creation myth)
• "Genesis 1-2:3" - Genesis creation narrative
• "The Huai-Nan Tzu: The Creation of the Universe" - Huainanzi
• "The Myth of Io" - Io Matua Kore
• "The Creation of Man" - Blackfoot#Blackfoot creation myth (no redirect for Blackfoot creation myth)
• "From Berossus' Account of the Babylonian Genesis" - Berossus#Sources and content and Berossus#The achievements of History of Babylonia
• "The Kumulipo (A Creation Chant) - Kumulipo
• "Hesiod: From the Theogony" - Theogony#Creation of the world-mythical cosmogonies

I don't think the mythologists are showing "bias" - they probably just aren't as hung up on uniformity as wikipedians. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. I made a couple of redirects (; BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a big mistake to think that the Genesis creation article is some odd outlier and that other creation myths are treated more or less uniformly. Not a bit. The fact that many objecting to he use of the term "myth" have personal biases (this goes for many of the "myth" supporters as well, btw) is just distracting. There is a creation myth in Genesis, but there's a creation myth in the Theogony. But we don't refer to Hesiod's as the Theogony creation myth--it feels weird saying it. Few would look it up that way. Editors offer Chinese creation myth, but notice it's an article contrasting one Chinese creation myth (Pangu) with another (from the Tao Te Ching). So what about Greek creation myth? In that case we have to look for them in Pelasgian creation myth, Theogony and Nyx#Other Greek texts. I don't see any uniformity. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I don't consider my edit to have been pointy, if the article bowdlerises its description of Genesis, it should treat other religious creation beliefs in the same way. The article as it stood very obviously treated one religious belief as "narrative" and other similar beliefs as "myth", suggesting that WP was favouring one religion over others. However, Griswaldo restored phrasing making it clear that "The Genesis creation narrative.... is one of several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths". That looks reasonable to me, and reduces the problem in general. As it happens, I think "myth" implies something deeper and more religious than "narrative", but the common misuse and misunderstanding of "myth" is a factor that can reasonably be taken into consideration. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Content discussion

This section might be problematic:

• The fourth view is the traditional (i.e., ex nihilo) view and remains the most common in modern English Bible translations. According to this view, the prologue forms the basis for all subsequent creation. Chaos then is not the precursor of creation, as in Babylonian myths, but the result. Therefore the Genesis creation narrative does not merely repeat or demythologize oriental creation myths, but it appears to purposefully set out from the beginning to repudiate them.

I understand that this is a description of a view and not presented as "fact" but do most modern English Bible translations really present the passages in a way that they "demythologize oriental creation myths"? I have a hard time believing this. Perhaps in the polemical sense of "myth" as polytheistic. Any thoughts on this?Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a cite check on this? It's not an uncommon analysis of Genesis to consider it a "demythologizing" of earlier Mesopotamian creation myths, although I have no idea what it could mean in terms of English translation. I don't recall reading or hearing that the ex nihilo v. primordial chaos was one of those allegedly "demythologizing" features, but ex nihilo v. primordial chaos is intertwined with debates over translation. The common English phrase

"In the beginning" comma "God created the heaven and the earth" period. "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep"

many would translate instead as

"When God began to create heaven and earth" comma "the earth being unformed and void with darkness over the surface of the deep"

The former implies a "nothing" before "God created". The latter does not, it's an ordering of the primordial chaos into earth and heaven rather than a conjuring forth together of earth, heaven and unformed chaos. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are getting a little twisted at the intro

"The Genesis creation narrative, is the creation myth found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis and describes a supernatural beginning of the earth and life, culminating in the creation of humanity in the image of God and is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity" Can we agree on this as the first sentence or split it into the first two sentences? Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The older, and in my view better, sentence which has again been restored, is "The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, is one of several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook." . dave souza, talk 22:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes much better. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence should contain the most basic and essential facts. "is one of several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook."

Seemed strange to me becuase it has almost nothing to do with the rest of the article. What are the most important facts? 1 what is the litetary Genre?

