Jump to content

Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Message box at the top

Archived: stale discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The box is awful. Awful. What are you editors thinking? you hope all these boxes and notes at the top of the article and discussion will keep your version set in stone? Consensus yesterday means nothing for consensus tomorrow, you know that. You have crossed the line when you talk about wanting to ban users who change.

It is recommended that every controversial edit on every wiki article be talked about first on the talk page. This messge box on this particular page is not needed. Unless, you think you can keep your wording set in stone. Which again, is against policy. 75.144.70.141 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've paid attention to nothing said to you. --King Öomie 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
you object to the box for the entirely wrong reasons, but I agree that the box was a mistake. You are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Such message-boxes are entirely adequate in many cases where there is in fact a solid consensus, see e.g. Talk:Muhammad. We have better things to do than to rehash stale discussions. As soon as we sort out this mess here, I hope that we will also be able to prevent circular debates of the kind this page currently sees. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
i appreciated your insight in the post below this, but i disagree with you here. this will be my last post on it in order to keep this short. This box was placed by one user, who was not an admin, when clearly he/she had no consensus whatsoever. It was undiplomatic and uncalled for. If I put one there that said do not use the word "myth" then imagine the uproar from the very people who put "their" box there? 75.144.70.141 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Uproar indeed. But still not censorship. --King Öomie 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
75.144., you should apply some perspective. I would endorse a message box asking people to look up the definition of "myth" or read up on creation myth first, so we won't get the perpetual misconception of "myth" being somehow a controversial or pejorative term. I object to the message box claiming there is a consensus for the current article title. As it happens, the current title is the result of an unilateral move, and as I show below, the current title is very probably not the most commonly used name for the topic. People need to come to grips with the concept of "myth" as opposed to "narrative" or "text". Genesis is a Hebrew text. The text gives a version or an account of one or several Hebrew creation myths (not "is a creation myth"). It is completely undisputed that what we find in Genesis is mythological. It remains to be discussed, as in the sources collected by Til Eulenspiegel, whether the actual Hebrew text as preserved is "typical" for mythological literature, or if we need to assume that it has been redacted with some theological agenda. In this case, what we have in Genesis is not the unadulterated creation myth alive in 8th century BC Hebrew culture, but an indirect echo of such a myth, redacted in the Hellenistic era to make it conform with the monotheism then current. This is a complicated question, and it deserves careful treatment. Your hubbub surrounding the word "myth" hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of the actual questions involved here, and I strongly recommend that the noise on this page should subside so the voices of those editors who actually have a clue about biblical philology can be heard. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
" would endorse a message box asking people to look up the definition of "myth" or read up on creation myth first" -- good. because that's already there (look up top -- it's quite lengthy). i did not delete that. so we agree. the message box crossed the line though 75.144.70.141 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the move unilateral[1], but I understand your point. You can lose entire short stories (err, narratives) on this talkpage. --King Öomie 15:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, 75, [2], [3]- it appears that my edit swiped yours away rather than show me an Edit Conflict page. It wasn't intentional. --King Öomie 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if the message box I added hurt some feelings. That wasn't my intent. It's safe to say that consensus has been reached on this issue and it's fair to warn editors to read discussions and the FAQ prior to making an attempt to edit against said consensus so that they aren't making the same tired arguements that where shot down in the RFC and other discussions. Nefariousski (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UCN

wow, this discussion has become derailed completely. Time to ask the question that should have been answered first and foremost, what is the most common title by which the Genesis creation myth is referred to in academic literature in the field of biblical studies.

Just looking at the google books hits, it is evident that "Genesis creation myth" is the least frequently used of these versions. The most common is probably either "creation story in Genesis" or "Genesis creation story". Of course these results need to be refined by looking which books are academic and which aren't, but I daresay it does give a good impression. This is simple WP:NAME. POV and drawn-out ideological debates have nothing to do with it. Use neither the "myth" title nor the "according to" one, but pick one with either "story" or "narrative". Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And what should be done about the clear bias in presenting the Genesis creation myth significantly differently from all other creation myths on Wikipedia? --King Öomie 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This section addresses the question of article title exclusively. Article content is an entirely different matter. But your complaint is misguided in any case. Each article is treated on a case-by-case basis. If (and only if) it transpires that the "significant difference" is in fact present in academic literature, Wikipedia must (not can, must) reflect this "significant difference" in its coverage. What Wikipedia cannot do is introduce a difference in coverage that has no counterpart in academic treatment of the topic. Please take any further debate not about article title out of this section. Wikipedia is not "unbiased", that's a very fundamental misconception. Because "unbiased" is no absolute, "bias" can only be fixed with a view to some point of reference. This point of reference for Wikipedia is mainstream academic literature. Wikipedia is bound to reflect the bias present in mainstream academia as accurately as possible. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I knew all of that, yet somehow it escaped me. At this point I'm irritated by the whittling down of the concessions demanded by the other side (for various reasons, including but not limited to the same reasons over and over again), and it's getting in the way. I"ll take a step back. --King Öomie 14:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a wise suggestion considering the ink that has been spilled so far on these pages. How do we do this so it is clear to follow? Whatever the results I hope we can all agree to submit to. For example, I will begin:
"The Hebrew Creation Narrative" -- Washington State U. (see here) 75.144.70.141 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hebrew creation narrative" is fine. As is "creation narrative in Genesis". I hope it is uncontroversial that "story" and "narrative" are more or less synonymous, and also that the variant "Genesis creation story/narrative" and "Creation story/narrative in Genesis" are equivalent. Combining these four readings as variants of a single title, I daresay it will become apparent that they outweigh all other options. Which of the four we end up choosing is really immaterial. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hebrew creation narrative" is misleading. Only the language of the Genesis text is Hebrew, but this creation story was likely not held by ancient Hebrews or Israelites. The narrative is a Jewish myth out of the period of the "Babylonian Captivity" and later. CUSH 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


How does this line in WP:TITLE-
The ideal title should be:
~~
"Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern  as those of other similar articles."

-Weigh up against WP:UCN? For example, "Genesis creation story" gets less scholar hits than "Creation story in Genesis", but the former is more consistent with existing articles. --King Öomie 15:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


There's a reason wikipedia has WP:GOOGLE. If we slap

then we can claim these results shows clearly "creation myths" way outweigh usage for either of the other in scholarly circles. If you want to narrow it down to only those that mention genesis, then slap a +genesis in the search terms, all three are then equal. What does this all mean? It all means we need to be extremely careful trying to claim search results mean anything because it introduces bias, and let popularity trump notability/neutrality. Tendancer (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done damn near every variation of the google test (you can see results half a dozen times about a mile up the page). The results are astoundingly in favor of using the term creation myth since that is the almost universally used term to describe this concept. We're not in the business of inventing terms here, "Creation Narrative" has no definition or meaning as a distinct term nor does "Creation Story" and we shouldn't be using colloquial terms or jargon when a perfectly acceptable, widely used, formal and defined term exists. To do so is a slippery slope, and would end up violating WP:WTA#Myth and Legend and sets the way for weasel words and peacock terms like "Sacred Narrative", "Divine History" etc... The subject of this article is a creation myth, not a "creation story" or "creation narrative" because neither of those terms exist in a formal sense. Nefariousski (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When I google Define "Creation Narrative" there are no definitions or specific articles regarding the concept of "Creation Narrative" and a handful of the hits that came back on the first page specifically defined the term Creation Myth and used the words "Creation Narrative" in the discussion of the definition or encyclopedic article (not wiki) on creation myth. The preferred term / usage is so abundantly clear as to be almost undebateable (not like that will stop some of us). This talk page (and many others related to this issue) is turning to one desperate fork after another. First the use of "creation myth" at all and then once that was resolved, then the use of it in the lede, when that was resulved, then it was the use of it in the title, etc... Nefariousski (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Dab - use some form of story. There is also the issue of whether a story known from a single written text should be called a "myth" at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
A megabyte of text in the archives of this talk says that no, that's really not an issue. --King Öomie 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention UCN is more focused on using common names instead of formal names people or places. The spirit of UCN doesn't really apply to this article since we're not using some uncommon archaic term. Nefariousski (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, UCN applies fully here. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
While I appriciate your detailed explanation of why you think it applies here I still disagree, the reliable sources for this article reference "creation myth". Usage of "creation myth" is hardly rare or uncommon and thus doesn't fall under the umbrella of UCN since its purpose is to avoid using obscure terminology. UCN states that we should "observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals" all of which almost exclusively use "creation myth". Failing that it instructs us to use whatever name we reach by consensus which we have done. Additionally UCN directs us to look toward WP:WTA for further guidance on neutrality (which we've done in making the decision). UCN furthermore directs us to use more accurate terms over colloquial terms as long as the more accurate term isn't overly obscure and has an abundant body of reliable sources that use said term (see the Tsunami vs. Tidal Wave example). Nefariousski (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? Look at Dab's stats above. "Genesis Creation myth" has precisely 74 Gscholar hits! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"Genesis creation account" has five times as many. 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you direct me to a definition of the term "creation account"? precision means something and considering that all options seem to have significant usage we should defer to the more accurate and precise usage not just the one with more hits.
* Creation: cre·a·tion /kriˈeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kree-ey-shuhn] –noun 1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering. 2. the fact of being created. 3. something that is or has been created.
* Account: ac·count /əˈkaʊnt/ Show Spelled[uh-kount] –noun 1. an oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative: an account of the meetings; an account of the trip. 2. an explanatory statement of conduct, as to a superior. 3. a statement of reasons, causes, etc., explaining some event.
Hope that helps you. Cheers, SAE (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So by your methods the Electoral College is a university where students learn about elections? Define the whole term, not its component parts. "Creation Account" as a term has no definition and means nothing while creation myth is a very clearly defined term. In short "Creation Account" means nothing outside of colloquial usage it is two imprecise words joined together in a string and could just as easily apply to non religious or supernatural accounts of creation. For that matter any recipe, furniture assembly manual, or home video of a baby being born could be defined as a "creation account" Nefariousski (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The term is "Genesis creation account"; but many here are using a generative meaning for the word "Myth" which classically meant other worldly, while Genesis purports to describe what happened in this world, though using a Mesopotamian story telling format which most likely valued meaning over factual events. Hardyplants (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
@Swift as an Eagle: Yeah, however, "account" refers to the oral or written description of particular events or situations that actually exist/ed. The creation narrative in Genesis is not the description of something that anybody witnessed or that has indications pointing towards it. Genesis narrates the origin of the world achieved by supernatural forces. That is not an account, that is a myth.
And of course Nefariousski is right in pointing out that you cannot really break the term into its parts and thus destroy the compund's meaning. CUSH 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Ofcourse it is an account and oufcourse it has been whitnessed ..... but this isnt realy a creteria of an account anyways.--Templeknight (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[citation needed][dubious – discuss] --King Öomie 22:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity who witnessed the account? And who recorded said account? Nefariousski (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The question of how Moses (who wrote the Book of Genesis) knew how God created the world was a problem for the classical rabbis. The usual explanation was that God told him - after all, he met God on Mount Sinai. But according to the oral torah Moses already knew some of the stories in Genesis before he met Yahweh - so the explanation was put forward that Adam had written it down. Not that Adam witnessed the first few days, of course, but he did have the chance to talk direct to God. So, now you know :) PiCo (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
See, that there, that's what they call a Retcon. --King Öomie 03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Pico, I've never heard or read of such an 'oral tradition'; the one recording religious events before the deluge was not Adam but Enoch, according to the oral traditions I've encountered. I do agree with dab that there are surely a few people getting lost in the crowd, who are familiar enough with such lore to know what they're talking about. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
So Enoch wrote down an oral account a few hundred years after it happened. Did this document get passed down through the generations and end up on the ark during the great flood or was it rediscovered after the water level dropped? Nefariousski (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Good question, but it's hard to find a specific answer in any written sources. I believe it is a tradition that Noah himself being righteous, passed certain teachings and/or writings to certain of his grandchildren. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok so I understand that Noah was considered a righteous man, and I know there's a lot of detail regarding what the Ark was made of and what living things were brought on the ark and so on, but do you know of any sources that document any other items that might have been brought on to the ark? Is it a best guess based on what is understood of Noah's nature that he brought along written histories or is it assumed that the once written history (enoch's) turned into oral history and then back into written history? Are any writings actually attributed to Noah himself? Nefariousski (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have actually seen very little exploring that type of specific question; some conjecture identifying Noah with Manu, and of course parts of the Book of Enoch and other Dead Sea Scrolls are attributed to Noah. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Til, from the Shemot Rabbah 5:22 (Moses is speaking): "I opened the book of Genesis and read it and saw the acts of the generation of the flood..." So Moses had the book of Genesis before Sinai. There are similar passages elsewhere in the Talmud. The question the rabbis were addressing was how Moses came by this knowledge. The Book of Enoch is of course earlier than the Talmud, but the age of the Oral Torah is unclear (supposedly equally as old as the Written Torah). Rashi was of the opinion that each of the Genesis patriarchs wrote an account, and that these were the originals of the toledot. PiCo (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Look through this list of the use of that terminology:[4] and you will see that the restrictive meaning of the term "account" is incorrect. Hardyplants (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong approach

In my opinion, dab's approach to this is wrong. The fact that he could think of so many ways to refer to this article's topic should have raised alarm bells. I can think of many more titles to add to his list, and I'm sure someone else can think of even more. Throw in permutations of {Bible, biblical, Hebrew, Christian, Jewish, Judaic} and phrases involving those words (something random: "the creation myth in the Bible") to get a seriously long list started. The problem is, there is no title. This article does not have a name. All of the examples we come up with are descriptors.

On top of that, choosing this article's title from a list of descriptors as long as we can come up with because it has the highest hit count is to give undue weight to one over many others whose combined hit count easily outnumber the hit count of the highest hit count descriptor. Since there are so many permutations there may even be a higher hit count descriptor we haven't thought of. Finally, we have obvious relevance and reliability issues associated with search engine tests.

So now that we've established that this article's title will in fact be a suitable descriptor and that search engine hit counts are essentially irrelevant, we analyse relevant and reliable sources and choose a suitable descriptor based on the descriptions given in those sources. It has been established that the term creation myth is near universal descriptor in the relevant and reliable sources, Genesis is an obvious modifier, Genesis creation myth is already used throughout the literature (so no original research), Genesis creation myth is consistent with our other articles, it allows us to include a short definition of creation myth in the first sentence to allay the concerns of those editors that can't shake the association of myth with false, and so on.

Am I missing something here? Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "Creation myth" may be the most common "umbrella term" (to quote from the FAQ here) but it comes out very poorly as part of a term in RS for this specific creation myth. There are millions of things whose specific names use a different term from the usual general term for the sort of thing they are. The Isle of Man is an island, but we do not call it Man Island, and so on. The google test is highly relevant to WP:COMMON which should be the guiding principle here. Despite attempts to complicate the matter, & a discussion mostly dealing with side issues, the core of the matter is really very straightforward. The current name is a construct, as Ben admits above, which can indeed be found in RS, but at much lower frequency than others. WP:COMMON is very clear; there may be many names in use, but we go with the most common. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understood my point. I tried to explain there is a difference between a name and a descriptor: Isle of Man is a name, not a descriptor. On the other hand, the small sampling of descriptors listed above are all, well, descriptors. Only descriptors were listed above since this article's topic has no name, and so we must choose a suitable descriptor for the title of this article. Now, a Google test may give an indication of a common name in the case of names, but it's unlikely the same test will work for descriptors, especially when the possible descriptors are so varied. Instead we have to rely on relevant and reliable sources on the topic to guide us. I've quoted several dictionaries and encylopedias aimed at the non-expert below, and given quotes that talk about Genesis containing mythical being a mainstream view, all from highly reliable and relevant sources. Ben (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
All beside the point; most WP article names are "descriptors", if you choose to so describe anything that is not a proper name (a rather OR view). WP:COMMON says we just try to choose the most common, which is clearly not the present one. That has been chosen for POV reasons. You need to be clear that whether the Genesis story is a creation myth is an entirely different question from whether "Genesis creation myth" is the correct title for this article. Almost all the vast amount of discussion here has addressed the first question and ignored the second. The article should include & link "creation myth" early on, but it is the wrong title. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course most Wiki articles are proper names, but that is beside the point. And I think you mean WP:UCN. Anyway, I'm sorry that you think what I wrote is beside the point, but I must repeat. I don't think a Google test is reliable in this case (reasons listed above) and the relevant and reliable sources I've come across, some of which I've included on this talk page, almost exclusively use the term myth, not story, to introduce this articles topic. That last point is consistent with this articles topic being a creation myth (your first question), but that doesn't mean I'm arguing that since this articles topic is a creation myth that term should appear in the title (your second question). And I'm sure I could shop around the WP pages and find something that says reliable sources trump a Google test, but in that case WP:COMMON does apply. Ben (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Phooey! Your sources mostly show Genesis being described as a creation myth, but not that being used as a title or name for it. If you have found "myth" being used "almost exclusively", you are looking at a very narrow selection indeed. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 1-2: Ancient cosmology

Archived: stale discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the definitions and synonyms, I have been reading right through and past the word cosmology. Yet, in many places it is used as a synonym of "myth." Particularly with the adjective "Ancient," it isn't confused with scientific cosmology or cosmological.

This term should solve our issues (both "sides"). A major case is made for it by John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College), professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School, in The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology. [5]

Apparently it is also what the late Jewish scholar

A Google search returns quite a few phrases such as

  • "The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon,"
  • "The Cosmology of Early China," a book entitled Ancient Cosmologies (ed. Carmen Blacker, Michael Loewe, and Martin J. Plumley; London: Allen & Unwin, 1975), 90-92.
  • "Classical Hindu, Buddhist and Jain cosmologies"
  • Explorations in Early Chinese Cosmology
  • "Ancient Indian Cosmology"

et al.

While "creation myth" is unquestionably a popular terms, "Cosmology" is a synonym that includes the term, and even more so when prefixed by "Ancient" which disambiguates it from scientific cosmology.