Creation myth

2. What is it about?

describes a supernatural beginning of the earth and life, culminating in the creation of humanity in the image of God

3. why is it do we have an artilce on it? it is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity"

Seem to be the most basic facts~ whether or not it is smilar to the mesopotamian creation myth is a minor point in comparison to those three points. Weaponbb7 (talk)

It seems to me that relating it to other myths in that way gives essential context. Putting it in front like that seems reasonable in that light. And that is mentioned in the rest of the article. That there isn't a huge amount of space dedicated to it doesn't seem to mean it's not an essential part of the context. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer that it be described more fully first of all - before it is compared with other creation 'myths'. ^rossnixon 02:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not, as a matter of fact, a "Mesopotamian creation myth". There is no scholarly consensus that it is Mesopotamian in origin. It shares elements with creation myths from many cultures. It's legitimate to say that it is similar to several Mesopotamian creation myths, but not that is is one.

I'm on record as agreeing that the Genesis creation story can be described with the word myth in the body of the article, where it can be clarified that it is a myth in the technical sense of a story with supernatural elements. But this goes beyond that. There is no "essential context" in relating it to Mesopotamian creation myths. It is first and foremost -- according to everyone -- a depiction of the creation of the world by God. No one debates that. There are no positions on that one way or another. It is the very definition of what the Genesis account is. There are views that it is one of a number of creation myths, and there are views that it is not. Within the view that it's one of a number of creation myths, there's a view that it's a Mesopotamian creation myth, and there's a view that it simply includes elements in common with Mesopotamian creation myths.

There are people who are trying to push an agenda here to give the impression that there is unanimity of scholarly opinion on the nature of the Genesis narrative, and that's simply not true. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And that POV is or was obviously part of the current article. I think it said that Genesis was "one of several Mesopotamian creation myths." How POV is the current article do you think? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel isn't in Mesopotamia. PiCo (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A sound point, though not sure if the Jews were in Israel at the relevant time – weren't they rather nomadic? More to the point, it seems sound to use creation narrative in the lead, and explain creation myth in the body text. That applies to Mesopotamian creation narratives as well as to the Genesis version, and I've edited the lead accordingly. . dave souza, talk 08:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the obfuscating "creation narrative" title pipe. The lead should mention the standard term creation myth, which WP uses to name the relevant category and all other articles. Keahapana (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely does not use "creation myth" to "name ... all other articles" in this category. I'm also not sure you've understood the intention behind Dave's edit. The current lead compares this myth to other creation myths, but since narrative is in the title it might be considered more consistent to refer to other creation myths, like those of ancient Mesopotamia, as "creation narratives" as well. As Prof. M has commented somewhere Wikipedians have been completely over-exaggerating the use of "myth" in the names and descriptions of all creation stories, and not just the biblical one. The fact is that to many academics it doesn't matter if these stories are labelled as "myth" and to some "myth" is downright less meaningful. Those non-academics who care about the label seem less interested in the academic category and much more interested in labeling stories they don't believe in with a term that has a popular connotation of "falsehood". At least Dave's edit attempts to apply consistency here. I have no problem with the term "myth" as a category for this story or any other mythical narrative, but people really need to do their homework a bit better concerning both academic usages and classifications as well as on-Wiki "consistency".Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct and I apologize for not being clearer. What I meant was Wikipedia titles generally using "creation myth" for worldwide contexts and specially using "creation narrative" for Biblical contexts, which was previously discussed in Archive 10. I wrongly assumed you were conversant with this page's ongoing debates. WP has 16 "creation myth" titles: one category, eight articles (Mesoamerican creation myths, etc.), six redirects (Māori creation myth, etc.), and one section (Universe#Creation myths; but it only has four "creation narrative" titles: this article, one redirect (Creation Narrative), and two sections (Women in the Bible#Creation narratives, Women in the Hebrew Bible#Creation narratives). Thanks for mentioning consistency, which I agree is essential for Wikipedia, and casts doubt upon irregular titular usages of "creation narrative". Since this article was previously entitled Genesis creation myth, I've added that synonym into the first sentence, following the WP:LS guideline. Thanks also for suggesting "people really need to do their homework". However, as a retired academic who's been reading the literature in this field for decades, am I correct in assuming that you didn't mean me? I regret my shorthand ambiguity and hope we can all agree to call a creation myth a "creation myth". Keahapana (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My whole entire point is that not everyone does agree that the narrative is a "myth". I'm not talking about only wikipedians or the general public, I'm talking about published, respected theologians who dispute that interpretation. To pretend that "we can all agree" it's a myth is to hide one's head in the sand from the big scary reality outside, which is the truth: Myth is only one interpretation regarding the genre, and proponents of this one interpretation want everyone else in the world to drop their own interpretations of it, and accept only theirs. Never gonna happen. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think that calling in a creation myth in the first sentence is the best way to solve this, as puts in prominently enough it helps balance any inferred POV. As it is a creation myth. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to call it anything at all in the first sentence.PiCo (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the most important facts?

1 what is the litetary Genre?

Creation myth

2. What is it about?

describes a supernatural beginning of the earth and life, culminating in the creation of humanity in the image of God

3. why is it do we have an artilce on it?

it is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity" Again we are idetifying litaray Genre of Creation Myth, I am not Argueing any such argument that "Genesis Creation Myth" be Re-put-in but some times we have to get off our high pediestals and work torwards a compromise beofore someone puts something worse in Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can some one Please indicate where the Consensus was to have the second title in the lead?

I can't find it but three different editors seem to indicate it here? Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you were first to speak of consensus to remove existing (as you mentioned in an edit summary), perhaps you should first be the one to indicate the location of consensus that you say exists.Farsight001 (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for it's existence in the lead.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to say I put it back because there was no explanation for its deletion. Lisa knows she should use edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a bold change that I hope is an improvement. Please have a look.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Griswaldo. Your change is an improvement, except that the referent for "it" is uncertain. Would including the phrase "Genesis creation myth" clarify? Keahapana (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisa is correct, this was a 'bold' edit by Griswaldo. I prefer the previous version which said "It is similar to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths" because is is more NPOV. ^rossnixon 03:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While Lisa may also believe there was no consensus for my edit, I'm pretty sure that when she responded she was responding to Dougweller, in order to explain why she deleted the second title. When she reverted my edit it was days later and she made no comments about it here. When one makes a "bold" change it is often without the specifics being discussed at all, so clearly there was no consensus for or against the edit when I made it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently there appears to be 2 editors for and 1 against the following version "It is similar to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths", so I have restored this. ^rossnixon 03:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Consensus isn't determined by voting. 2) The first half of this discussion is not about that edit. The only editors to comment on what you're referring to have been Keahapana (for), Griswalo (for), and you (against). 3) You're currently edit warring. Please stop. Jess_talk|_edits 04:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have reverted the edit, but Mann jess got to it first. I disagree with rossnixon's measurement and you can count me as opposed to his version on stylistic grounds. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have reverted it also. It's pretty clearly edit-warring by RossNixon and 3RR may as it doesn't have to be literally 3RR. It also verges on saying "these are creation myths but my similar belief is not", which breaches NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. The "these are creation myths but my similar belief is not" attitude is the reason why the title of this article was changed and why so many articles about ancient history of the Levant, Mesopotamia, and adjacent regions are fucked up and far far away from NPOV or even - nogod forbid - factual accuracy. Wikipedia is bowing to the religious editors anyways, so bitching about one more edit in that direction is not even funny anymore. If you were really interested in NPOV you would revert the title to "Genesis creation myth", because that's its subject, and because of all the other articles about creation myths. But the administrators around here fail as guards of accuracy and thus of public education.