Please consider this as a "thinking outside the box" suggestion. To the "myth-ers," it is a comparable term. To the "nonmyth-ers," it avoids the very ambiguous term "myth." It's worth more study and consideration. Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced that "Ancient Cosmology" is preferable to using creation myth I do think the page warrants having the category:Christian Cosmology added. Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cosmology works for the planets etc, but does not cover Adam and Eve. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod is right - Genesis 1-2 is more than cosmology. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. Please see following notes. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Secular scholarly evidence against use of "myth"

The following are excerpts from the book Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth. By Alan Dundes, Prof of Anthropology and Folklore, U of Calif, Berkeley. They are available online through Google Scholar at "Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth" (ed. Alan Dundes)

These scholars recognize what many of us have been saying: :There is nothing pejorative about the term "myth." The term mythos means word or story.... It is only the modern usage of the word "myth" as "error" that has led to the notion of myth as something negative. In common parlance the term "myth" is often used as a mere synonym for error or fallacy. "That's just a myth!" one might exclaim to label a statement or assertion as untrue.

The authors say "...there are disagreements about what myth is and how it should be analyzed. There has been a dramatic shift in theoretical orientation from the nineteenth century to the twentieth." With scholarly disagreements about what myth is, and dramatic shift in theoretical orientation, how can we—in "clear conscience" and NPOV—persist in demanding that this and other articles present themselves as being about 'myth—creation or otherwise?

Some in arguing for "myth" here have claimed that it is a well-recognized term, particularly when preceded by "creation" or "deluge." Yet, this book says:

Nowadays, myth can encompass everything from a simple-minded, fictitious, and mendacious impression to an absolutely true and sacred account, the very reality of which far outweighs anything that ordinary everyday life can offer. The way in which the term myth is commonly used reveals, too, that the word is loaded with emotional overtones....

Please note that this is coming not from theologians, but from mythologists who cannot agree in the pages of this book. (There are multiple articles within.)

More quotes from the book:

  • (Different terms) are used for different religious genres but would seem to be more neutral than myth. In "terminological demytheologisation," the actual word "myth" is avoided but the account, the story itself is retained. To call the Resurrection a myth may be a dastardly insult to a Christian for whom the concept myth has a pejorative sense. He would probably prefer some such expression as holy story or sacred history: perhaps quite simply history, for in Christianity as in Judaism there is a marked tendency to transform religious traditions into history.
  • Christian theologians are faced with certain difficulties when using the terms myth, history and sacred history. It is possible to imagine that someone might try to classify the Creation as a myth, the Crucifixion as history and the Resurrection as sacred history.
  • The conception that we have of myth has continually to be revised in the light of modern scholarship. Myth is undoubtedly a very complex concept.
  • Cosmogonic in this sense comprises all those stories that recount how the world began, how our era started, how the goals that we strive to attain are determined and our most sacred values codified.

"Traditional oral tale" is the only safe basis for a broad definition of myth.

  • The negative use of (the creation myth view) of myth was as follows. It was part of the magical outlook of ancient Israel's neighbors that they saw the process of nature, especially of fertility, bound up with human activity.... The religion of the OT broke with this pattern of religion. Its thought was dominated not by the cycles of the natural world, but by the promises of God being worked out and fulfilled in the historical process. Thus history was opposed to myth, not in the popular sense of true as against historically false, but in terms of conflicting views of reality. One view (that of ancient Israel's neighbours) was a primitive and pre-scientific view, its attempt to direct natural forces being based upon ignorance of scientific laws. The other view, while no less pre-scientific, was enabled by God's redemptive action in history to be lived above a crude relationship with the world of nature to a notion of transcendence in terms of a personal God.

The above final bullet point explains how Judaeo-Christian's Book of Genesis accounts are in a different category and class from those of ancient Israel's neighbours—a question that has also been raised and unanswered in the discussions.

Nef, please include this material in your writing for Admin Notice Board on our collective behalf. None of us is an expert on myth, so far as I know, and this "professional" non-theological opinion needs to be considered.

Thanks, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice attempt. However, this author makes a crucial error: he assumes the history that is narrated in the Bible to be true. But of course we all know that nothing in the Bible prior to, say, 850 BCE has any historical veracity whatsoever (and religiously it is even wronger, because before the 6th century BCE Judaism did not exist at all, Israelites were not Jews). In reality "Israel" was the backlot of the Egyptian empire, a people of illiterate goatherds while the "neighbors" were the ones who took part in the exchange of culture and goods throughout the eastern Mediterranean. To say that Israel was somehow culturally or technologically superior to its environment is a reversal of the actual situation, stemming out of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism that seeks to present an alternative history of "God's people".
We do not actually know what stories about the origins of world the Israelites told their children, but we do know that the Genesis creation story did not come into existence prior to the extension of Mesopotamian rule in the Levant and the subsequent Babylonian Captivity which resulted in the birth of Judaism. The Genesis creation story reads just like a distorted version of the Enki and the Abzu , and there is no doubt that the beginning of Genesis is the result of Israelites coming into contact with Mesopotamian traditions (and of course the following tales about the Flood and the resettlement after that are originally Mesopotamian as well).
The Genesis creation narrative is one told by people who didn't know any better. It is not an accurate description of how the world came into being in reality. There is nothing about an expanding universe, cosmic microwave background, oscillating virtual particles, or anything else in it that we know today. nd why? Because it is a myth. In any sense of the word.
This article is about a theological issue, not a historical or otherweise scientific one. A creation myth is the tale of the world coming into existence through supernatural forces. That is what the beginning of the book of GEnesis is. Nothing else. CUSH 07:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Cush, did we read the same book? You refer to "this author," when in fact the quotes come from several articles, each by a different author in the book Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth. I appreciated your nicely presented Genesis opinion. The articles are written from a scientific perspective by various credentialed mythologists. Your statement, "he assumes the history that is narrated in the Bible to be true," is an incorrect jump to conclusion. Sincere question: I'm wondering if your analysis of Genesis comes from formal training and therefore personal expertise, or from secondary sources. If the latter, it would be nice to know the source(s). ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Well at least now we are clear on your true argument, for pushing that opinion of yours as if an undisputed fact contested by no one. Thanks for your candor, it's much more refreshing than those who pretend the word implies no falsehood and is thus perfectly neutral. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I too thank-you for showing your clear bias. We all have presuppositions, to be sure, it's just that many try to deny that they do. You have not and now we know where you stand. I imagine that all others here who are fighting for the word myth come with these same presuppositions as you. SAE (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Really this is the WHOLe point:
        myth / m'ɪθ / 
         Synonyms: 
         o noun: fable, legend
         o A myth is a well-known story which was made up in the past to explain natural events or to justify religious beliefs or social customs. N-VAR
               + There is a famous Greek myth in which Icarus flew too near to the Sun.
               + ...the world of magic and of myth.
         o If you describe a belief or explanation as a myth, you mean that many people believe it but it is actually untrue.
              Synonym: fallacy
               + Contrary to the popular myth, women are not reckless spendthrifts.
As long as this definition appears in Google, you cannot begin an article on a current and very popular religious belief, with the word "myth" and remain at the same time npov. It's not possible. You say "myth", I say "true" -- those are the opposite extremes: both are pov. Would you allow "true"? Then why would I allow "myth"? Please, let's see through our bias, and let's meet in the middle ground. SAE (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I have been very open from the beginning that the connotation "untrue" of the word myth, while not intended, is perfectly appropriate in the context of this article. As a statement of fact about the history of the physical world, the Genesis creation story is simply false. There is a consensus among competent scholars that the story was originally not meant in such a literal sense, and this consensus is reflected in how we, as Wikipedia treat the topic. Creationism is fringe (or anachronistic) even as a theological theory; and even more so if gauged as an attempt to explain our physical word. There is nothing wrong or POV about hinting at this fact. And the mere use of the word "myth" with its connotation cannot amount to undue weight to debunking this fringe, either.

As to the passage quoted by Afaprof, this would be a lot more convincing if it wasn't quoted out of context. When read in context, it is clear that the author does not argue against using the word "myth" in its technical sense. Instead, he defines the technical meaning of the word, and he does so in the introduction to a book about the theory of myth. Defining the technical sense of the word and talking about its distinction from non-technical uses is an obvious thing to do in such a context and does not prove the existence of a scholarly debate about the use or abuse of the word in question. The author does not argue against the technical use of the word "myth" any more than he argues against the non-technical use:

"But untrue statements are not myths in the formal sense in this book—nor are myths necessarily untrue statements. For myth may constitute the highest form of truth, albeit in metaphorical guise."

Nice try, but this is not going to fly. Hans Adler 19:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a fatal flaw in your reasoning. You say your bias wins because science proves it. However you are wrong. Every scientist who means anything in this world will acknowledge that science does not disprove God. Science nowhere disproves Creation according to Genesis and it doesn't claim to. If this article claims that, then it is sub-par academics. SAE (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I rest my case. Hans Adler 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Great comeback! Try another exclamatory, it might help you further. SAE (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(Adler→) As I have asked Cush, did we read the same book? You refer to "this author," when in fact the quotes come from several articles, each by a different author in the book Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth. Several authors, each of whom provided a "Reading," are quoted. Some points they collectively make are that (a) Mythologists cannot agree on the theory of myth. "There are disagreements about what myth is and how it should be analyzed." Who are we, then, to force that term onto the Genesis Creation article? (b) the word is loaded with emotional overtones. Does that make it appropriate as the only way to describe Creation according to Genesis? (c) In "terminological demytheologisation," the actual word "myth" is avoided but the account, the story itself is retained. That is precisely what one "side" has proposed for this article. (d) Ergo, "myth" is not a well-understood term, contrary to what another "side" has claimed in this debate. "Nowadays, myth can encompass everything from a simple-minded, fictitious, and mendacious impression to an absolutely true and sacred account, the very reality of which far outweighs anything that ordinary everyday life can offer." (e) "Myth is undoubtedly a very complex concept." How, then, is it the only appropriate choice for the title and first paragraph of this article?─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Mathematicians cannot agree on a definition of the term number. So far as I know most mathematicians wouldn't even bother trying to define it. Who are we, then, to force that term onto the 1 (number), irrational number, complex number, hypercomplex number or aleph number articles? The reality is that reliable sources generally agree that the topic of these articles is that of number, though I can probably find reliable sources that disagree in the case of some of the example articles I linked (finitism?). What say you? Ben (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Though some mathematicians may debate some of the finer points of the definition of "number" in fields such as abstract algebra, group theory, complex analysis, etc., I've never heard of any disagreement regarding the definition of number in the plain, common sense usage employed in education including college coursework up through Calculus, Differential Equations, Statistics, etc. For the common person, including most physicicsts and engineers, there is not any ambiguity or negative connotation regarding the use of "number." There is a lot more ambiguity and disagreement in biologists' definition and use of the term "species" and exactly how the concept is defined often becomes readily apparent in advanced high school or early college course work. However, either point is something of a red herring in the present discussion, because in neither case is there much ambiguity in common (non-technical) usage, nor is their any perception of a negative connotation. In contrast, in most common usages, "myth" implies falsehood.Michael Courtney (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you missed my point: the lack of a generally agreed upon and precise definition of a term does not mean we shouldn't use the term (see AFA Prof01's point (a)), else we would have few words in the English language at our disposal. I'm still fairly sure there is no "generally agreed upon and precise definition" of the term number (I would like to be pointed to a discussion refuting me), but if my number example was a poor choice then I simply apologise. The above point still stands though and I'm sure you can come up with your own examples to convince yourself of its truth. Finally, a word having a negative connotation associated with it isn't a reason for avoiding it either: an example that comes to mind is the term theory. At the very least it would (in general) be a highly subjective criterion to work with, and I have no doubt that it would be unworkable. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you have algebra at university??
But back to "myth". King Arthur is a myth. So is King Solomon. Why? Because there is no extrabiblical confirmation for his existence. All there is is the single biblical source that narrates who this Solomon/Jedidiyah allegedly was and what he allegedly did. But he is absent from the archaeological and historical record. There are no artifacts bearing his name, and the events narrated in the bible for his reign do not match the nonbiblical historical record for the time period and geographical area in question. The same is true for everything else in the Bible before Solomon, including the very beginning of Genesis about the creation of the world. There is nothing that gives these biblical tales veracity. Nothing.
So, "myth" to express falsehood, or at least historical inaccuracy is acceptable as a designation for what is at issue in this article. This does not touch, however, what religious truths the Genesis narrative may contain. There is just no literal truth involved. There are so many creation myths in the world that it is completely ridiculous to expect Wikipedia to treat the judeochristian one differently and give it an elevated place only to please the fundamentalists. Wikipedia must treat all religious stories about the origin of the world in the same way. CUSH 10:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is that true about Solomon? If so, I didn't know that. I'd love to see an article about which parts of the Bible are actually backed up by non-biblical evidence. --King Öomie 14:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, please read before questioning Cush's motives further- Appeal to motive. It's not enough to say "Oh, you're only arguing this because of X". This statement does not debunk Cush's thesis- it merely dismisses it. You can hold an 'unsavory' base point for your arguments without being wrong. --King Öomie 14:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I find the notion that the use of the word "myth" as being solely academic rather disingenuous. The reason being, there are many other words that can be used that are acceptable, that don't carry such controversial overtones, such as "story" or "account" or countless or words. Why the lexicon absolutely must be "myth" is rather baseless in light of much less disputed words that are perfectly viable from an academic perspective. There is an obvious "truth" component in the use of the word myth, from both sides. The same people boasting that "myth" carries no negative connotation are the ones questioning the truth value of the Creation account. I'm no Creationist, but it's rather transparent that this endless war is based on two groups of people fighting a battle for truth, and trying to push the viewpoint to readers. Let the readers decide if it's a patently false myth, I don't understand why they need to be steered toward one ideology or another. Both sides are guilty of it. Sugaki (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but have you read any of the discussion threads here? · CUSH · 11:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Sugaki — thanks for your input. A title I've suggested I think avoids all implications that have been seen as problematic by one side or the other: Genesis chapters one and two. Do you have an opinion on that? What I feel is the beauty of the title I'm suggesting ("Genesis chapters one and two") is that it identifies only the subject of this article. I think it contains nothing additional that one side or another can possibly construe as being expressive of a point of view that they are opposed to for any reason. Thank you for any feedback. Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth or story?

Archived WP:SOAPBOX. Please note this isn't suppression, the page move thread is alive and well above!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(I'm only adding yet another section in order to boil the question down to its essence. If I'm wrong please add another section after this to replace mine.)

As many have pointed out above, "story" is less pejorative than "myth" because of the latter's connotation of falsehood.

The advantage I see of "story" is that it can be understood as meaning a simplified account of creation that is not so much false as merely omitting the sorts of details that more scientifically inclined people feel constitute adequate corroborative detail. For example, why did God not tell us about DNA from the get-go? That's easy, we weren't ready for it back then. Same for the Big Bang: any pharisee discoursing on the Big Bang would have been marginalized appropriately for that era, the same fate as befell Galileo, who was a few decades ahead of his time regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism.

I continue to be amazed at how many atheists and agnostics there are in the world. In order to be either, one needs to be in possession of a definition of "God," otherwise how can one say that God does not exist? If for example one defines God to be the universe, are these atheists and agnostics going to claim that the universe does not exist? What fraction of atheists and agnostics have a working definition of "God" by which they can reliably judge their atheism or agnosticism? Those that have such a definition strike me as just as unqualified to debate the myth-story question at hand as those that insist on the literal truth of the story.

Based on these considerations I support changing "myth" to "story". --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea that babies developed a working definition of "God" at some point along the conception-birth timeline. Or my dog for that matter. But thanks for letting me know, and thanks for starting another thread! Cheers, Ben (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Vaughan Pratt, for the atheist-bashing. But you know what? Why don't we just stick to Wikipedia rules? As long as nobody can come up with reliable sources that Genesis isn't made-up crap, we'll call it a myth in the very sense that it is a narrative without any grain of truth or reality in it. If the religionists have nothing to offer but attacks then there is no other way than to let them prove their claims of truth and superiority. Once and for all. This is Wikipedia, not some fundamentalism platform. CUSH 09:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Being a rather famous scientist does not make one either correct or incorrect. However, for those unaware, Vaughan Pratt didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and is not a religionist─at least not professionally. We have had myth advocates who have flashed their scientist credentials; here we apparently have a world-renowned scientist who does not flash his. In any case, Cush and Ben were very dismissive of his very logical discussion─inappropriately so, I believe. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Logical? He apparently doesn't even grasp what the term agnostic means. (Hint: it means "not knowing.") He's not supporting this argument on logic, but on straw men. Sure, if you want to define god as "the universe," that's your choice. If I wanted to define god as my left foot I could, too, but it wouldn't help us in this debate any. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Vaughan Pratt is trying to make a point. Vaughan Pratt only suggested one possible definition for God. In my opinion a discussion of this sort could use a little definition. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This page isn't the proper venue for discussing the definition of 'God', or the efficacy or Athiesm, or the moral justification of agnosticism, or the divine nature of the Universe. The first two sentences of his post (after the preface) are the only ones not soapboxing. Our individual qualifications for debating this subject are immaterial to the issue at hand. --King Öomie 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It was part of an argument. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
A soapbox-ey, irrelevant argument. "I think 'story' is less insulting to laymen than 'myth', and these atheists don't know what they're talking about". Please point to the part of that sentence that ISN'T appropriate. --King Öomie 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
"Creation myth" in the title of this particular article might be considered by some to be a bit "soapbox-ey" too. Maybe we should take that into consideration and tone down any such implications in the title? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing pejorative about the term "myth." A myth is a story with a primal impact, hence the current hollywood obsession with creating mythic structure in their storyforms. Certainly the creation account in Genesis is more than an account, and more than a story. There is a point to it, and an impact on those who read it, even if they don't objectively "believe" it. The impact makes this account a myth. C.S. Lewis was an avowed atheist until his friend J.R.R. Tolkien convinced him that the Gospel narratives were "myth." Once he got the point (that there was a point), Lewis converted to Christianity.
That said, whether "myth" is a good or bad word is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We're trying to tie in articles that relate to each other, and the Genesis account certainly relates to other religious and mythological accounts of creation. It is the ease of cross reference that makes the current title the one of choice.EGMichaels (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't cross referencing be as well accomplished by creating Category: Creation myths? Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to make the category. It won't have any effect on the name of the article, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request admin closure of this thread via WP:SOAP to cease the edit-warring keeping it open. --King Öomie 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

move to reuest closure seems to be a case of WP:IDL, i count three deitors in this discusion who dont think it is unreasonable statment. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Requesting closure makes it an admin judgment call. But thanks. --King Öomie 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But the person whose voice you are trying to suppress supports the move of the title back to the old version. Is that just a coincidence? Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm outsourcing the decision because I refuse to argue it with you. I'm not sure I appreciate your assertion (or propagandist word choice). --King Öomie 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Which word is propagandist — "suppress?" If that is the word, I would think collapsing the box in which that editor's comment is contained constitutes a type of "suppression." Again: that editor expressed support for the move back to the previous title. This would be the relevant comment by Vaughan Pratt:
"Based on these considerations I support changing "myth" to "story"."
I apologize for using the word "suppress." Maybe that was unfair of me. But I think "obscure" would be an appropriate word to describe putting Vaughan Pratt's comments in a collapsed box. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual the mentality of some people here astounds me. Everyone has been given two chances to comment on this article's title, and one of those threads is still open and receiving active comment. Yet a move to archive someone's soapbox thread is seen as suppressive and attracts "numbers trumps common sense" rationales for unarchiving it. Is a little critical thought too much to ask here, or are arguments and accusations that conjure images of a pack of zombies noming on an old bone the best we can expect?