E.g. why is the word "god" capitalized in this article? Why are pronouns referring to Jesus or YHWH capitalized in so many articles? Because of the the religious inclinations of Wikipedia as a whole. When it comes to subjects that are also in the scope of religion, Wikipedia has stopped being encyclopedic and neutral a long time ago. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@Cush I'm going to leave your comment in this time because this revision actually addresses something about the article, but this is very much bordering on a personal attack. Considering you have an extended history of warnings and blocks for that sort of behavior, I'd highly recommend keeping your tone at a more constructive level, and per guideline, focused on the article rather than the contributers. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, an article can only get as good as the contributors make it and the administrators let them make it. Unfortunately there is no place to complain about Wikipedia taking sides when it comes to subjects that are also within the scope of religion, namely Judaism and Christianity. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is "creation narrative" religiocentric?

The ongoing contention over "creation myth" and "creation narrative" made me wonder. Is the usage of "creation narrative" associated with religiocentrism or Eurocentrism? As a preliminary check, compare Google searches for the following phrases, arranged by frequency of "narrative" usage:

• "Genesis creation narrative/myth" 163,000/412,000
• "Biblical creation narrative/myth" 50,000/109,000
• "Christian creation narrative/myth" 11,100/114,000
• "Bible creation narrative/myth" 4,340/24,100
• "Shinto creation narrative/myth" 880/1,480
• "Jewish creation narrative/myth" 124/20,700
• "Islamic creation narrative/myth" 6/5,120
• "Hindu creation narrative/myth" 2/50,800
• "Buddhist creation narrative/myth" 1/6,110
• "Muslim creation narrative/myth" 1/2,380
• "Judaic creation narrative/myth" 0/246
• "Taoist creation narrative/myth" 0/78
• "Sikh creation narrative/myth" 0/46
• "Koran creation narrative/myth" 0/5

Besides religions and religious texts, similar usage inconsistencies are found for places.

• "European creation narrative/myth" 247,000/3,480
• "Japanese creation narrative/myth" 10/1,880
• "American creation narrative/myth" 4/113,000
• "Chinese creation narrative/myth" 1/253,000
• "Tibetan creation narrative/myth" 1/132
• "African creation narrative/myth" 0/223,000

These are quick data, and the apparent Christian "narrative" biases could be misleading. Please feel free to correct or counter them with ghits for "X creation narratives/myths/story/stories", Google Scholar, Google Books, etc. Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to you are I to do our own research and make claims about the biases that exist in academic communities. If there are good reliable sources covering controversies and biases then you should bring them forth, but this is simply your original research and your original conclusions based on that research.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No conclusions, just questions about whether using "creation narrative" is biased. Here's another. How frequently do authors use "creation narrative" for Christians but "creation myth" for non-Christians? I could be wrong, but thought WP:OR applies to articles, not talk pages. WP:GOOGLE's second example of research topics is, "Usage – Identifying how and where a term is commonly being used, and by whom." I'm surprised you would ignore these Google test results because on 15 July, you wrote, "Google scholar is far from perfect but it provides a rough idea of how common a certain term is in scholarly publications. Its always good to actually take a look at the results as well." Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"...culminating in the creation of humanity in the image of God." Actually, it culminates in Day 7, the sanctification of the Sabbath (otherwise why have seven days?) Just thought I'd mention it. As for the vexed question of myth vs. narrative, why not have a look at some leading biblical dictionaries etc? PiCo (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at Bible dictionaries, with the caveat that their lexicographers are commonly Christian clerics and theologians. Let's also look at more neutral sources like the Encyclopedia of Creation Myths. Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's really very interesting research, showing Eurocentrism if I'm correct. Very cool. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford's calls it a creation myth. It clearly advocates a particular kind of reading of it too, though. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If going by ghits alone, "Genesis creation story" is 631,000. "Story" instead of "narrative/myth" tends to generate the most results... WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything is "religiocentric" it is the term "creation myth", because any discussion of a myth necessarily is a discussion of religion. It's a term from religious studies. There is nothing wrong with being "religiocentric" in an article that is in fact about religion.

Can we now slowly consider going back to working on the actual article? Or do you think we need another year talking about the title? There is a bunch of content attached right under the title, too, you know.

What you are doing here is de facto original research into an alleged Eurocentric bias in scholarly literature (why "Eurocentric" when the text under discussion is actually from the Levant, in Asia, I don't know. "Judeocentric"? But of course in the world of political correctness, denouncing Eurocentric bias makes you a hero, while you have nothing to gain from denouncing "Judeocentrism" other than being labeled an antisemite). Publish a book about it, which we can then cite in our Eurocentrism article. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible by WRF Browning describes it as the Bible's creation myth but it is labeled simply "Creation". Claus Westerman's section about Genesis creation in Oxford's Guide to the Bible labels it "the narratives of creation" and describes it as two creation stories, one the creation of the world, the second the creation of people, each type having independent traditions in early religions throughout the world. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We can agree that "Eurocentric" doesn't accurately describe this apparent English usage bias between "creation narration" and "creation myth". I only mentioned it because "religiocentric" is rare. "Judeocentrism" wouldn't explain why "Jewish creation myth" is more commonly used than "Jewish creation narrative". Perhaps something like "Christian-centric" would be more accurate. "Christian-centrism" since Americocentrism redirects to American exceptionalism and Christocentric has a doctrinal meaning.

Of course, this WP:GOOGLE test is "de facto original research", which is common among talk pages. The present page and archives mention "Google" dozens of times. WP:NOR specifically prohibits original research in articles. Where does it mention talk pages?

If "creation myth" is the object of Religious Studies, does that make "religion" the object of Mythology? Creation myths often predate religions that adapted them. In China, texts recorded the Hundun and Pangu myths for centuries before religions were established.

The questions remain. Do "creation myth/narrative/story" usages reveal prejudices? Which term is more neutral? Applies to a specific religion? Generally applies to religions? Which is the most consistently used within WP and without? Keahapana (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Review WP:SOAPBOX as you are treading close Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed WP:SOAPBOX but didn't see any reference to questioning usage neutrality. Do you think discussing whether "Genesis creation narrative" denotes a POV is soapboxing? Keahapana (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

?? Of course it is religiocentric. Simply because creation is an entirely religious issue, and only religion(s) deal with creation. ≡ CUSH ≡ 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Keahapana's point is that Europeans (?) are happy to use the word "myth" for everyone else's creation stories, but insist on calling their own a "narrative." Oddly enough this only applies for the prefix "European" - "European creation narrative" is preferred over "European creation myth," vs Japanese, African etc "creation myth". But if you substitute a religion for a geographical term the bias disappears - "Genesis/Biblical/Christian" all go with "creation myth". PiCo (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No. My point is the apparent Christian "creation narrative" inconsistency in English usage, not European languages or religions. I only added geographic examples (like 247,000 "European creation narrative"s vs. 3,480 "European creation myth"s) to provide perspective for the religious ones (like 6,000 "Buddhist creation myth"s vs. one "Buddhist creation narrative"). Here's an example of this bias. "The kernel of truth in the Genesis creation narrative was that God had created the universe and human beings, but its account of how he had done so was an ancient Hebrew myth" (Arthur McCalla, The Creationist Debate: The Encounter Between the Bible and the Historical Mind, 2006:118) Keahapana (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, as I pointed out above (which probably got lost in my wall of text; my fault, I know), the English language would be inherently biased towards using a different term for Christianity versus other religions, especially given that, until very recently, almost all English speakers were Christians. I honestly think a lot of the inconsistencies Keahapana points out are just because the world is becoming a lot more diverse, and the English language is in a rather harsh transition period (it includes other terms as well; just look at the word chairman, it's been mangled into all manner of horrible things). This'll probably resolve itself rather painlessly in a generation or so, when people aren't so hypersensitive; however, we're talking about today, and I'd agree with Keahapana's point that the use of narrative is less consistent than myth. His examples are pretty poignant, and, if nothing else, I think myth has a more standard general definition in religious scholarship than narrative. Now, if someone can show me where narrative has a definition specifically fit for Christianity, I'd be more than willing to look over it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}} The article reads, "According to many critical scholars this account bears the marks of a carefully contrived literary creation...", and yet only references one (Gordon Wenham). It should say, "According to Gordon Wenham...",. 2tuntony (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean, 'according to Gordon Wenham, many critical scholars'? Because I see no reason not to think that Wenham's being cited as the source for the statement that 'many critical scholars' etc. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Wenham is not just any old scholar, but a widely respected one, it should perhaps be amended to remove all ascription: "The Genesis creation story bears the marks of a carefully constructed..." (Wenham is a fundamentalist, by the way).PiCo (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Request disabled for now while discussion continues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Attributing something to "many critical scholars" without further explication is against the spirit of WP:WEASEL. As PiCo says, Wenham is widely respected in this area, and we could probably safely omit the "According to many critical scholars" part of the statement altogether. If such a lack of in-line attribution were to prove widely controversial (and, this being a hotly contested article, it might) the best solution would be to provide a proper in-line attribution, such as: "Gordon Wenham says that this account bears [...]". To say something like "Gordon Wenham says that according to many critical scholars this account [...]" would be much less preferable: Apart from necessitating that he explicitly attributes it opaquely to "many critical scholars", even if he did – that's no reason to quote him. Just because we find reliable sources that are shadowy and vague doesn't mean that it's a good idea for Wikipedia's articles to be. Gabbe (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I attributed the quote to Wenham. I hope that this is acceptable. 2tuntony (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"The narratives" section