At the end of the day the admin flag doesn't given someone more weight in discussion so I don't know what asking for admin intervention will do, but hey, I'm out of ideas too so /shrug, it can't hurt. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF ???

Here thar be monsters
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The issue of the article is the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity as a theological and literary issue, but definitely not as the actual origin of the world. It is a creation myth like any other. Can we please stop having this pointless discussion that only derives from obviously creationist editors who seek to present Genesis as factual or possible history? Do we have to have these kinds of warring every few months when new editors show up? CUSH 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a "creationist editor." And nobody is arguing that the information you are referring to does not have a rightful place in the article. All that is under discussion is the title. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Labeling every one as "Creationist" "Fundamentalist" or "Religionist" because you disagree with them is not helpful. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But people other than these would never insist on presenting Genesis as actual history. There are no reliable sources for such a position and the position is fringe anyways. CUSH 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
no one has said that is proposing thatWeaponbb7 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
How so? That's the only reasonable stance one can have against calling it a creation myth like we do with all other faiths. The only way it can be removed from that category and not meet the definition is if it is some how proven to be historically accurate reality. So, not to jump to conclusions, or judge motivations but it's pretty evident that only those who have a strong opinion in favor of biblical literalism or creationist ideology would have much grief with calling this a creation myth.Nefariousski (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The refusal to call Genesis a "creation myth" as it is done for all other religions is solely based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and a faith in said interpretation. Such literal interpretations are only conducted by a very limited number of groups and adherents inside Christianity and Judaism. CUSH 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why another thread? Why?! Now we get to hear the same thing again! Please, for the love of your deity and/or pasta of choice, self-archive! Abort man, abort! Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is improper. Highly improper. (Joke.) Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh Ben, It's a shame you can't add klaxons and audio of a computerized self destruct countdown to your post. Nefariousski (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Cush, you have an obvious prejudice here, and your interest does not appear to be for NPOV collaboration. You may want to recuse yourself for a while to gain perspective. I initially agreed with your choice of title, but I cannot agree if you are merely trying to use a title to make an end run around neutrality.EGMichaels (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Your support or opposition shouldn't depend on any editor, perceived prejudice or not. Ben (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Actually, Ben, it can. When I came here I was under the impression that there was an honest disagreement about what was more neutral and useful for a non specialized reader. What I found was that the "myth" title was not being used in a neutral POV manner, but instead being used in a pejorative sense. Wikipedia editors cannot support end runs around neutrality.
Because of this, I must withdraw my support for the title's inclusion of the word "myth". Wikipedia must maintain NPOV, and Cush's obvious, public, and clear bias means that no neutral editor can support it. The choice of title is tainted as long as Cush is an active editor on this article. If he withdraws his biased statements, fine. If he cannot, then he must withdraw himself from the discussion until a truly neutral consensus is reached.EGMichaels (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
On that note, because you're withdrawing your support on the basis of a problem with a single editor's actions / opinions / perceived bias your support one way or the other becomes more or less tainted and moot. Protest votes don't count towards consensus. Nefariousski (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a protest vote. It's a vote toward NPOV. I originally believed that "myth" represented NPOV, until Cush demonstrated otherwise. We CANNOT violate NPOV, even if we initially "like" something.EGMichaels (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If you think neutrality is a product of editor intentions you're sorely mistaken. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, neutrality is a product of collaborative editing from good faith editors who have different POVs, using notable and verifiable sources. We help each other achieve a balance. But we cannot do so if someone is merely trying to insult another editor or another POV. I'm merely arguing in favor of civility and neutrality. If you have a problem with that, then... cheers.EGMichaels (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can, we just ignore them. All work doesn't grind to a halt because one person hurts another person's feelings or just comes around to stir the pot. I'm not going to start going to church just because my athiest neighbor is an asshole and isn't nice to me. We all love civility and neutrality but when someone becomes uncivil or tries to skew neutrality we shouldn't resort to "I'm taking my ball and going home", nor should we resort to "I don't agree with x anymore because a person I don't like supports it" Nefariousski (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You're still not getting me. I actually DO agree with Cush's view of geologic time. But I do NOT agree with the promotion of any POV. If we mean "myth" in a scholarly neutral way, it is a possible term to use. If we mean "falsehood" then we have a problem. Until Cush stated his intended meaning I supported the term myth, but NPOV requires that I reject obvious bias. While we don't take our balls and go home, we DO park our biases out of the discussion. If we as a group do not reject such stated bias, then we are complicit in it, and as such, are prohibited from using the term "myth." Either the term goes, or the bias goes. I really don't care which, because the avoidance of a biased laced term will accomplish the avoidance of the bias in the article. Your call. Shall we park the bias and keep the term, or toss both out?EGMichaels (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a poll. Your promise to contradict Cush's vote based on his attitude is inappropriate- argue what you actually believe (or can back up). If his views are absurd or deliberately offensive, they will be ignored. Duplicating response from below. Why are there two threads for this? --King Öomie 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels, I don't have a problem with civility and neutrality at all, and I don't have a problem with you working towards them. I also agree that offering an argument based on a POV (as opposed to reliable sources on the topic) is unhelpful, and in the case of articles like this likely inflammatory. Still, you need to distinguish between neutrality as a concept and the neutrality-value of an article. The neutrality-value of an article, as a measure, depends on a concept of neutrality. Any contribution you make to an article, from a direct edit to the support or opposition of some proposal relating to the article (in this case a requested page move), should be guided by the concept of neutrality with the hope of moving the article toward the (unattainable) goal of an neutrality-value of "neutral". Notice that at no point here does some other editor come into play. Of course there do exist other editors, and they may not have neutrality as a concept in mind when editing, but who cares? If they present an argument based on a POV you simply point out that it's an invalid argument, you don't use their invalid argument as your new guide to making contributions. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, I appreciate your somewhat idealistic view here. My only problem is that I cannot support a title that means, "Genesis Creation Lies." If that is a stated meaning of "Myth" on this talk page, AND OTHER EDITORS SAY NOTHING, then I cannot support the title. It's that simple. Either we can the MEANING of "Lies" or can the stated SYNONYM for "Lies." I'm astonished that you're differing with me, here. Cush is the one who is preventing us from using the term.EGMichaels (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that last comment just crossed the threshold of sanity. Your righteous indignation is starting to come off as outright ranting. Go for a walk around the block, have a drink, take a few deep breaths, read the FAQ and the footnotes on the article and if it helps skip over Cush's comments in your re-read. Nefariousski (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
As a demonstration of the advice I just gave: The argument "I support this title because it means LIES" is just as invalid as the arguments "I oppose this title because it means LIES" and "I oppose this title because X thinks it means LIES". Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Good job, Ben. Your turn Nef.EGMichaels (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone is having trouble following, Ben threaded the needle here. I still disagree with his conclusion, but not his stated neutrality. Ben is trying to show his choice to ignore an invalid argument when making his own choices. I'm arguing that we oppose a stated biased hijacking of our term so that we can be very clear that we are not ourselves biased when using the term. If we do not oppose the biased meaning, we shouldn't use the term, because other editors cannot read our minds, and silence could just as easily be complicity as not. Although Ben and I disagree with how neutrality is demonstrated on a talk page, I think we would each agree that the other is TRYING to accomplish neutrality on the talk page. This is what I meant by his "threading the needle." While I do not agree that my own approach is invalid, I DO agree that Ben's approach (once stated) is valid. I'll repeat my concern for other editors on this thread: I don't see you even stating some kind of neutrality here. I only see you arguing against my problem with using a term that we refuse to clear of bias.EGMichaels (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Prove me wrong -- don't tell me that insisting on clear NPOV usage is not sane. Instead, disagree with the editor who means, "Genesis Creation Lies." It's a simple thing for you to do.EGMichaels (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Your entire POV arguement is based on things Cush said and prior to saying those things you felt the usage was fine. Therefore if cush ceased to exist at this very moment then the article would magically be NPOV? Please keep in mind the actual ARTICLE hasn't changed its text or usage throughout this entire discussion. We insist that the article have clear NPOV usage (which by way of citing definitions, a footnote, a FAQ, a wikilink to the main creation myth article etc...) we do very well. None of that is taken away because Cush made a POV comment on a talk page. Last I checked talk pages didn't have to be NPOV...
Frankly, I don't agree with either of you, I agree with the FAQ I posted above, and I agree that there is and should be no value judgement regarding veracity one way or the other when using the term "creation myth". I agree that due diligence to ensure readers and editors understand the formal meaning of the word "myth" is being used on this article and just a quick FYI, I've spoken out against editors who I thought were trying to stir the pot (although not with the fervor to which you seem to be partial) feel free to read archive 5 under the heading "This article is about a creation myth and also about a myth that is untrue". Nefariousski (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nef, I did note your tweaking of the article itself, and that was very appropriate. Nevertheless, people DO see talk pages. We can't very well expect people to believe we mean nothing pejorative when we SAY we mean something pejorative on the talk page. Cush said it, and NO ONE (until Ben) opposed it. That's a problem. Heck, even the creationist side said it was pejorative. That makes BOTH sides of the discussion agreeing on a pejorative meaning, with no opposing voices. In that situation, you either have to correct the talk page or the article. As I said before, I DON'T CARE WHICH. Either oppose the stated pejorative meaning when stated, or don't use the term.EGMichaels (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then "BE BOLD" and request that the comments you think are contrary to talkpage guidelines be archived. When Lisa made a whole new section calling attention to said comments and then a robust discussion regarding said comments takes place it only draws more attention to them. We don't feed trolls nor do we react when someone tries to kick over the beehive. I'm not saying that Cush intentionally stirred the pot but the end result was the same. As for the ultimatum I'd like to point out the FAQ above that many of us contributed to to specifically oppose any assumption of perjoritive usage and to clarify neutral intent. Just because we seek sanction of users or create talk page sections to call them out doesn't mean we haven't made our stance clear. It just means that we care more about making progress than arguing about who said what and who made who angry. Nefariousski (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Nef, add up all the lines you spent arguing that you didn't need to disagree with Cush's stated meaning. All you had to do was disagree with it in a single line. You're trying too hard to avoid work. Consensus, unfortunately, is an ongoing thing. I came in here because there was a note for me to pop in with a fresh view. I didn't read all of the archived material and am not sure where to look. What I did do was take a look at the issue, and suggest that "myth" was appropriate as long as it wasn't being used by the editors to mean "lie." (those weren't my exact words, but the drift of it).
So I see the "story" side saying "myth is being used to mean lie".
And I see the "myth" side saying "myth is being used to mean lie".
And I see no opposing views.
That's consensus. Did you or someone else say something in the distant past? Maybe. But if I read your silence wrong, all you had to do was correct your silence. Instead you keep arguing with me that I'm not reading your silence right. I'M NOT A MIND READER -- nor should I have to research archived material supposedly written by a person who is refusing to merely repeat it NOW.EGMichaels (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias and bad faith

Here thar be monsters
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cush is an editor who refuses to edit in good faith or assume good faith on the part of others when it comes to anything he deems even marginally "theist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush

This RfC ran without any results, other than the fact that it made Cush's bias known to some people who weren't already aware of it. Maybe the next step needs to be a post to the Admin noticeboard. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this page is for improving the article. Quietmarc (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Quietmarc, if you have concerns address it on his talkpage dont escalate hereWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Do not create sections about or directed at specific editors.[6] --King Öomie 19:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Everyone has some form of bias Lisa and considering the majority of your talk page comments are edit war / WP:3RR warnings a good case could be made that you have a solid history of not assuming good faith on the part of other editors when it comes to anything you deem to be marginally critical of your beliefs. Calling such things out (criticisms of a particular editor) on a talk page of an article is in poor taste and only makes you guilty of the same AGF violations of which you accuse others. Nefariousski (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it very much belongs here, since Cush's obvious bias is causing trouble reaching consensus. As I stated before, I came here with the same conclusions Cush does about the proper titling of an article, but the sheer arrogance of his statements, insulting the intelligence of other good faith editors is making me wish I was not in agreement with his choice of title. This isn't what Wikipedia is here for. Lisa's link is both helpful and pertinent to the matter at hand: if arrogant statements can make people who agree want to back off, how much harder is it for those who disagree? Collaborative editing cannot thrive on this or any other article with this kind of bias being paraded around. The problem this article is having isn't the title -- it's Cush.EGMichaels (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not that is true (even though i completely agree). Wikipedia says we should use his talk page first.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
And what next, should we now all create sections to point out the obvious POV / AGF issues each of us think all of the other editors have? How about we just redirect the talk page to witch hunt.Nefariousski (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have a general problem with Cush's editing style, this is not the proper avenue for discussion. See my link above. --King Öomie 19:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
@EGMichaels: What do you want? Discuss forever and ever because some Christian and Jewish editors cannot accept that WP has to treat all faiths equally? And when editors start to make statements that they very well know are false, then the patience is over. We have had this nonsense going on for 5 years already. Every few months the fringe opinions that seek to make faith equal to actual research come up and mess up the articles that touch on issues concerning the Bible. You can see the sheer amount of useless talk on this page, can't you? And what is the reason for this? Faith. Fundamentalist faith. Is that the way to maintain an encyclopedia? CUSH 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
How, in practice, would we "treat all faiths equally?" They are, in fact, different. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Cush, the only "fundamentalist" behavior I see at the moment is your own. Perhaps you are a fundamentalist atheist. Whatever ism you have, you need to collaborate in a neutral and non-insulting manner toward other editors. I'm religious, and have the exact same understanding of geologic history that you do. I came here promoting the same article title you do. But I cannot abide by willful insults against the integrity and intelligence of other editors. It's abusive, uncivil, and is precisely the reason there is no collaboration here. I AGREE with your title and can't collaborate with you. Take a breather and be civil, Cush.EGMichaels (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
EG, if you honestly believe Cush has some sort of agenda, sinister or otherwise might I suggest that you not feed into it and fork discussion towards editor vs. editor bickering. When, in the history of this article other editors make fire and brimstone, you're going to hell type comments to those in favor of current wording they were generally ignored instead of argued with over their beliefs. It was a personally difficult lesson for me to learn but in the end cooler heads prevail. Nefariousski (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Nefariosski, please take a look at Cush's talk page. He makes no bones about it. I cannot support his choice of title because he claims to do so for non neutral reasons. We are not ALLOWED to violate NPOV, and therefore I am not ALLOWED to agree with his choice of title until he withdraws from the discussion. This is quite simple: either he stays and my vote for neutrality negates his vote for bias, or he takes a breather and at least gives neutral editors the option of considering his title. But no neutral editor is allowed to do so when the purpose is to violate NPOV.
So on that note look at Lisa's page, AFAPROF's page, Til's page etc... and notice how they make no bones about their beliefs either. Should we invalidate all of their statements because their obvious beliefs conflict with an assumption of neutrality? By that logic you can't vote either way because doing so would violate NPOV the other way and therefore the only choice (by your logic) is for you to not participate at all until anyone with a personal opinion one way or the other leaves the discussion. I suggest you read the WP:NPOV section on bias. We all have some sort of bias one way or another, because some choose to wear their bias on their sleeve doesn't necessarily mean that you have the same bias if you agree with them on an issue. Nefariousski (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nef -- you're not getting me. I SHARE Cush's POV about geologic events. But I do NOT share his need to crush or belittle all other POVs. We are here to collaborate, not obliterate. Anyone, from ANY POV who seeks to destroy collaborative editing must back off. That includes theists and atheists.EGMichaels (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a poll. Your promise to contradict Cush's vote based on his attitude is inappropriate- argue what you actually believe (or can back up). If his views are absurd or deliberately offensive, they will be ignored. --King Öomie 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that but I don't think you're getting me either. I SHARE your POV about how editors should be civil etc... But I do NOT share your need to switch sides to protest one editors actions. Nor do I share your need to drag out what amounts to a personal argument on the talk page of an article as opposed to a user talk page or the applicable noticeboard. Nefariousski (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Even a broken (analogue) clock is right twice a day. Even if Cush has an extreme bias (I can't be bothered to care), in THIS case, he is on the side of wikipedia policy. There are reams and reams of archived pages here to pore over and think about on the subject of whether "Creation Myth" is appropriate and/or the best wording for this article (short answer: it is), and this debate - which has gone on for about 2 months now with no new arguments or (more importantly) valid sources - is getting tiresome. Those who disagree with the current wiki policies should take it up on the appropriate policy pages and instead use this space to improve this article 'within the bounds of Wikipedia policy'. Quietmarc (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Quietmarc — The subject of the discussion is the article's title. I don't think anyone is discussing whether or not "creation myth" has a place within the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I would agree (and did agree) with the term "myth" if the editors actually mean it in a NPOV way. However, Cush stated an intention that myth would mean a biased synonym for "lies." Well, we can't title this article "Genesis Creation Lies." And we can't use synonyms for such either.
Had the other editors here immediately opposed Cush, then we could justifiably use the term "myth" and not be complicit in the NPOV violation. However, I see opposition to me instead of Cush.
As I've stated, I would support (and did support) the term with a clear NPOV usage. Cush has supported use of the term as a biased synonym for "lies."
Exactly WHICH editor do you really wish to disagree with?EGMichaels (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
EditorS? I thought this was about Cush. And it can't be both? If you arguing on the side of Wikipedia policy results in someone else's hollow pedantic little victory, why the hell not? It seems silly to refuse to argue your own position because someone else might 'win' for the wrong reasons. --King Öomie 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Kingdom, it's not hollow or pedantic to suggest that we don't title articles with a stated bias. Cush has stated the bias, and when I object, you disagree with ME. Well, that's a problem. Ben was able to thread the needle above, try it.EGMichaels (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
From my understanding, you agree with the 'creation myth' title, but refuse to argue that side because of WHY Cush agrees with it. I'm saying that doesn't matter, and you should argue the side you agree with, regardless of who's standing next to you. Also, that's an O, not a D, in the name. --King Öomie 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
King, I agreed with the creation myth title IF we don't mean myth as a synonym for lie. I stated this in my first post. Cush expressly stated that he DOES mean it as a synonym for lie. The creationists AGREE that he means it as a synonym for lie. And no other editors were disagreeing with that stated meaning. That crosses the stated caveat in my original post. Either correct the talk page, or the article. But we cannot violate NPOV by using a term that we do not disagree means "lie." I'm not a mind reader, and other readers aren't either.EGMichaels (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
So if a Nambla member came in and said that he supported the use of "Creation Story" because little boys like stories would you rush back to the Creation Myth side? Nefariousski (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd respond, but the example is a little weird.EGMichaels (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If Cush's POV was instead that Story was preferable because he sees it as 'more' untrue than myth, would you hold the opposite view? --King Öomie 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If that was the stated argument on the talk page, if the opposing side agreed, and if there were no stated dissenters, then there would be an expressed neutrality problem on the talk page. Here's the rub -- we edit by consensus, and that includes our stated meanings. Those arguing against myth argued on the basis that it meant "lie." Cush argued FOR myth on the same grounds. NO ONE stated a disagreement (except for me). That made the STATED consensus to be that myth was in fact being used in violation of NPOV policy. We aren't allowed to do that. I'm STILL waiting for you, King, to express a disagreement with Cush. The silence leaves the consensus of meaning to be "lie." We aren't mind readers, King. If you participate in a discussion, don't leave a consensus of meaning unopposed... unless you agree with it. Do you?EGMichaels (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you might want to read about how "consensus" works on Wiki. Silence doesn't equal consent here esp considering that you can't expect every editor to be on and reading the same article at the same time. Do you honestly expect everyone to actively rage against every comment or editor that goes over the line? For the record I disagree with any value judgement regarding "truth or lie" or any other informal meanings being associated with the term "creation myth". So now that I've spoken out opposite of the "lie" statement I've neutralized the pov in your eyes right? Can we move on and continue with some semblance of constructive work? Nefariousski (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I have directly stated that Cush's motives and methods of argumentation are not my own. From above:

...Cush said, "The point is to treat all religions equal around here and to not give in to the judeochristian proselytizers." Bus stop (talk) 6:22 pm, 16 February 2010, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)

Ignore it, to be honest. I've been clear with Cush that this line of argumentation is only minutely connected to the issue at hand, and that it tends to derail the discussion into bouts of "Say WHAT now?". The opinions of Cush are "not necessarily those of NBC or its affiliates', etc etc, and it is not the line of reasoning driving the rest of us (that I know of). --King Öomie 11:06 pm, 16 February 2010, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)

--King Öomie 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Nef. That wasn't hard, was it?EGMichaels (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we archive this thread, the next thread and the thread above please? Ben (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. No need to waste the talk page with this clutter. I think I stated the summary sufficiently below. But we may need to leave the summary statement in place for a few days.EGMichaels (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
We can point anyone to it if need be. It won't be archived fully for another 15 days. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Side note on this discussion

Here thar be monsters
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An RfC on User:Cush's behavior has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush2.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What's up with your edit summary?? I didn't delete anything, Although since 90% of the examples on the RFC are totally unrelated to this article maybe this section should be deleted. Nefariousski (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
uhm review your edits, i think it might have been accident but idk. secondly it is on topic for this thread of dicussion Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward (derailed)

Now that the second page move request has closed, I think we can move forward. A few things that I can think of that need doing are:

  • Further development/refinement of the FAQ at the top of the page.
  • Rewrite the introductory sentence. It should be absolutely clear what the term myth means from the start.
  • Develop a section on the classification of Genesis 1-2 as myth, including the history of, disagreement with, etc, this classification.

I'm sure there are more suggestions, so feel free to list them. Perhaps one point at a time can be dealt with by creating a section on this talk page and chipping away at it. Additional thoughts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, ignoring input, moving input, or archiving input, does not help us move forward. This is a COLLABORATIVE effort. You need to include the relevant POVs, but shut them down. Have a little patience. I'm getting information from the other (silenced) participants to find out what is needed to have a stable article. Collaboration seems slower, but it ultimately is the only thing that sticks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben, the only thought I have at the moment is that no consensus was reached to move OR retain the page title. The last two statements on the subject were mine and the person who archived the discussion, and both of us desired a less contentious title than either option.
This subject will keep coming up and creating way too much overhead. It's primarily the reason that I'm hesitant to edit articles on religious subjects -- too many editors are concerned with establishing or debunking someone's absolute truth.
As for your third point below, all meaningful accounts can be classified as myth, whether true, false, or happening right in front of your eyes. If it is a paradigm establishing event, it is mythical (I'm using the literary application of the term, but I'm into story structure). A fiction can be mythic. History can be mythic. Even a disagreement can become mythic because of the meaning created in the conflict itself. Even worse, however, is the problem of editors trying to establish within the article itself what is "myth" and what is "history" as if they are mutually exclusive. Isn't that assuming that no "myth" can be truly "historical?" And isn't that betraying the very meaning of "myth" you and I have collectively denounced?
Rather than closing the problem here, you are multiplying it in your very proposal.EGMichaels (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
We went through an RM to get the page where it is now, and it succeeded. A new RM was created to move the page back and failed. I would say those two events constitute consensus for the current page title. I would welcome you to disagree, but, as this sections title hints at, I think it's time to move forward. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I wrote too little in my first post. I've clarified the third point since I think you misunderstood. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It's now worse. The classification of the Genesis account as myth will force you to argue in the article itself whether or why something is true or false. As for the RMs success or failure, my concern is that both titles are failures of true stability. The level of contention brought on either side and the length of history on this means that you will encounter this problem long after I'm gone (and others will encounter it long after you are gone) until a truly stable title is explored. While we don't have to do it now, we definitely need to keep this in mind for the next time (or the time after, or the time after). Sooner or later both sides will sit down and come up with a title they can live with. Simply subduing the opposition will not do the trick. And, even more to the point, pulling a fiat induced title into an active eploration on the article page itself will only multiply the problems. I don't care enough to beat this. But I don't care enough to pursue a course that will keep blowing up in our faces when another -- neutral -- alternative may be easily available. Do you WANT collaboration of all points of view? You seem decent enough. I would think so. Then trust me -- this isn't going to work without a LOT of elbow grease and constant babysitting. You're a braver man than I.EGMichaels (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion was and is "Genesis chapters one and two." It does not even touch upon the questions this issue has been about. It makes no mention of creation; it makes no mention of myth. It avoids all additional commentary. It only identifies the article. Bus stop (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think your belief that the title question is closed is entirely misplaced. The last RM close specificly leaves the matter open, & the two discussions are very odd. The first one, only open 4 days, had only one explicit "support" vote, apart from the nom also voting without disclosing that fact (did the closing admin realize?). The stated rationale for that support is just wierd, and other comments, such as Dab's, clearly favoured a Keep. The second one was arguably actually a "no consensus", despite the clear balance of votes in favour of a move, but defaulting to the dubious previous decision leaves the whole matter open, imo. Does Deletion Review take requested moves cases? That would be the best next step. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Balance of votes... WP isn't a democracy... Consensus is judged by quality of a position not by number of votes... you know the drill. What is another RM or RFC going to accomplish in so short of time? The above discussions will just be cut and pasted, someone will canvass for a change back to the original article title, a dozen editors will come in and write I agree that the article should be changed and nothing more and some folks will think that this actually counts towards consensus and then call the next closed RM or RFC to question as well. I'm not saying that the title is here and it's here to stay, but we can't expect different outcome in so short a time without any further development in the article, more research, fresh perspective etc... How about we just focus on improving the article, FAQ etc... through standard BRD for a month or so before we open up the can of worms again. Nefariousski (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


You can't very well improve an article without trying to reach a consensus. I see people trying to do anything but that here. An article has to have an agreed upon premise before people can figure out just WHAT to improve. The sudden closure and claim of victory with people so clearly troubled on one side and at least one person so clearly troubling on the other negates any consensus. You may create an article that pedantically argues in favor of "myth" to such an extent that people finally either come in to delete the entire article, or else create some kind of fork with another. Imagine that you mythologize this article and then someone else has a master article detailing the chapters of Genesis in a context that "myth" doesn't really serve the purpose of a literary summary. Then what? Then you have a finely constructed article that is so specialized that the only people who ever want to look at it are people who already share the singular POV shoehorned into the article.
I'm not comfortable wasting a lot of work trying to marginalize an article that should have a wider audience. The Genesis Creation Account is too notable and well known to be limited in this way. Should "myth" be treated in the article? Absolutely. Should the ENTIRE article be a pedantic attempt to force "myth" down the throats of half the world's population? uh, no. There is clearly no consensus for the current title. Maybe not one for the original one either. Neither side should be so married to their POV that they marginalize themselves into creating an unstable article. It's a huge waste of everyone's time, including your own.
Just take a look at the latest edits in the lede. Ben is forcing a series of sloppily written lines that can have only one purpose: pedantic editing. "The Genesis creation myth is the account of how the world was created according to the first two chapters of the Bible's Book of Genesis. It is made up of two consecutive narratives:"
Why have "myth" when you have "account"? Why have "account" if "myth" is the best word? A term should be clear enough to stand on it's own. "The book of Genesis opens with an account detailing the creation of the world in two consecutive narratives." That's tighter, clearer, less pedantic, and less repetitious. The only reason we can't have a well written article here is that we are trying to "move forward" from a pedantic premise.
As I've indicated before, I PERSONALLY have no problem with "myth". It does not offend me in the least. But no serious Wikipedia editor tries to alienate half of his readers and co-editors. Let's be serious here. There is no consensus for either title, and neither half of the planet should be marginalized. The article should represent BOTH POVs related here, and accurately report who says what and why. The current title, fine with me PERSONALLY, is an editorial fiasco.EGMichaels (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The time for discussing page titles is over. There have been two Requested Moves and an RFC processed and here we are at this article title. You can loathe that fact all you like, you rationalise it as "odd", "no consensus", whatever you want, but leave it off this talk page for at least the next few months. If participation in the development of this article is not something you want to do while it's titled this way, then don't. No-one is forcing you to be here, but it is time to move on from the article title. Ben (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's never time to proceed without consensus. Is it time to leave you alone with a fair warning that you are wasting your time? Perhaps. I do have a life. But keep in mind what you are doing: "we are forcing a fake consensus and telling you to shut up." That's not stable editing. Your "time to move forward" reminds me of an old southern expression: "the hurrieder you go, the behinder you get." Try to get consensus. A real one -- not a fake one -- and you greatly expand both your editorial work force, and your audience... with a tenth of the effort.EGMichaels (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've already noted that the first sentence needs to be rewritten, it's the second point at the top of this thread. Remember? It was just before you derailed this thread. Your assumption that half the planet (presumably every Christian and Jew and then some?) have a POV that would be against using the term myth is ridiculous. Your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are appalling. Enjoy that life of yours, ok? Ben (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben, you invited help rewriting the first sentence and then undid whoever tried to help rewrite it without comment. You need to make up your mind. You're also trying to get help moving forward, and I'm actually TRYING to help you here. Having written a number of books, I can tell you that nothing is more painful than having 300 pages of manuscript that paints you into a dead end because of a bad premise. As I mentioned, I PERSONALLY have no trouble with "myth." And yet you say I "loathe" this somehow. The only trouble I have here is a certain POV pedantically trying to silence all dissent -- and now you're apparently trying to silence me for pointing out that you are silencing others. That's not collaborative editing, it's not moving forward, and it's not what Wikipedia is all about. This is a NPOV resource meant to give people information and citations they can use for further research in whatever direction their interest lies. Rather than derailing this thread, I'm trying to help you do exactly what you claim to want: move forward. Well, Ben, you are stuck in a cul-de-sac. The best way "forward" to the interstate is to "back out of your own driveway and get to the common road." Try it. Collaboration is pretty painless, and requires far less words like "loathe" and "get a life." Play well with others, and you'll have a nicer sandbox.EGMichaels (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Handy link to the "help" I undid for anyone wanting to check up on the first sentence in EGMichaels comment. The rest of the comment is of the same calibre as the first sentence. Ben (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Exactly -- someone reworded a line that has caused (apparently) MONTHS of contention and megabytes of discussion. That looks like real help to me, and your threats to the person about "vandalism" were misplaced in this instance. I DO note that the individual did appear to vandalize an unrelated page, but your own threats on his talk page were not appropriate in this instance. Let's leave out the "loathe" comments (about a word I would PERSONALLY prefer if it weren't causing trouble), as well as the "appaling" comments about my attempts to foster real collaboration. And let's please stop threatening IP users when they aren't actually vandalizing our own article. You really do need to slow down a bit and seek COLLABORATION. That involves OTHER POVs. Your "enemies" here are really your best friends. Heck, I originally came in here supporting your own title (until I realized what a disaster it was). I was big enough to admit I was wrong. It didn't hurt at all (not even when you were jumping up and down about it).EGMichaels (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough. You've gone straight into personal attacks here, and that is not welcome. Consider this a warning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, Hand. We need people helping keep things civil. Please visit my talk page and help us brainstorm. I'm not allowing personal attacks there and will delete them when they occur. Neither side is allowed to attack the other.EGMichaels (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The warning was directed at you, EGM. And I would suggest you also be wary of WP:OWN. You've made several statements here that you "will not allow" things, and generally have given a very combative attitude. I would personally suggest you back off for a bit, as you seem to be taking this rather personally. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You missed, Hand. I'm the editor who doesn't care which title is used, since "myth" and "story" are synonyms. I'm also the editor trying to keep this offline in a civil forum where neither side is allowed to attack the other. I've offered to referee. If you'll look at my talk page, you'll note that so far "Genesis creation myth" has the greatest number of interested backers. It's not helpful to warn the wrong editor -- I'm not the one using terms like "loathe". Let's keep it civil, and please come to give your two cents. Right now your "side" has the most going for it. EGMichaels (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
"The wrong editor," eh? I'm sensing a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The discussion is about this article, and should remain here. I've made my stance clear already, and have no intention of feeding into your ownership issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I for one will immediately revert / fix any colloquial usage in the article or any attempt to use any informal synonyms. My stance isn't one of dogma or belief, it's one of using correct and precise terminology that is widely used and accepted in academic, encyclopedic, scholarly and theological circles in addition to ensuring uniform use across articles that discuss the different beliefs of different people (I don't just aim for proper usage on this article). Nefariousski (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, to quote other people from your side of the argument: move on already. We've discussed this already, and your view of 'formal usage' is clearly not the world-wide academic view. I for one, will continue to immediately revert/fix, any pov that is continually being pushed through here.

Talkpage Roundtable

I'm creating a neutral place to discuss the pros and cons of each option on my talk page. Mythologizers and non mythologizers are each welcome, but only in certain sections of the discussion. I think I can referee the organization of the page and give people some leeway.

My volunteering to be referee doesn't mean that I'm neutral. It just means that you all have a single person to blame if the waters get muddied. Everyone will KNOW it's completely my fault.

Another advantage is that we can move some of the discussion off this talk page and allow other subjects and sections to be discussed. There are itemizations that may need to be discussed about specific subtopics that are being ignored because of the title debate.

First, I want to know what options there are (a brainstorming section) and then the merits and demerits of each. The rules are my rules, but I'm being fair. I want to know what all the options are, what the real interest is, and what the merits of the various options are.

It may well be that those who are most interested in changing the title are least interested in building the article. If that's the case, then the weight of title choice should be for the editors who plan to hang around. I do NOT plan to hang around for a long time, and so I really have no stake either way.

But it does seem that the discussion has been unfair to both the article (too much clutter) and the dissenting view (too little regard). Hopefully taking it off page for a few days can enable us to remove the clutter and come back with a summary statement that ALL sides can agree with.EGMichaels (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has already happened three times via an RFC and two RMs. You are of course welcome to discuss whatever you want on your talk page, but it will likely get little input from people who have had to justify the use of the term myth through those three discussions. It is also unreasonable to expect that input from people after three long discussions. I repeat my earlier suggestion, leave it for a few months. At this point any attempts to open another RM, RFC, or whatever are likely to be seen as disruptive per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree discussion needs to continue. I would like the admin who closed this article to give more explanation. This is what it says here, "However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name. In the event what the most recent stable name is is itself a matter of dispute, closers are expected to use their own judgment in determining the proper destination. If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, you may elect to re-list the discussion, though it is entirely optional and up to the closer." I would like to know these 2 things from the closing admins:
* they chose not to move it back to the "most recent stable name." Why?
* they chose not to "elect to re-list the discussion." Why? Cheers, SAE (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the current article title was the result of an RM, it is the stable version. The current title is not the result of a drive-by move, which is what the text you're quoting is referring to. Ben (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you think the result of the page name move and the past week is "stable" then you live in a different world then me. SAE (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked above about whether the RfC was widely publicised. I received a correction on my mistaken understanding of WP:CENT (for which I am grateful) but no response on my main point. Was it widely publicised? WikiProjects? Signpost? VP? --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


I'm not trying to do an RM or an RFC. I'm trying to make a safe place to clear the air without cluttering this page. And in the process I'd like to catalogue the options and pros and cons for each. Part of the problem in this "discussion" so far is that people start arguing before they finish brainstorming. You have to look at the options first before you really know what you are discussing. For the record, I do see pros in the use of "myth." But there's no way to get a consensus if people aren't allowed to be included and fully listened to. As I said, you are welcome to list the pros and cons. I'm not going to allow argumentation -- just LISTING of what and why. We can use it for a reference later if another RM or RFC comes up.EGMichaels (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
* Con : Myth as it is used in the academic world continues to have the strong connotation of fable and legend. In a lay man's sense, it almost 100% means untruth. Editors here arguing for myth have shown that this too is their clear understanding of the word myth. Two reasons why myth cannot be used on a living religion, and at the same time remain npov. SAE (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
People keep making this claim, and I'm calling shenanigans. I support "myth" as the most neutral term. Second, "consensus" does not mean "unanimous," and it would do people well to quit saying that people aren't being listened to. The arguments were heard twice, and nothing has come of it. We've driven this subject into the dirt, and shouldn't have to do it again so soon. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Three times, an RFC and two RMs. Ben (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Hand "We've driven this subject into the dirt, and shouldn't have to do it again so soon" -> then don't. it's this easy: stop refreshing this talk page. Now, I hope you're not trying to freeze a copy of this article right where you want it... that's not it, right? For a user that hasn't contributed at all to this article (except a few reverts in the last week that you call pov), I wonder why you are so vocal on the talk page that it not receive any further edits or discussion. SAE (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I came here because of concerns brought up at a notice board. Thanks for not WP:AGFing. That said, are you expecting us to debate this ad infinitum? At a certain point, we need to stop and get back to improving the article. If folks want to bring up the debate again in a few months, fine. Consensus can change, but right now it seems like the anti-myth folks want to sledgehammer their way into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Where are you coming from? Please do not accuse me improperly. Do I expect to debate this ad infinitum? No. But is there consensus? No. What makes you think we're done discussing? You, Tillman, and anyone else who says, 'move on' at this point seem just to be attempting to push your pov through. There is not yet consencus, and therefore the discussion will continue. If you are tired of it, than remove this page from your watchlist. SAE (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming from you making snide accusations that I'm here just to push an agenda. Again, consensus does not mean "everyone agrees." We've had this discussion three times already. I'm not going to just run away because you don't like me. I don't see any point in beating a dead horse. I've yet to see a reason for changing the article's name except "I don't like it" or "It might offend someone," neither of which is valid. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks -- let's please get this off of the article page. It's not constructive. Everyone knows that "myth" is a synonym for "story", and those who truly think so don't care which word is used. I'm one of those who doesn't care. If "myth" is a synonym for story, then "story" is a synonym for myth, and they are thus interchangable. However, it is certainly clear that some folks feel very strongly about this, and those who do (on both sides) are thus demonstrating that they do NOT regard them as interchangable. As Hand said, there may BE no possible consensus -- but (as Ben said), it's been beaten to death HERE and THIS page needs a rest.

As I said, I personally DO regard "myth" and "story" to be synonymous in the academic sense, and therefore interchangable. I therefore do not care which is used. But I DO care about civility and clutter on an article page. Let's move this offline and see if consensus is possible or impossible. If impossible, then the editors with the most permanent interest (possibly the "myth" side) should prevail.EGMichaels (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, you seem to misunderstand what WP:CONSENSUS means. It does not mean "agreement by all parties." If you agree that there is no further point to debating on this talk page, then the matter is closed. User talk pages are not meant for forking article discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand, you may want to discuss this with Ben first. Do you REALLY want me to move all of this here? I'll be happy to do so if you both insist. But I think Ben wants to give the page a break and I think he's right.
Let me know which you want -- a disussion here or there. If here, I'll move everything here. So far, your side has the most support. But that would simply be because there are so many other options splitting people's views.EGMichaels (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you and Ben want to discuss it, that's fine. But it would not be a centralized debate for the article, just two users discussing the article. It would have no bearing on establishing consensus here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
[I]t would not be a centralized debate for the article .. [i]t would have no bearing on establishing consensus here. <--- This is correct in so many ways. Though don't interpret that as an invitation to continue talking about the article title here. As I said above, I think it's time to move on. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, Hand -- you two can't have it both ways. Either the eight editors who've posted on my talk page are allowed to be here or there. But you can't just say, "You aren't allowed here or there either." You can own an article, but not a user page. Again, please make up your mind WHICH you want, and I'll have the postings listed either place you two agree on.EGMichaels (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


EG, Before we continue this further would you do me the favor of reading through the FAQ and the linked policy pages. Particularly Q3 and Q2. We need to steer debate away from the generic term "MYTH" and focus on the term "Creation Myth" They have two distinct meanings different from one another and never once is "myth" used alone (see electoral college vs. college example). Arguements regarding the definitions of the word "myth" should be ignored all together per Q3, arguments that amount to an appeal to sensitivity or emotion should be generally ignored per Q2. Nefariousski (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nef. Thanks for the suggestion!
"Creation myth is a formal and proper term used by a wide range of academics and scholars (religious and secular) to define a supernatural account of how life, Earth and everything in general came into existence. This term does not imply falsehood unlike the way that the informal use of the word myth can."
Agreed. It should be used in this way. I think the concern is that it may not be used in this way. There's really no way to know with the heated nature of this talk page, and in fact the very heat of that nature gives me concerns that neither side is truly observing this ideal. A good litmus test is to find another word synonymous with the intended meaning. Those at peace with the synonym really are observing this first point. Those insisting on "myth" probably aren't using the term in this neutral sense. I'm personally fine with "myth", but I'm also fine with "story" as a synonym. I'm concerned that I may be in the minority (on either side) here.
"Wikipedia:WTA#Myth and Legend clearly states that myth in its informal sense should not be used but also clearly states that we should treat all faiths and beliefs the same (e.g. Not referring to a Christian belief on the one hand and a Hindu myth on the other). Thus all faith's creation myths are referred to as such in their respective articles as well."
As I've noted both here and on my talk page, consistency with other articles, including the "Creation Myths" article is an argument in favor of the use of the term. If you'll look on the chart on my talk page, I've put my name in the "Pro" section of "myth" for this reason. Nevertheless, Hindu "myths" are not listed in this article, and INTERNAL to this article, "myth" is therefore not required. A synonym is allowed (such as "story" or "account"). The Con (as I've listed for these two alternatives) is that all linking articles would have to be edited so that they read "Genesis creation myth" in the context of other creation myths while still linking with this present article -- regardless of how it is titled. Further, it has been proposed (I think it was Avi) that all living religions be treated the same, and I've made a comment to this effect on the talk page of your link above. "Myths" could be used for dead religions, and "Beliefs" or "Stories" could be used for living ones. I don't think anyone would be confused and suddenly convert to Hinduism/Christianity/Taoism (at the same time!) because the word "story" is used in all three. Wikireaders are more intelligent than that!
"Wikipedia:RNPOV states "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." This is also the main thrust of WP:NOT#CENSORED."
I think the concern is not to censor terms, but to use equally reliable terms or synonyms. It is a known convention in the real world to use "beliefs" or "accounts" or "narratives" or "stories" in place of "myth" when dealing with living religions. I think even Strunk and White would agree.
Ultimately the catch 22 here is the refusal to use synonyms. This was the first red flag for me. I initially came in promoting "myth" and am still fine with "myth" as long as the FAQs you've pointed out are truly being used. But the proof that they are NOT being followed is the refusal to substitute a synonym. If you cannot use a synonym, then you absolutely do NOT mean that synonym. I'm personally fine with "story" precisely because I DO mean it as a synonym for "myth." But my editorial concern with the title stems from the fact that I'm very much in the minority with that dual comfort level. In other words, the mutual discomfort on both sides is proof enough that neither side is following your FAQ sheet. And if not, then we need to use a synonym for what that FAQ claims to MEAN(instead of what it claims to SAY).EGMichaels (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The refusal to use synonyms comes from the fact that no other religious creation myth on Wikipedia uses a different term. We try to keep similar articles using similar name systems, per Wikipedia:Article titles. Using a synonym sets Judeo-Christian religions apart from the other religions on Wikipedia, thus creating an appearance of favoritism. If this is the crux of your issue, what you need is to propose a guideline to get all these articles named the same, not keep hammering on a single article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
EG, you really need to give up your ownership issues. I never said "they aren't allowed," but that discussions on a User talk page have no bearing on an Article talk page's consensus. You're free to keep discussing it on your talk page and here if you want, but debates on your talk page cannot be considered for determining consensus here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm willing to move all of those signed comments from eight editors here if you prefer. But then we'll have a problem with the real ownership issue, trying to prevent discussion both here AND there. Please list a place where those editors will be listened to, and I'll comply.EGMichaels (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm How many times are you not going to listen to what I'm saying? I'm not owning anything, I'm telling you how Wikipedia works. If they want to discuss it there, then come back here and present their argument, fine. I'm saying that if the discussion happens there, they still have to reach consensus with editors here afterwards. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm confused about what you're saying. You're talking about Myth, the scholarly term, and Myth, meaning 'lie', like they're homonyms, not different definitions to the same word. If the context works for the first one better than the second, whatever secret intentions a given editor has don't matter. It's not like he's adding <!-- heh heh, suckers --> to the page every time he types it. No additional meaning coats the term beyond its context. It sounds like you're saying "editors have to promise they won't MEAN one thing" instead of "editors have to promise that the context will point to the SCHOLARLY definition"- which it currently does. --King Öomie 18:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The question is what the title should be. The title should not have larded into it anyone's pet perception on what Genesis might be. I hear from no one that the title should invoke the holiness or the sacredness of this tract from a central document to one or more religions. But I hear numerous editors calling for a title that identifies that document and at the same time proclaims its inaccuracy. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia should realize right away that we (editors) are not supposed to be utilizing Wikipedia to promote our own personal views. Scientific evidence may demolish any shred of credibility this religious document may have. But the religious document itself should be identified in value neutral language. It is a story. There is no word in the English language more natural than "story" for referring to to the verbal description contained in Genesis chapters one and two. Myth implies spuriousness. Is it Wikipedia's role to take a stand on matters only tangentially related to the identification of this article? I don't think so. I think our sole responsibility is identifying the subject of this article. Some word should probably be used to refer to the contents of Genesis as covered by our article, and "story" does this with the least fanfare. "Story" accomplishes this without applying any "spin" vis-a-vis a science/religion debate that should play no role in naming this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that's your question. And that's Cush. --King Öomie 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
"Myth implies spuriousness."
Good god. Is it POSSIBLE to win this whack-a-mole game? --King Öomie 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


King -- all I'm saying is that the scholarly use is strongly (though not totally) synonymous with "story." The only advantage to "myth" is the greater specificity of meaning (to include something both supernatural and not objectively true). Personally, I like the word "myth" better than "story" because a myth connotes something SUBJECTIVELY true -- i.e. a story with meaning. However, as I've noted, my comfort level with the synonym is in such apparent minority, that it appears that neither side is USING the term as a synonym for story. If I call a woman a lady (and I mean a synonym for woman), and she objects to the term because she's no one's wife -- I'll shrug my shoulders and call her whatever synonym she likes... because I truly MEAN the synonym. As I said before, it's a catch 22. Only those comfortable with BOTH "story" and "myth" are in compliance with the FAQ. Right now I'm the only person with that comfort. And you?EGMichaels (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Busstop, Genesis being a "Creation myth" is no more someone's pet perception than an alligator being a reptile. As for "story" i'd like you to compare the definitions of "creation myth" and "Story" and see which one has more of a fairy tale, false spin to it. There's no alternative definition for "creation myth" that implies fiction or falsehood as there is with story.
EG, I for one will immediately revert / fix any colloquial usage in the article or any attempt to use any informal synonyms. My stance isn't one of dogma or belief, it's one of using correct and precise terminology that is widely used and accepted in academic, encyclopedic, scholarly and theological circles in addition to ensuring uniform use across articles that discuss the different beliefs of different people (I don't just aim for proper usage on this article). Nefariousski (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nef -- I've noticed that you were doing that and appreciate that. In any case, I think we can satisy Ben's request that we minimize the impact here, and Hands requirement that everyone be ignored unless posting here. We can finish the categorization on my talk page and make a clear summary listing of each pro and con -- and people can just sign their own views with a quick four tildes once it moves here. But there are more people to hear from. Right now "Genesis creation myth" has a plurality, but not a majority. While consensis is not necessarily a vote, people's concerns should be clearly addressed and listened to, rather than dismissed out of hand. I'd like to make sure you're fairly represented in the summary as well. I wouldn't want the summary list to ignore the "myth" points.EGMichaels (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict) You've set up a false dichotomy here. I'm not comfortable with "story" because it goes against WP:TITLE by making this Abrahamaic religious creation myth stand apart from all the other creation myths on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we don't just "shrug our shoulders" for folks because they personally take offense to a scholarly term used in a scholarly manner. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, after you did that, I'd be wondering why it is that there are 40 "ladies" in the room, and one "Ma'am". --King Öomie 19:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL King!!! :-)
Hand, it's not being used in a scholarly way if its synonym gets THIS much opposition. Methinks thou dost protest too much.EGMichaels (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. You haven't assumed good faith since you started editing here. And I'm rapidly running out of good faith in you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting statement, since I've seen a lot of good faith here (take a look at my talk page). My problem is that a lot of good faith editors are being told to sit down and shut up with "let's move on" or "this is a dead horse" etc. All I'm suggesting is that everything be clearly expressed, so that you at least know WHAT you are disagreeing with (and they know the same concerning you). And you have a problem with this because...??? Maybe I missed it. I'm saying everyone should be fairly considered, systematically presented, and neutrally reflected in the article. Well, that's just normal Wikipedia stuff. Granted, it seems abnormal here, but that's not my problem.EGMichaels (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired of banging my head into your wall, so this will be my last reply to this thread. We've hashed and re-hashed this issue several times already. It's in the archives, hell it's on this very page. If people don't want to be bothered to read the history of this debate, I don't know what to tell them. It's a dead horse because we've beaten it to death and nothing new has come of it. All I'm saying is let it be, and we can revisit it at a later time (hopefully when people have something new to contribute). I have a problem with people arguing for argument's sake, because it's disruptive to actually getting anything done. At a certain point, you need to put the stick down and work on something productive. But, some people seem to think that making the same arguments repeatedly is "discussing" things. As an example, see Bus Stop's comments below. We've already pointed out Wikipedia:Article naming, the fact that "creation myth" is neutral naming, among numerous other points, but it's the same old same old from him. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand -- that's why we're systemetizing the options, pros, and cons on my talk page. When we are finished, we can present the summary here, and everyone interested can put their four tildes on it. It's obvious that at least one side isn't listening (and maybe both). So, it's useful to at least explore clearly and accurately what everyone is saying in an accessible format. The problem is that neither side is satisfied, and neither side (you included) feels like they've been heard -- and you are all correct about that! In any case, your own view still has a plurality. Relax, consensus and mutual listening CAN be achieved, even on a religion page (personally, I have a love/hate relationship with religious pages for that very reason: no one listens to each other... they're all afraid for their soul or brain).EGMichaels (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The title and the body of the article are two different things. What is good for the body of the article is not necessarily good for the title. The title merely introduces a topic. It should do so in the most plain manner possible. The title, as far as possible, should find its language in common terminology. "Story" is an especially common term in English. It also has the added benefit of being equally applicable to that which is true and that which is false. The reader doesn't come to the article to have their preexisting views supported or challenged, and the right title should reflect this. The right title should be a reflection of the open-mindedness that Wikipedia assumes to characterize its readers. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Story is also an incredibly imprecise term that is often defined as Fiction (feel free to google the definition). "Creation Myth" on the other hand is very precise, only has one definition and does not imply any falsehood, or make any value judgement regarding truth one way or the other It is completely value neutral it just lists the simple boring facts. Additionally it is a common term across faiths which helps categorize this article and also keeps it in line with the vast majority of other encyclopedic sources and academic / scholarly research and literature. Nefariousski (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Nef, if you were right, then the atheists would be demanding "story" and the theists would be demanding "myth." Er.... doesn't seem to be happening that way. Chin up! It WILL be okay.EGMichaels (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not OK to assume bad faith in your opponents so long as there are perfectly fine alternative explanations for a phenomenon. In this case, a bunch of biblical literalists or sympathisers of such started this whole affair with an absurd attack against use of the correct technical term "creation myth" in the lead. It seems quite possible to me that they were influenced by a belief in Wikipedia's "liberal bias" and motivated by assumptions of bad faith. Since there is nothing wrong with the term and they used an invalid argument against it (namely that any choice of words that implies the obvious and uncontroversial fact that the story is not literally true is somehow POV) opposition from the opposite camp was absolutely predictable. Since they were pushing a fringe theory (creationism), the fringe noticeboard was notified. The attention drawn to this article led to the discovery of the problem with its title. Please note how this natural interpretation of events does not involve anyone's bad faith. Hans Adler 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hans Adler — are you conceding that there is a problem with the title? You say, "The attention drawn to this article led to the discovery of the problem with its title." I am not trying to speak on your behalf. I am merely asking you a question. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I was referring to Creation according to Genesis, which was a bit of a descriptive "plot summary" title. Hans Adler 06:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. You feel that there is a "plot summary" aspect to the previous title. That is fair, and I appreciate your response. Please tell me what objections if any you would have to "Genesis chapters one and two" as a title. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me see... it's not ok to assume bad faith (agreed), but somehow it is perfectly fine to assume "a bunch of literalists" (not the ones posting on my talk page... at least half of whom -- including me -- don't even believe the account) or "absurd attacks" (again, all I see are expressions of neutrality and concerns against assumption of truth as well as falsehood) or "invalid arguments" (NPOV isn't invalid here) or "fringe theory" (neutrality expressed from disbelievers on my talk page do not resemble anything fringe). Uh huh. Gotcha. Feel free to check out the equal concerns against "account" (because it implies truth).EGMichaels (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