Is it encyclopedically sound to have so many text references in a an article without quoting the text, so that readers could check what the references refer to? Or does the article assume that everyone reads this with an open bible besides the monitor? ≡ CUSH ≡ 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Narrative? How about myth?

This may seem trivial here, but why do we call this article the Genesis creation narrative and instead of Genesis creation myth? What right do we have to call the Pangu creation myth a myth in the article but not this a myth? Wikipedia is neutral, and it should stay that way. --Czop10 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We do call this a creation myth, in the second sentence of the introduction no less. I'm unsure what you mean.Griswaldo (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He means the title Griswaldo, don't bite ;) Read the archives Czop, feel free to make your own opinion about the reason for the title, however, it seems unlikely to change in the near future. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first but he says "in the article" and compares it to Pangu which does not have myth in the title, so I then figured my initial thought must have been incorrect.Griswaldo (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Czop10 missed the last 10 months of encyclopedic decline in this article. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia Christianity and affiliated faiths get special treatment. Of course the story is a creation myth, but the title was changed because a small but loud and persistent group of religiously driven editors got everyone else to just give up in the end. ≡ CUSH ≡ 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhm no. The title was Creation according to Genesis for quite some time. A very small group of editors managed to get it changed somehow and the new title Genesis creation myth was controversial ever since it was created, which was very recently. After much debate Genesis creation narrative was settled on, and argued for by several non-religious editors I might add (myself included). I wont rehash all the arguments but Cush is not even remotely correct in how he has presented the situation.Griswaldo (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents here; speaking from a secular perspective, I was always a little wary about the word "myth", b/c while the "formal" sense of the word doesn't denote falsity, the far more recognized "informal" sense of the word does. Per WP:RNPOV, making any kind of statements indicating the truth of falsity of any particular religion is wrong. NickCT (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia almost all religions except the abrahamic religions have been called myth or mythology. Cf. Greek mythology, Inca mythology, many articles have been changed only recently. However, calling the tales of the Torah myth is absolutely acceptable, since they have no basis in reality and are therefore myth. The Torah does not even represent actual history, but a historization (or revised history) according to beliefs held in much later times.