EG, This isn't athiests vs theists. You are a prime example of someone of faith who is at least attempting to look at both sides. Lets for one minute remove obvious polarizing editors from the equation (on both sides) and you have those who for reasons stated in the FAQ prefer a precise, formally defined term "creation myth" (Not Myth as a stand alone term) and policy that supports said usage. Then you have those who support some alternative because they either don't grasp the concept that "Creation Myth" doesn't imply falsehood and they keep pushing on the component word "myth" (see the electoral college isn't an institute of higher learning because it contains the word college example) or they oppose the usage on a basis of feeling it is somehow offensive and that we can't expect users to understand that the "myth" in "creation myth" isn't being used informally (despite definitions, footnotes, wikilinks to the main CM page, a FAQ etc...). Nefariousski (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
EGMichaels, here are some aspects you seem to have missed:
  • I said "biblical literalists or sympathisers". Having been accused of being a homeopath on Talk:Homeopathy for trying to keep the insult "quackery" out of that article, I added the second part for a reason. (Just like the US has an unusually large number of biblical literalists, Germany has an unusally large number of homeopathy fans. This is an important factor for deciding how respectful to be when dealing with the respective fringe theory, resulting in conflicts even between non-believers from different cultural backgrounds.)
  • Apart from that, it appears to me that Historian2007 and Til Eulenspiegel are openly creationist. (Correct me if I am wrong.) These seemed to be among the most active opponents of the term "creation myth" when I first came to this article.
  • As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that Genesis isn't literally true is uncontroversial fact. Believe it or not, but that's how it is. If you don't believe it, get input from noticeboards. Saying that Genesis isn't literally true only touches WP:NPOV where it comes to matters of weight, see WP:UNDUE. It has been argued on this talk page that use of the term "creation myth" is POV because: (1) We only use it in bad faith to push an atheist POV (wrong). (2) It means "false creation story" (wrong). (3) It's a highly technical term (wrong) and therefore inappropriate (wrong). (4) The story might plausibly be just as literally true as the scientific view of the world's origin (wrong). How much more nonsense do you have to chain together before an argument becomes absurd?
  • "Creation account" is transparently a formation designed to avoid the word "myth", which is otherwise standard in this context. I maintain that "account" does have inappropriate connotations of literal truth, in contrast to the appropriate connotations of folklore that "myth" has. The term "creation account" likely predates the realisation that Genesis contains no more than an example of a literary genre; nowadays the term functions as a euphemism that is still used only for the Judeo-Christian creation myth. I admit that as far as I know it is probably the standard way of referring to this particular creation myth in English (I know that it is in German), which is a symptom of a systemic bias of the English language. We might be able to have an intelligent debate about the interesting conflict between two Wikipedia principles: Use of standard English and NPOV. We might. But we are not having such a debate because some people insist on pursuing red herrings. Hans Adler 21:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Contemplating deleting your sig and taking credit for that post. --King Öomie 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Cant blame the guy, damn near everything we can say on this topic at this point has already been said a dozen times over by a dozen different editors, I've seen Gabbe use my Electoral College analogy a few times and so on. It gets boring just cutting and pasting your own previous comments ;) Nefariousski (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
We are not talking about the body of the article. No one has ever suggested that the term "creation myth" should not appear in the body of the article. The topic of this discussion is what the title of the article should be. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks -- sorry I've been tied up. Geeze, a lot more words trying to keep me from finding out what people want! Whatever it is, it must be crazy scary. ;-)

In any case, to your points:

Nef -- my faith is not an issue. My editorial concern is. If you really must know, I approach "myth" and "religion" from a Joseph Campbell perspective. Of course religion is mythical! EVERY paradigm is (including atheism). "Myth" is what Robert McKee calls the "archplot" -- which he defines as the pattern of the human mind. C. G. Jung regarded this pattern as the collective unconscious, and Erich Neumann argued that all myths reflect the drive of the human being to separate his individuality from that core of basic human instinct (in Jungian terms, this is individuism). This depth psychology is the monomyth expressed by James Joyce to be the pattern of all narratives.

And the Bible is a narrative.

Also to quote McKee, "biography is fiction; auto-biography is fantasy." Rather than being a true believer, I'm probably the most pure religious cynic you'll ever meet. I don't buy ANY of it -- not even the atheist stuff. If I had to choose between the Pope and Hawking, I'd pick Hawking in a nanosecond. But I also see limitations from the best of our theories, and I also see that all of them, no matter how tied or divorced from "reality" become "myth" as soon as our reptilian overgrowth brains get a hold of them and start processing ultimate reality into some kind of pattern that's supposed to make sense.

So there you have it. My supposed "sympathy" with faith is no more profound than my sympathy for your own positions -- which is why I've asked for input and fairness all around.

You folks remind me of a woman in the mountains of North Carolina who gasped in shock when she found out that I liked to watch Star Trek: "you don't actually BELIEVE all of that stuff do you?" Well, sure I do. I believe any well told tale with a controlling idea. The Bible is "true" precisely BECAUSE it is "mythical." It fits the pattern of the human mind and creates meaning for billions of people.

I believe in Captain Kirk when the storyform is well designed.

Let's get out of the sandbox, stop shouting at each other, and actually listen to what is needed here.

The Bible is "myth". I mean "myth", not in a neutral sense, but in a positive sense. If a movie lacks myth, I walk out of it. If a book lacks myth, I trash it -- and this is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to history and science. We are human beings trying to communicate with other human beings, and that can only be done through "myth."

I find, then, that for all of your protestations, the "myth" side of this disagreement is the most enslaved to myth. You folks are the true believers pronouncing from on high that only one term can be used. You are the ones trying to dictate what ultimate "truth" all readers MUST embrace. And you hide behind scholarly "norms" that were merely created by other Wikipedia editors on the manual of style pages. Well, I didn't learn to write from Wikipedia. I learned from real sources like Strunk and White (love that delightful little tome of Anglo-Saxon sensibilities).

Strunk and White counseled writers to avoid "myth" when dealing with a living religion. Why? Because real writers want their readers to get their point, and they won't do it if they won't read it. So, according to notable and reliable sources the Wikipedia manual of style is not infallible.

As I said, I regard the Genesis account to be a "story" of the highest sort: "myth". "Myth" is my greatest compliment.

But because I MEAN a compliment, I refuse to be so sloppy a writer that I'll alienate my audience too quick to see my point. Now, in your case you are still arguing, but I suspect that's not my fault. When I suggest that all sides should be fair, you argue. When I suggest that all sides should be listened to, you argue. When I express sympathy for the "myth" side AND the "story" side, I'm treated as a "theist sympathizer." What is that like, a Nazi sympathizer?

It seemed like I was pulling teeth yesterday when I was trying to get SOMEONE, ANYONE to state an objection to Cush's insistence that "myth" really is intended to cure readers of their childish theism.

And I have the "myth" side arguing that "myth" really does mean "story" in a specific scholarly sense -- and yet demonstrating that they don't actually believe that statement because they so profoundly argue against the very synonym they claim to mean!

Sorry, folks -- but the supposed fanatics on my talk page have expressed a concern that neither "myth" nor "account" be used in the title -- since "myth" connotes "lie" and "account" connotes "truth." The DENOTATIONS are the same, but the connotations are too assumptive in a title.

Are they right? Maybe, maybe not. But those saying they are not allowed to breathe their view are most profoundly wrong.

Although consensus is not built by sheer numbers, nor even unanimous agreement -- it is neither built by silencing all dissent.

What is this, the all republican congress of eight years ago, or the all democrat congress of today? Your "enemies" are your best friends.

And yes, you "myth" folks are the best friends of the "story" folks. You each have human limitations of perspective, and need each other to save yourselves from POV violations.

Nef -- it's not that the "story" folks don't understand that you mean "myth" in a neutral way. It's that they do understand that you do not. The proof? This very disagreement. The proof that you don't MEAN "story" is that you refuse to even CONSIDER "story." I have a "wife". She is my "lover." To me those are synonyms, and I'll smile at either choice. Were I to object, you'd have every reason to question the state of my marriage.

Hans -- I'm a sympathizer with "myth" as well. Sue me.

As for the openly creationist folks... you know what? We NEED their input to help keep this article accessible to other creationist readers. Does that mean we have to censor what we say? Hardly, but if we REALLY mean "story" when we say "myth" then why not use the term? If you asked about my "lover" in a public forum, I might request you use the term "wife" in order to avoid any misdirection. Unless you were trying to insult my marriage by implying something neither of us CLAIM to believe, then you'd simply smile and use the synonym that means the same thing.

Again, avoidance of a synonym proves that you do not MEAN that synonym -- you in fact mean the opposite.

As for "uncontroversial fact" -- hogwash. I don't believe Genesis is literally true, but I don't CARE either. Wikipedia doesn't care any more than I do. It's not designed as literal truth. There are two narratives overlaying a Babylonian construct meant to create a paradigm of how humans are to regard their deity. This patriarchal construct uses parallelism to the two stories to show that man's relationship with God (the first narrative) is the same as a spousal relationship (the second narrative).

But arguing "this is true!" or "no, you dumbhead, it's not!" keeps everyone too distracted to see what the story DOES say. It's quite a lovely narrative sequence, but you'd never know from THIS discussion.

I'm reminded of a writer's conference I was in, where we discussed the controlling idea of the Godfather ("love of family leads to life of crime" a delightful ironic twist). One person kept arguing that crime was a bad thing. Well, sure. That's the whole point of an ironic controlling idea.

If you'd stop shouting for a spell and listen, you'd figure out that the other editors are reflecting half of the potential audience who will never read your pronouncements from on high ("this is MYTH, you dumb readers!"). No writer worth his salt deliberately turns off his audience. Instead, he co opts that other side and uses the other person's favorite terms to communicate the point that the writer wanted them to get -- much the way I'm ATTEMPTING to use your own term here to get my point across. If I don't succeed -- at least I tried.

I don't see you trying. That might work on Wikipedia, because you don't need to actually sell your hard work. You get the same zero pennies for half an audience that you'd get for a whole one, so why should you care?

Well, you shouldn't, if you like to continually argue and stop out any dissent when other editors try to help you improve the article.

Who knows? Maybe myth REALLY IS the best word! But you'd never know if you didn't at least listen to the other side.

And finally, the people posting on my talk page didn't like "creation account" any more than "creation myth" on the grounds that both violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Go figure.EGMichaels (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


This debate will not stop until a real consensus is found. Masterhomer 08:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This debate will not stop until everyone has understood that NPOV does not require us to pretend that the idea that everything in Genesis is literally true is reasonable. It isn't, and that's an uncontroversial fact. Hans Adler 10:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This debate will not stop until everyone has understood that you don't have to force-feed everyone your own pov. Lay the facts out as they lie -- this is the Creation according to the Book of Genesis -- then in the body of the article we lay out the two main points: some see this as myth, and some as sacred history. But as long as you feel your pov needs to be pushed (heavens forbid we leave the reader to come up with their own conclusion based on the evidence and arguments!), then we keep spinning our tires in the mud. SAE (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
SAE — I would add that there may even be more than "two main points." My argument goes beyond concerning itself with whether Genesis is true or false. There are potentially any number of characterizations of Genesis, and we are doing this article a disservice when we contemplate locking this article into but one characterization. That is what is primarily wrong with the "creation myth" appendage. It is hung on to the end of otherwise acceptable titles, the effect being to narrow the focus of the article. There is zilch reason for narrow focus, since what really matters in a title is the identifying of the material covered in the article. In fact, carried to its logical conclusion, no other characterizations of genesis would be permissible in this article — because the title says that this article is only about the "creation myth." Logically speaking, it would be improper to show within this article that there are those who accept Genesis as a literal account of how the world came to be. That is because the title, containing "creation myth," says that the article is only about Genesis as a "creation myth." Similarly if one wished to add (sourced) material about Genesis as a cultural influence, one would be technically restrained from doing so by the narrow focus implied by the title. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Bus: I agree with you fully. My point above is that one side keeps pov-pushing because they want to force readers into their conclusion, instead of allowing them to reason for themselves. They're afraid that being npov in this article might allow a person to think instead of swallowing their pre-made conclusion whole. But I am right with you. SAE (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, SAE, stop right there. That's a personal attack, and not allowed. Second, in regards to Bus Stop, you're in the wrong place. We've got Book of Genesis, Creationism, and Genesis creation myth, each with a more narrow focus than the previous. This article isn't about Genesis in general, that's what Book of Genesis is for. This also isn't about describing people who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story. That's what the Creationism article is for. This article is just about the story itself, and we can describe it exactly as what it is: a creation myth. Further, we can go into more detail on its influences in literature & the arts (aka Cistine Chapel's mural). We can mention that some people take it literally, sure! But, it would be a small section (a paragraph or two) with Main article: Creationism below the heading, leading the reader to an in-depth article on the subject, rather than trying to cram that whole subject into this article. That's why your argument is invalid, and has been from the start. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward: take two

Since the last thread was derailed almost instantly, I am trying to move forward again. I wrote above that I can think of a few things that need doing:

  • Further development/refinement of the FAQ at the top of the page.
  • Rewrite the introductory sentence. It should be absolutely clear what the term myth means from the start.
  • Develop the section on the classification of Genesis 1-2 as myth, including the history of, disagreement with, etc, this classification.

I'm sure there are more suggestions, so feel free to list them. Mildly Mad has had a go at rewriting the lead and I think it's much better, so perhaps we can just strike that one for now. I am a little concerned about it giving the impression creation was ex nihilo without discussion, but maybe we can discuss that issue in a separate thread (it will have to be dealt with at some point since it's mentioned in the third paragraph explicitly). Perhaps one point at a time can be dealt with by creating a section on this talk page and chipping away at it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ has been removed. Not only is it not necessary, it's trying to justify a POV that is still in a major dispute. Please refrain from adding such things to this page without a consensus on it's contents. Masterhomer 08:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ was developed collaboratively throughout the last RFC. Removing it without discussion, and then undoing a revert of your removal is at the very least disruptive. Ben (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ was written by a total of two people, both with the exact same agenda (keeping the "myth" in the title). It's entire purpose is to justify the last several debates from an entirely "pro-myth" perspective. And it's not exactly needed if someone wants to see the arguments presented in the most NPOV manner, they simply have to read them. I will remind you that this is still a topic in dispute, and it will probably remain in dispute until a real consensus is made that represents an actual compromise between the various thiest and athiest editors. Masterhomer 08:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ was written with the purpose to keep "creation myth" in the title, which is exactly what this article is about, and the naming of which is consistent with other articles about the creation myths of other religions. "creation myth" is the accurate academic and reliably sourced term for what the first chapters of Genesis are from a NPOV. This whole discussion about personal preferences is superfluous. CUSH 12:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Cush — "Creation myth" has nothing to do with the title. The addition of "creation myth" to the title is merely commentary; it is uncalled for. It is nonessential material, from the point of view of what is required of the title. The title needs to identify the subject of the article. That is accomplished succinctly by "Genesis chapters one and two." The body of the article is the space in which to wax eloquent on those characterizations of the subject of this article that are sufficiently well-sourced for that purpose. If certain other articles may contain this same problem (of commentary in the title that is gratuitous) they would have to be addressed separately. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Bus Stop, we've been over this many times. Unless you're going to start attempting to change every other article on creation myths, you're attempting to change standard naming conventions to favor this one religious creation myth. That is POV, and what we've been telling you this whole time. If you want to change the other articles, you're going to need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Article titles or start a discussion on WP:VPP to get consensus for such a site-wide change, rather than trying to sledgehammer it through on one article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have great problems with the 1-sided pov in the faq. Should we write a second faq to go below the first, one about sacred history, that says that sacred history doesn't mean that every has to take it as literally true? SAE (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"Sacred history?" We're not here to debate Creationism in this article, we're only here to show the creation myth outlined in Gen 1 & 2, and hopefully show its impact on society. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
@ hand, "we're only here to show the creation myth ... [and] its impact on society." -> do you realize the impact this has had on our society? Do you realize that every fabric of the culture that you now live in (if you live in the western world) has been touched by people who believe Genesis 1 & 2 to be sacred history? More than that, it was founded upon Christian belief. It is only people ignorant of history who disregard such things. If what you say is what you want to do, 'figure out its impact on society,' then "sacred history" has a huge, huge, role to play. SAE (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"Touched by people who believe" is pretty damn vague, don't you think? Also, western society as a whole was not "founded upon Christian belief," though Christianity has had a major impact. Again, this is about the creation myth in Genesis itself, not Christianty as a whole. I'm talking art, literature, etc. that has been shaped by this creation mythology as part of the article; not a vague "'every fabric' relies on it" claim. Also, please cut the passive-aggressive comments about "ignorance of history." Disagreement is not necessarily based on ignorance. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand That Feeds — the narrow focus that you propose does not serve this article's needs well. Much more needs to be covered here than just Genesis as a "creation myth." Anything sourced and related to Genesis chapters one and two has a potential place in this article, and that includes its relationship to Creationism. If sourced material can be found showing Genesis' relation to the arts for instance, that would be potentially material for this article. This article isn't just about Genesis as a "creation myth." That type of focus is misplaced. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
But we only present what creationists interpret or believe about Genesis. We do not make their terminology Wikipedia's. CUSH 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a false analogy. The title is not overly limiting- the article is not about "genesis as a creation myth", it's about "the creation myth in genesis". Similarly to how The Beatles (album) is not required to only talk about the liner notes, or a description of the color of the vinyl, this article is free to talk about the impact the subject has had. It doesn't need to be moved to do that. --King Öomie 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the reason The Beatles (album) is titled as it is, is to distinguish that article from the other article on the music group, titled The Beatles. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It's also about music, and not religion. It's not a perfect parallel. I'm talking about the subject in relation to the coverage provided. It's less strictly enforced than you might suggest. --King Öomie 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So, the justification for a misplaced focus will be an absence of enforcement? Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop repeating the same old debunked claim, it's disruptive. A descriptive title is necessary and since the article's topic is the creation myth found in the Book of Genesis the suggestion that the title gives a misplaced focus is disingenuous. Ben (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no misplaced focus. The article deals with the origin of the world through supernatural agents as described (claimed) in the first paragraphs of Genesis. In short, the "Genesis creation myth". This title says exactly what the article is about. This article is not about Genesis in general, but about just one section of it. CUSH 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is/was the only objection to the old article title ("Creation according to Genesis") that it does not match other articles on similar topics? --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The concern was that it treated this particular creation myth with much more sympathy and sensitivity than any other. --King Öomie 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a "yes". --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like an "exactly what I said". Your question did not cover the length and breadth of the issue, and portrayed it as rather pedantic. I expanded the premise and answered affirmatively. To answer it another way- "No, that's not the whole issue. Here's the rest:" --King Öomie 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
One of my concerns was that it was a very awkward title to try and work with. Another was that it was so vastly different to the way other general references referred to the material. In looking to remedy both of these things it was natural to consider how reliable sources refer to this article's topic and how Wikipedia handled other creation myths. Ben (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ben. What do you mean, it was awkward to work with? --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The major concern seemed to be that use of the term creation myth would give readers the impression that the events mentioned in Genesis did not take place. The current title (or some variation of it - two similar suggestions were made at the start) allows us to satisfy two objectives (one objective from each side of the fence so to speak): use terminology that is consistent with reliable sources on the topic (editorially neutral point of view) and to give a short expansion of the term creation myth (see the current introductory sentence) to make it clear that we're not using the term myth to mean false. That is, on top of this being a religious article (context), and a wikilink to creation myth existing, we further tried to appease the concern by indicating what the term creation myth meant from the very beginning of the article. The old title made the introductory sentence too unwieldy if the same set of objectives were attempted. Ben (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to use policy

Trying to be as unbiased and dispassionate as I can, I went through and pulled out all the relevant pieces of WP policy for consideration. Disclaimer: before I did this, I was still of the opinion that "myth" "creation myth" was the correct title, but please take my word that I am not cherry picking policy, and that I am open to alternatives, as long as they fulfill policy.

  • Point 1: The term "myth" "creation myth" in its scholarly context is neutral, and as such should be used in the article. Concerns that readers would be "turned off" by the term are not a valid reason to not use "myth" "creation myth"
    • WP:WTA#Myth and legend: "Formal use of the word [mythology] is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception."
    • WP:RNPOV: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words [myth and legend] only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."
    • WP:RNPOV: "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."
  • Point 2: "Myth" "Creation myth" should be used in the article title, because it is the neutral term used to describe the article's content, and similar articles also use "Myth" "Creation myth" in the title.
    • WP:NPOV#Article titles: "Encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality."
    • WP:WTA#Myth and legend: "Referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."
  • Point 3: The remainder of the article remains neutral, because the beliefs of Judeo-Christians are documented without passing judgment on their truth.
    • WP:RNPOV: "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources"

We see from the above points that the term "creation myth" is neutral and should be used as the article's title. Mildly MadTC 15:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing about "myth" but about "creation myth", which is a proper term. CUSH 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear about that. I have updated my post accordingly. Mildly MadTC 16:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted in my Pros section to the current title in the Summary Table, the tie in with other creation myths articles is a point in favor of "Genesis creation myth." Although not the only relevant point, it is a strong one.EGMichaels (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, my other question

I'm sure I've asked this before, but don't seem to have received a reply, other than a helpful clarification on the role of WP:CENT... was the RfC or Requested Page Move notified to relevant WikiProjects, to ensure thorough discussion and reliable consensus? --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors canvassed to get participation of the RFC (see the "underhanded tactics" section of the RFC), I'm not sure exactly where it was reposted though, you might want to ask Afaprof (he submitted the RFC) or dab or one of the other admins that closed / contributed to the RFC. I don't think anyone here on the so called "creation myth" side bothered since there's nothing more on this side that can be said than what has already been brought up time and time and time again. Nefariousski (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where AFA Prof01 advertised it either, though it did appear on the usual RFC lists and if I recall it was advertised on the NPOV noticeboard at some point. Ben (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary Table

Please endorse your own position, and add pros and cons (and other potential titles) as necessary. Please note, the only purpose of this table is to clearly present pros and cons for each possible position. The merits and demerits of various positions are already being debated in the body of the article and archives. My attempt is merely to summarize and clarify what is already being discussed.

Regardless of what consensus finally becomes stable, it's important to at least have a clear and concise presentation of WHAT is being discussed.EGMichaels (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Title Editors Open to Title Pros Cons
Genesis creation myth Auntie E, EGMichaels, Ben, Nefariousski, Mildly Mad, King Öomie EGMichaels: conformity with other similar article titles. Would create minor problems if renamed and mismatched with similar religious creation stories (and major problems if ALL are thus renamed). Certainly gets the reader's attention!

Auntie E: the article Genesis creation myth does use the word in the proper scholarly manner as our guidelines advise... in the formal sense of a story of a culture or religion of which the truth is indeterminable. Nefariousski: sorry for the long comment

  • WP:WTA#Myth and Legend

(relevent sections) "Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception...be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally." Being that the usage of "Creation Myth" in articles (and their titles) about creation myths is near unanimous across different belief systems changing this convention for Judeo-Christian related articles violates the word and spirit of WP:WTA. A sample of the other articles are as follows: Chinese creation myth Sumerian creation myth Ancient Egyptian creation myths Pelasgian creation myth Tongan creation myth Mesoamerican creation myths Creation Myth Keeping in mind that this isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since WP:WTA makes a specific example for uniform usage and the usage of "Creation Myth" is clearly the dominant usage for Religious and Supernatural cosmogenical articles.

  • WP:RNPOV

Usage of "Creation Myth" is clearly in line with this policy. The policy states "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." The latter three almost unanimously use the term "Creation Myth" while the first describes it as a historical fact (which we cannot due for a myriad of reasons that I'm sure everyone reading this understands). At best if any reliable sources can be found that are critical of usage of the term "Creation Myth" (not myth as a stand alone since the Electoral College can not be classified as a College any more than definitions of myth, particularly the informal/colloquial definitions can be applied to the term "Creation Myth") a section disucssing this criticism should be added to the article and the main Creation Myth article but shouldn't contradict usage of the term per "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction." Per the section that states "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader." editors of this article have, in good faith, created a FAQ, cited formal definitions, wikilinked to the main Creation myth article (which also has a detailed formal definition) and added a footnote to the the term "Creation Myth" to further clarify formal usage. All of which meet and possibly exceed the due diligence required to ensure that the formal meaning is understood.

  • WP:UCN

Usage of "Creation Myth" in the title has been furthermore contested after the first article RM, another RM was started about a week later to remove the term from the title, that RM also was declined and closed (albeit with some arguement and complaint regarding it possibly being closed too soon). UCN tells us "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article", considering the vast majority of cited sources including archaelogical, scientific, historical and other scholarly/academic writings use the term "Creation Myth" as opposed to other colloquial variants the title meets UCN. Furthermore the usage of "Creation Myth" abounds in reliable sources doing a quick google search shows that it's use clearly meets the "common usage" section of UCN "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name" UCN also tells us "Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. " alternatives such as "Story" or "account" imply value judgements regarding veracity one way or the other (Story commonly being defined as fiction, account commonly being used in factual / historical context). Additionally changing the name causes a loss of precision (also discussed in UCN) since "Creation Myth" is the formally defined academic term and as such doesn't allow for any ambiguity (only one definition) whereas other alternatives do. Some editors have brought up different variants of google tests that show "Creation Story" or some other suggestion to have more "hits" than usage of "Creation Myth" again we look to UCN for guidance and see "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." which tells us that accuracy should value accuracy above hit counts when colloquial and non archaic formal terms are in consideration for a article name.

  • WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

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

Weaponbb7: implies that the religion is just a myth.

EGMichaels: WP guidelines prohibit the use as synonym for "falsehood." The refusal of some editors to substitute this word indicates that they are using it in this way. It taints the article and turns away other editors and audience. Grantmidnight: Use of the term "myth" in the title passes judgement on the content. Avi: The term "myth" should not be in the title due to the connotations it suggests (falshood, etc.) Johnbod (and Dabachmann) In fact not the commonest term among academic RS for Genesis, although it may be as a general term

Genesis creation story Bus Stop, Johnbod, EGMichaels, Weaponbb7,Michelle cannon, Masterhomer, SAE EGMichaels: neutral, direct synonym for "myth" and good substitute. EGmichaels: perhaps too innocuous. Doesn't grab the reader.

Johnbod: The commonest term among academic RS (see Dab's links). Usefully emphasizes the literary nature of the single text from which the account comes. In terms of the factual truth of the account, neutral, leaning slightly towards fiction.

Genesis creation account EGMichaels, Templeknight EGMichaels: somewhat neutral (but less so than "story"). EGMichaels: although a synonym for "story" (and indirect synonym for "myth"), it implies an objectively true event.

Weaponbb7: Again it makes imply it is absolutley true.

Creation according to Genesis Weaponbb7, Avi, Masterhomer, Templeknight, SAE, agr EGMichaels: could be taken as innocuous.

Weaponbb7: Seems the most NPOV, this is exactly what it is. Avi: completely neutral, whether one believes that Genesis is fact, fiction, allegory, or myth, it is completely accurate and indicates no preference as to validity. Templeknight: That is what the article is about and what the reader expects. --Templeknight (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Editor banned as sockpuppet, see SPI — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC) agr: Reflects an account of what a literary work says with no implications as to veracity.

EGMichaels: implies an objectively true event

Weaponbb7: seems ok but misses the artilce entirley Johnbod: Not a very common term in RS

Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 Bus Stop, EGMichaels,Weaponbb7, Michelle cannon, Masterhomer, SAE EGMichaels: innocuous.

Weaponbb7: Creation according Genesis Chapters 1 and 2: personal favorite but to long.

EGMichaels: well -- TOO INNOCUOUS. Doesn't get into the intended tie in with other articles, and if chosen, then another article (virtually identical with this one) would POV fork. agr The chapter divisions were added much later.

Comment: there seems to be a theme so far against an assumption of either truth or falsehood. At least the first two entries here are attempting a neutral wording.EGMichaels (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary Table Discussion

Well done, and thanks for that. However, the "cons" you have listed for "Genesis creation myth" are pretty clearly false. Using the term "creation myth" in no way implies its falsehood--see my post under Talk:Genesis creation myth#Trying to use policy; there's not really any other valid argument against it. While you may be correct in that some users want "myth" to be used because it can imply falsehood, making that assertion is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Again, from WP:RNPOV: "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." Mildly MadTC 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mad -- thanks for being here! The red flag for me was when some editors were claiming to use "myth" in a scholarly neutral sense, but refused to even consider synonyms for that supposed meaning. Well, if they won't consider a synonym, then they don't mean it either. That got my attention real fast. They were promoting "myth" with positively religious fervor.EGMichaels (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What if they had already considered the alternatives (like I have)? Just because someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, doesn't make it wrong. Mildly MadTC 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mad, absolutely agreed. I do believe that some editors like yourself have considered the alternatives. I do not think that the consensus here has settled on those considerations. I think some folks got a little ahead of themselves and left the consensus wondering what the heck happened. I suspect that myth may be the single BEST alternative -- but that doesn't mean it's the ONLY one, and it doesn't mean that we have to settle on the BEST choice. Sometimes collaboration settles on everyone's second choice.
In any case, it's well known that "myth" is an appropriate word in scholarly circles. However, it's ALSO well known that other synonyms are equally appropriate. A number of manuals of style recommend avoiding "myth" for living religions (for obvious reasons).
Ben keeps talking about censorship here -- but substituting a synonym for what you SAY you mean is hardly censorship. It's only censorship when you do NOT mean that synonym. So, I'd argue that I'm not the one showing "myth" isn't neutral; it's Ben.EGMichaels (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that "creation story" is an acceptable alternative. However, why shouldn't we use the best option, just in the interest of not offending people? WP:NPOV is NEUTRAL point of view, not NO point of view. Mildly MadTC 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually interested in the best NPOV option. Mad, communication involves both implication and inference. Although we aren't responsible for inference, once we are made aware of it we should try to minimize its potential. That involves a FAQ perhaps, some caveats put into the article, and or a synonym. My concern is that we may not just be dealing with an inference. Nef brings up "Jesus horses" as some kind of relevant example -- which would only be relevant if we were dealing with colloquial usage of "myth." But NOW we have stepped from inference to implication itself. Look, I don't care how consensus is resolved. I'm personally fine with either story or myth. But I'm not fine with belittling examples like Jesus horses, assumptions of bad faith (assuming I'm assuming bad faith), stonewalling for a simple question of what people's SECOND choice might be (to see what compromises arise), or people telling others to drop their pleas for collaboration under the pretense that only one side seems to count. None of those are Wikipedia best practices. Now it's not ALL bad. There ARE some good attempts going on here. I think you're really trying to bridge the gap and I am too. Most of the folks who popped onto my talk page wanted to avoid assumptive POV wording on either extreme, and half of them (like myself) really do think the Genesis account is "myth" (even in the colloquial sense). But we aren't trying to prove or disprove Genesis. We're just trying to make the best solution that works for THIS article. There are compelling reasons to consider myth. There are good reasons not to. And there is no reason for one side of the discussion to claim consensus when we all have dozens of hours proving that there most clearly is not. In short, we want the best solution for collaboration to occur -- which may not be everyone's first choice.EGMichaels (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Mildly Mad ""Editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic" -> unfortunately the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on the topic DO see myth in its formal sense as containing falsehood. What sources do you use? SAE (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed] --King Öomie 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Try a dictionary, King.EGMichaels (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So if I open any given dictionary to Creation Myth, it's going say "However, this means 'false'"? --King Öomie 19:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:WTA and WP:RNPOV clearly state that formal usages are perfectly acceptable and the term in question isn't "MYTH" it's CREATION MYTH for the millionth time. Also for the millionth time please see Electoral College isn't an institute of higher learning because it contains college example. Furthermore see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and the dozen other policies and guidelines that have been shown, reshown and reshown again to be in support of using the precise, formal, widely used, academic term as opposed to the alternatives. For the "Dictionary" comment please see the FAQ, the cites in the article or you could also google Define "Creation Myth" and see how none of those definitions discuss any implied falsehood (or truth) and are totally value neutral (which is in line with policy as well). Bringing up the colloquial definition of myth as your only arguement against is the clearest cut case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT i've yet seen during my time editing WP... Nefariousski (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Nef, I HEARD you. I just observed that the scholarly neutral CLAIM doesn't match the behavior.EGMichaels (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This argument is invalid. I would like you to either clarify it or stop making it. --King Öomie 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
King -- prove me wrong. If you REALLY mean some harmless neutral thing, then please give me your second choice of title (below) that uses a synonym with that meaning. I'm all ears.EGMichaels (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
For 100% of the reasons in the Creation Myth/Pro section of your convenient graph, it would be detrimental for me to do so, and you know it. --King Öomie 21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That can only be true if you are meaning myth in the colloquial sense. I'm assuming you are not. Give it a shot. Look, I have a sneaking suspicion that this may be solvable with some completely different solution than any of us have thought of. The non myth side brainstormed and that was the best they could come up with. How about some brain storming from the myth side?EGMichaels (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I get it from Wikipedia guidelines (which are themselves an extension of community consensus). WP:WTA#Myth and legend (which is a guideline) states, "Formal use of the word [mythology] is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception." Mildly MadTC 19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the same as the information in the above closed requested move. The only difference is that this times comments are constrained to a table that is designed to equivocate pros and cons instead of using discussion and policy. Again I quote WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ben (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally every comment on the summary table not backed by relevent policy or guideline is well... how should I put this... Just, like, your opinion, man. Such comments like "Seems like the most NPOV" is so ironic as to be laughable. "I'm going to use my personal point of view to judge NPOV" is no way to go through life son... Nefariousski (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is developed through a consensus of people with different POVs. Rather than laugh, please constructively give us a SECOND title (below) that unambiguously expresses the neutrality you claim, in a way that us little people can see it.EGMichaels (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality is defined in terms of reliable sources, not on what editors think. I've already explained this to you. Why do I get the feeling I should just add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to my sig for a little while? Ben (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
We can all pull out reliable sources. I could find several standard manuals of style that urge to avoid "myth" in terms of a living religion. Regardless, I HEARD you. I just don't SEE you practicing that neutrality. You're way way way too overcommitted to pass for a neutral party.EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Pot, kettle. Again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You know, Hand -- I'm really trying very hard to make this easy for you. "Genesis creation myth" was my original choice and remains my second choice. But I refuse to cooperate in the alienation of half of the editors in a fake consensus contrary to the intended USE of the term. I'm not committed to "story" or "myth" but I AM committed to collaboration, and I'd like to see that happening here. So, you caught me. I'm way way way committed to collaboration.EGMichaels (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm really trying very hard to make this easy for you.
You certainly have an odd way of showing it, by refusing to assume good faith of other editors and trying to force us through some arbitrary hoops to "prove" our good intentions for you. You've not shown a commitment to collaboration at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it "assuming bad faith" to "assume someone's assuming bad faith"?EGMichaels (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It's no assumption when you've consistantly said you don't believe us when we say we're editing neutral; especially when you say we have to go through an arbitrary process to "prove" our good intentions to you. That's the definition of assuming bad faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand -- I haven't assumed bad faith. But the AGF guidelines DO say to stop blindly assuming good faith when someone demonstrates otherwise. I feel that your stonewalling is EITHER bad faith or stark terror that I'm trying to trick you. I'm TRYING to get some brainstorming from the other half of the editorial brainpower here. The non myths have taken their shot, and now I need some input from the myth side. So, I'll extend a good faith assumption on your part and mark your stonewalling to terror. Take a deep breath, assume good faith, and BRAINSTORM for two seconds.EGMichaels (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In a debate whether to call the article on prehistoric reptiles "Dinosaurs" or "Jesus Horses" there are two sides. The "Dinosaurs" side has policy, reliable sources, etc... the "Jesus Horses" side has appeals to emotion and claims of offensiveness. What is to be gained by the "Dinosaurs" side to meet in the middle and call it "Jesusaurus" when the opposition has yet to come up with a single valid arguement (keeping in mind perceptions of offensiveness, or lack of sensitivity etc... are NOT valid arguements as shown by policy after policy after policy). And by the way I'd love to see those guidelines and policies that discourage the formal usage of "Myth" or any single reliable source that talks about the harms of using "Creation Myth". I have a feeling that if they had existed we would have seen them on this page by now. Nefariousski (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Nef -- huh? It almost looks like you're using "Myth" to compare to some kind of fantasy children's fable. That's, er... colloquial.EGMichaels (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A 2nd one has been found out: First Cush openly admitted that he sees "myth" as the opposite of "truth." Now Nefariousski has (unwittingly?) done so. Thank-you. Any arguments you now put forth for "myth" are clearly not npov. SAE (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in Feariousski's paragraph does he say that, so please retract your accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Where did I say that? All I did was challenge you to back up your claim that some policy or guideline existed that discouraged the formal use of the word myth. Might I add This to the suggested reading list? Nefariousski (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A) I agree with Nef and Hand, he didn't say that (that is, the term Jesus Horses does not assume the creatures are fake, and neither does Dinosaur), B) STILL DOESN'T MATTER. If an editor, who is a convicted rapist, edits an article on someone, changing the phrasing "terrifying rapist" to "rapist", might he have ulterior motives? Absolutely. Is his edit backed by policy? You bet your ass. --King Öomie 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
King -- do YOU believe in Jesus horses? I have a bridge up here that's for sale...EGMichaels (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning that according to the Urban Dictionary, the term Jesus horse is not actually used by creationists, but is only used by others to mock them. For people like me who don't normally have contact with this particular fringe theory this is far from clear since calling dinosaurs by that name doesn't appear any more outrageous to us than many real creationist claims such as pre-cambric swimming forests. Perhaps this is relevant for clearing up the misunderstandings above. Hans Adler 08:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Choices