"Genesis creation myth" had been the most accurate title so far, but that was swept away due to persistent pressure from religiously motivated editors. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read through everything, and honestly I would've preferred the old title, Creation according to Genesis. That leaves it open as to whether Genesis is "real" or not, not giving a POV either way. But I'm not restarting that whole thing again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the original title was innocuous enough, with no reason to change it. We don't have any other creation "narrative" titles, so this implies that all other such accounts are myths (as they are appropriately titled) while the Genesis account of creation, a narrative not myth (implying the "myths" are more mythical), stands alone über alles. I don't think so. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

All myths are narratives Peters. Any title that doesn't have myth in it explicitly implies as much or as little about the classification of the content. Narrative does not imply that it is not a myth, any more than "Pangu" does.Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are. But when we title articles inconsistently, and in this case, so pointedly that only Genesis is a "narrative", we send the wrong message. The problem is not the intrinsic meaning of the words, it is the insistence on inconsistency of choice in words. When is a creation myth not called a "myth"? When it's the Book of Genesis. Really, I don't see how you can draw another conclusion. If editors thought the words were completely interchangeable (as you profess—nor do I fundamentally disagree), they wouldn't have insisted on de-"myth"ing Genesis, now would they? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Peters we've been over this on the page several times already. There is no such consistency in the creation myth area across the wiki. See Category:Creation myths. There are currently more entries with "creation myth" than there were during previous discussions because of the recent work by Prof. M to spin them out of the Creation myth entry. We aren't suggesting to change other entries with common names that don't include "myth" into titles with "myth" in it. For what its worth I'd like to see this entry changed to Genesis creation story in line with WP:UCN but narrative is at least a synonym of story.Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Category:Creation myths has several listed as using the "Ancient civilization + Creation Myth" Scheme, these are usually reserved for Creation Myths that conventional title other than "that cultures creation myth" (E.g. Sumerian creation myth, Egyptian creation myth) and the like. Specicific a religious texts (E.G. Ayvu Rapyta, Aggañña Sutta Völuspá) such as Genesis are not ussually labled with Creation myth. The reason this includes narrative is because its the only word that since we are only covering one aspect of that book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

← If we're going to open this wound up again, are there better avenues to take than thrashing it out (yet again) here? For instance, making a change over at WP:RNPOV that makes this policy clearer on the point of myth (it seems pretty clear to me already; i.e. that we should use the formal "myth"). Or WP:UCN, or wherever. I can't face another prolonged battle of rhetoric with the creationists. --PLUMBAGO 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Plumbago. What remains to discuss is a much larger policy wide discussion about creation myths or mythology in general and naming conventions.Griswaldo (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Narrative" versus a preferred "myth" (per meaning with regard to religion) already appears to be covered in the intent of:

"Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."

at WP:RNPOV. Be that as it may, I'd agree that WP:RNPOV needs some beefing up regarding consistency in usage of terminology. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the current reliable and notable sources on the topic do not call it "Genesis creation myth" but conversely Genesis creation account and Genesis creation story. That's exactly why I argued for the present title, because of the majority of current reliable sources on the topic. It is a false assumption that they call this creation myth a "myth" when they name it. They hardly ever do Peters. We've also been over this several times on the talk page. Call it systemic bias if you want, but following the sources means following WP:UCN and what you quoted above from WP:RNPOV and that road does not lead to myth.Griswaldo (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet you forget that your alleged "majority of the current current reliable and notable sources" is not religiously/ideologically neutral. The question whether religiously motivated sources are reliable at all has not been answered around here to begin with. ≡ CUSH ≡ 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya'll are missing the point, We are not discussing WP:RNPOV but WP:Impliedbytitle as far as naming conventions go. Whether people like it or not the word myth implies as one one of its definitions falsity or Fairy tale on that thus myth is not used. This Article mentions its a creation myth in the second sentence (IMHO it should be part of the first) so RNPOV is satisfied. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "myth" brings up strong connotations in layman terms, and wikipedia is meant for laymen. However, I agree with the fact that narrative seems off. Just move it back to Creation according to Genesis or some other title which won't continuously bring this debate up. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You agree with the _FACT_ that narrative "seems" off?? Don't you mean, you agree with the OPINION? Please, let's be just a little more precise with our language. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Til calm down, I understand where he is coming from and in fact agree with him entirely. However considering the months long slow motion editwar we went through to get a neutral title I frankly dont feel like opening that can of worms again. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

cuts flow, original research, out of place, etc. Tons of reasons not to include

I'd like some explanation about this edit comment.

Of the "tons" of reasons, three were given, and the only one directly related to the rules is the middle one. It doesn't seem accurate, though.

The fact that elohim is plural is not only easily sourced, but no original research is needed. This fact has been noted by notable people, including Joseph Smith, who saw it as a sign of polytheism. To the best of my understanding, the scholarly consensus is that it's actually meant to be interpreted as an augmented singular, like behemoth.

All of this is entirely relevant to the topic of this article, so the subjective arguments about "flow" and "place" seem rather thin. What's actually going on here? What's your reasoning for cutting out this brief parenthetical remark? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would venture to guess (not being the reverting editor, I can't say for certain) that where it was put is simply not the appropriate place to mention an argument of that proportion. Yes, it's a simple set-aside comment, but I think the reverting editor was making the argument that the sentiment is not a simple set-aside sentiment. Or... I'm wrong. :) Padillah (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to guess. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed "gods". Elohim is used is various places, sometimes with plural verbs, sometimes with singular verb forms. In this instance (Genesis 1:1), the singular form of 'created' is used. See http://jesus-messiah.com/html/elohim.html ^rossnixon 02:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit summary, it was out of place and it cut the flow of the article. I don't know how, exactly, you need more explanation for that. And no, those are not rules, however we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, and they do tend to lean towards good prose. Since it was, frankly, really bad prose, I removed it. Such reverts are common on wikipedia.

As for original research - I do not understand your objection that "no original research is needed" and it lends me towards the belief that you do not understand what original research is defined as at wikipedia. Please read WP:OR if you don't understand. The fact that the addition was unsourced means that it was by definition, original research. If the statement has a source and is not common knowledge, then a source is needed. And no Joseph Smith. He does not qualify as a WP:RS except for his own opinion.Farsight001 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nor does the Jesus-Messiah.com site qualify as a reliable source. That an editor should use it worries me. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that everyone has their own view on this. Elohim is plural, the verb is singular. Some Christians say it's a reference to the Trinity. Others say it is plural meaning majesty. Yet others say that it indicates polytheism. [20] - the obvious solution is to present all the arguments. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps in the Elohim article if there is one. This is about the Genesis Creation Myth and not the word Elohim after all.Farsight001 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's an Elohim article, and I added a link to it. It doesn't break up the flow to define the term by saying "Elohim (literally, gods)". Nor does any objection to this explain why the word "indeterminate" was cut. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason for the deletion of "indeterminate". Please leave it in. However, the (Elohim, literally "gods") is confusing to the reader at best. What is the reason to keep in there? Our entry on Elohim makes it clear that when used with a singular verb the plural term is considered singular in fact. Is that incorrect? This would make "literally gods" a false statement. It isn't literally "gods" at all, it is literally a semitic word meaning "god" in a plural form. However, if that plural form did not mean "gods" in the sense that the English plural of "god" does, then it is not at all "literally" so. The larger point here is that if you read the entry on Elohim you understand that there is a bit of complexity, nuance and even perhaps disagreement involved in translating the term. The NPOV way of presenting it here is to wikilink it, and not to make emphatic statements about what it "literally" means. I'm removing that statement now. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the isolated word does literally mean "gods", so it's not false. However, I do understand your concern about the complexity of the issue, and find this to be an acceptable reason to cut it down to the link. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Yahwist/Elohist/Priestly/Deuteronomist debate of biblical scholarship is way too complex to deal with here a Wikilink ought to deal with it nicely. We are writing for the common man not biblical scholarship academics The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Prologue" subsection

I deleted this section as it seems like little more than an excuse to shoehorn in a discussion of the concept of creation ex nihilo, which is a theological question that only arose in the 1st century BC, long after Genesis was written. The sources quoted are theological ones which discuss the theological issue, not related to the subject of the structure of the Genesis narrative.PiCo (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)