I've found that people's second choice can sometimes be telling. Truly collaborative editors are able to work with other editors, form consensus, and even compromise.

Those who cannot work with other editors, or are inflexible, can create a logjam and prevent stable editing to occur.

Perhaps the best test of this would be to answer, what's your SECOND choice?

My SECOND choice is what was originally my first choice: Genesus creation myth. The only thing preventing me from going back to that first choice is that other editors here are not following Wikipedia NPOV usage, but are in fact shoehorning this term into some kind of preachy apologetic for anti-theism. Well, we can't do that here, so my original second choice (Genesis creation story) has become my first choice in order to maintain true neutrality.

In any case, again, my current second choice (that is, my second second choice) is "Genesis creation myth."

All reasonable editors here should have a second choice in mind. Please share. And if you do not and cannot have a second choice, then... maybe you should brainstorm a bit. I'd love to find out who is able to compromise and who isn't.EGMichaels (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like your rationale for keeping this debate alive is to assume bad faith on the part of a bunch of editors. Not a good idea. Mildly MadTC 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mad, if I assumed bad faith I wouldn't bother to ask for people's second choice. People of bad faith are unable to come up with a second choice. So it would be a waste of time.EGMichaels (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You've just said, your first, second and third choices are all "Genesis creation myth." In other words, you don't have a second choice. By your own criteria, aren't you wasting time by acting in bad faith? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"other editors here are not following Wikipedia NPOV usage, but are in fact shoehorning this term into some kind of preachy apologetic for anti-theism." That sounds like assuming bad faith to me. If the editors I think you're talking about are the same ones you're debating here, I have never seen any one of them make an "anti-theist" edit to an article. Mildly MadTC 20:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Compromise isn't always the best option when there is a clear cut issue with one side supported by policy and another side not. When Scientists say the earth is billions of years old and YEC folks say it's 6000 years old the scientists aren't being stubborn for not compromising and saying "ok, the earth is only millions of years old". When one side of this discussion is supported by policy, guidelines, precedent, abundant reliable sources, and so on and the other side of this arguement is supported by feelings, opinions, picking words apart and trying to define them seperately and refusal to get the point there's no reason to seek middle ground for the group with the stronger position. Nefariousski (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the policy only works in favor of those using the term in a scholarly neutral way. Such editors will have a large enough volcabulary to express a synonym in a second choice. So...EGMichaels (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
C'mon, point is moot. Due diligence has been done to establish formal usage (FAQ, multiple dictionary defs, multiple references, footnote etc...). Old Arguement is Old. Nefariousski (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, you're assuming bad faith unless we meet your arbitrary standards. That's not how this works. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand -- this isn't complicated. All good faith editors should be able to come up with a second choice. Mad's first choice is my second, and my first choice is Mad's second. It took us about two seconds. That's what good faith editors do all the time. They collaborate.EGMichaels (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Due diligence: looked up "myth" on thesaurus.com. The list of words is as follows: allegory, apologue, creation, delusion, fable, fabrication, fairy story, fancy, fantasy, fiction, figment, folk ballad, folk tale, illusion, imagination, invention, legend, lore, mythos, parable, saga, superstition, tale, tall story, tradition. None of these are as neutral or precise as the academic usage of "myth." Case closed. Mildly MadTC 20:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)

I use Visual Thesaurus, version 3.0. "Story" is a direct synonym. Bizarre that your resource left that out.EGMichaels (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that actually wasn't intentional, I thought I saw it in there. In any case, the argument still holds for story (which includes "myth"). Mildly MadTC 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course it does. They're synonyms -- which is why you and I are able to interchange them (even though we PREFER one to the other). In any case, this little section is just to get people to state clearly what they mean. You and I don't have a problem with it, and I don't think Hand would either if he wasn't assuming some kind of bad faith on my part.EGMichaels (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) EGM, you are not collaborating at all by trying to force us through arbitrary hoops to "prove" our good intentions to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hand. Well, you're doing a good job not proving it.EGMichaels (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has to. That's what WP:AGF says. Mildly MadTC 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Right -- but sometimes a person can work REAL HARD to remove that assumption. And assuming MY bad intentions isn't AGF either.EGMichaels (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) EGM, you seem to have a total misunderstanding of how collaborative editing works, especially on Wikipedia. Every one of your attempts so far have involved trying to pigeonhole individual editors into "pro" and "con" camps, which is highly combative, not conducive to collaboration. If you have problems with specific editors, prove it. Otherwise, please stop and read up on our policies and guidlines a little more. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand -- it's weird for you to call me combative when I stated pros and cons for EVERY option and showed my own personal endorsement for your chosen title as an acceptable alternative to me (as long as it's being used per guidelines).EGMichaels (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm It has been used per guidelines, which is why your continued attempts to drive this issue on is so maddeningly frustrating to everyone here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Speak for yourself - EGM has made some very perceptive points and seems to be trying to mediate by taking both sides into account - rther than create the illusion of there being only one side by saying "everyone agrees with me". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I've never said "everyone agrees with me," so please strike that. His attempts to mediate are ill-conceived: breaking people into pro/con camps increases animosity and an "us vs them" mindset, which is antithetical to collaborative editing. I'm sure he had good intentions with this, but it's still bad practice. The fact that he keeps doing this is troubling, to say the least. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll humor you with a second opinion, "Genesis creation myths" since there is more than one distinct creation myth per the article's lead. And since Genesis has multiple interpretations across various denominations I would also find this title acceptable. Nefariousski (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nef. An "s"? Ok. I'll admit that the "story" side only came up with about six ideas...EGMichaels (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This needs to stop.

Consensus is to keep the article title as-is. This is supported by WP policy, which represents the consensus of the community as a whole. Readers don't see "creation myth (which actually means it's a fairy tale)," they see "creation myth." Therefore, there's no problem. If someone adds non-NPOV material elsewhere in the article, we can revert and discuss it when it happens. Mildly MadTC 21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment/Question — Mildly Mad — what sort of "non-NPOV material" might someone add "elsewhere in the article"? Please give us an example of what you have in mind. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to the allegations that editors in favor of using "creation myth" are on some anti-theist vendetta to disprove the Genesis story. Right now, the article is neutral, informative, and on topic--notice the only mention of the Creation-Evolution controversy is in the appropriate places. If it begins to take over the article, then that's an entirely separate issue from the discussion that just consumed 5 hours of my day. Mildly MadTC 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Mildly Mad — Yes, but can you give me an example? What, in your conception, would constitute "non-NPOV material"? You say that, "If it begins to take over the article, then that's an entirely separate issue…" Can you give me an example of how it might possibly "take over the article?" What form might that take? Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Basicially if this article starts to become a proxy for the Creation-Evolution controversy article. This article isn't supposed to become a critique of Genesis, it's just supposed to detail the creation myth and various interpretations contained in the first two chapters of the book. Nefariousski (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Just for thoroughness: what Nef said. Mildly MadTC 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that one possible interpretation is a literal interpretation, and since that's notable we should mention it. However, since it's a fringe interpretation only a short summary (more than a mention but much less than a full critique) with links to the creationism family of articles as necessary should ever exist in this article. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The various literal interpretations should be elaborated on in the Creationism article in depth. BTW there are signiuficant differences between Jewish and Christian interpretations (especially about who the executing agent of creation is). Maybe that should be mentioned there as well as here. · CUSH · 10:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course you're right about the creationism article covering creationism in depth. I was just saying that in this article a short summary of creationism should exist, including links to the creationism article, but nothing more than a short summary. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is about any material that is reliably sourced and related to chapters one and two of Genesis. And the topic of discussion here is the title of this article. Reading the above discussion one would get the impression that the article is about the literalist interpretation of the fist two chapters of Genesis versus the non-literalist interpretation of those two chapters. That is merely one dimension of the material that is potentially covered by this article. And a simple glance over at the article shows that almost no material in the article as it presently stands is oriented toward addressing this issue of literal versus nonliteral interpretation. The point to the present disagreement is that the title inexplicably indicates a focus on Genesis as a "creation myth," yet the material found in the article barely makes a glancing reference to this topic. You both quite correctly point out that the place for addressing such matters is in the Creationism article. My question and I think the question of many others is, why then is this article not titled in a less narrowly focussed way, such as it had been titled? Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing is but one dimension to consider when determining the contents of this article, so your first sentence is at best misleading. The next few sentences give me the impression you've completely misunderstood the above comments - we all agree that a literal interpretation is fringe and that this article shouldn't be turned into a critique of such a minor detail, though I think (as I'm sure everyone else does) it should at least be mentioned in this article due to its notability. If you're still conflating creation myth with scientifically inaccurate story then you're ignoring past replies to this and acting disruptively. Your last question has been asked by yourself, and answered many times by myself and others. Repetition of it at this point is similarly disruptive. Ben (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, reliable sourcing is only one factor. I was not implying otherwise. But the potential range of material for inclusion in this article is not limited to considerations of Genesis as a "creation myth." In point of fact "creation myth" is only one characterization of "Genesis chapters one and two." Many of us have been presenting an argument that the title should be more open and inclusive. Can you please explain to me why a title restricting this article to Genesis as only a "creation myth" is called for? There are nonrestrictive article titles that have been suggested. Some of those titles you and others have found offensive because they implied that the tale contained in Genesis was true. Can you tell me what objection, if any, you would have to: Genesis chapters one and two as a title? Please try to address that question. Please try to tell me what objection if any you would have to a title such as "Genesis chapters one and two." Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure I already answered that question too (somewhere in the sea of text above). Nevertheless: The experts consider the article's topic a creation myth and they describe it as such, though the permutations of terms in the descriptors vary. Here are some generally accessible (ie. for the non-expert) sources descriptions:
Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible: The biblical myth of the origin of the universe.
Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible: In Genesis the Creation and the Fall are myths.
The Oxford Companion to World Mythology: The creation myth of the Hebrews, sacred also to Christians and to some extent to followers of Islam (Muslims), is found at the beginning of the biblical Book of Genesis.
Oxford's Dictionary of Creation Myths: Genesis contains the creation myth that forms the basis of the Judeo‐Christian tradition.
Encyclopedia Britannica: Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis and of the new creation in Jesus Christ.
It is also possible to list countless scholars and more specific reliable sources using the same descriptors, and I've given sources that explain that this description is mainstream (search on this page and the archives for "borg")
Wikipedia's polices explain, nay demand, we be consistent and choose a similar descriptor. To do otherwise would not be editorially neutral, as outlined at WP:NPOV, would reek of an attempt to right some great wrong, and in the case of your suggestion seem wholly less helpfully descriptive as an article title. Ben (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben — we find at Article and section titles that: "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." While I do not see any "viewpoint" conveyed by the title I suggested, "Genesis chapters one and two," there most definitely is a viewpoint conveyed by "Genesis creation myth." I don't think it matters if other articles would lead us to think that "Genesis creation myth" is an acceptable title for this article. We have in the instance of this article an alternative title that cannot possibly ruffle any feathers. I think the question boils down to why any editor would insist on a title that conveys any viewpoint at all. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Which viewpoint do you think is being conveyed by the current title? Ben (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben — in which precinct do we find the phrase "creation myth" used? Do we find it used in academia or do we find it used in Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques? Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support CUSH 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose For reasons stated elsewhere. Enormous amounts of energy have been expended justifying "creation myth" as an "umbrella term" to quote the FAQ here. I have no problem with that. There has been hardly any attention given to the specific term used in academic sources for this particular Genesis example, where in fact it is by no means the most common term, well behind "Genesis creation story". This may be, as Hans Adler suggests here, because of "systemic bias" in the English language, but that is not our problem. The current name breaches WP:COMMON, which takes precedence over the myth guideline. There has been very strong POV editing from both sides, and an outrageous degree of WP:OWNership shown, but the real issue is very simple. The first requested move had only one support apart from the nom, and is much to shaky a status quo to revert to in the second, which I accept did not show a very clear consensus, although the numbers were clear. Deletion review is the best next step. Some figures:

Statistics

The two "story" searches produce 1,464 gscholar hits vs 181 for the two "myth" searches, over 8 times as many. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And did you filter out which of these were used in Christian or even Creationist literature? (unsigned)
No - now why would I want to do that? Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Only such sources that deal with an issue in an objective manner are reliable. That religiously motivated writers use terminology that makes Genesis appear true is understandable, but not usable for an encyclopedia. I wouldn't use the Vatican's publications on the historicity of Jesus either. I would not expect religious people to write anything that puts their convictions in danger. Would you? · CUSH · 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV! Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. You can't build a neutral article by randomly using biased sources. · CUSH · 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Even a cursory examination of the various hits shows very clearly that "story" "narrative" etc are not being used by scholars who believe the "story" to be true. The only references to creationism in the first two pages of the first scholar search are from sources clearly opposed to it. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I discussed the Google thing above. Ben (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - There is a phenomenal amount of scholarly research on ancient creation myths, and that research demonstrates that they often share common elements, were derived from each other, were frequently politically motivated, etc, etc. Although Genesis may be truth or a "story" to some people, this is an encyclopedia, and the word "myth" is most accurate word to use in this context. --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What "context" are you referring to? Are you referring to a context found within the body of the article or the context of the title? Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Both. This encyclopedia already has an article on the religious book Book of Genesis, but it also needs an article on the myth, as it arose in the mideast thousands of years ago, and was adopted by a variety of cultures. See Creation Myth#Judaism and Christianity, which links to this article. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Why should this article have "creation myth" in the title? Is that all this article is about? Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Because that's precisely what the article is about. It is an article about the creation myth (and that's a neutral, scholarly term) found in the Book of Genesis, its origins, interpretation, and impact. Mildly MadTC 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Mildly Mad — "creation myth" is but one characterization of Genesis chapters one and two. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Title Tag

Since a consensus has not been achieved after much agony, the article should have a POV title tag. WP:TITLE and WP:NPOV require a title to be neutral. Particularly when someone's religious beliefs are involved, a judgement by a group of WK editors is out of line. Myth is not a neutral nor objective term. Grantmidnight (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A consensus has been achieved a long time ago. But certain editors do not accept neither the consensus nor WP policies. The title does not represent ANY particular POV. CUSH 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
there is no consensus. unless you call the pov vote above one. (I thought consensus wasn't based on votes....) SAE (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's why this is not considered a vote. Head-counting will not determine this, only the strength of arguments. Also, please read WP:CONSENSUS, as you again show you do not understand what the word means (hint: it does not mean "unanimous agreement"). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Argh. Can we please not start this while the discussion is going on? The last thing we need right now is an edit war over a template on the page to inflame this situation. Also, creation myth is a neutral & objective term, so let's not start that argument again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :"Genesis creation myth" is a neutral title. Read Talk:Genesis creation myth#Trying to use policy. Mildly MadTC 22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"creation myth" is NPOV. it accurately describes the issue of the article, as it does in any other article about the various creation myths. what else do you want? we will not make exceptions for one particular belief. CUSH 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
AND STOP REMOVING YOUR COMMENTS
Are you yelling at me? SAE (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It's ok, you can see them both here Nefariousski (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Two RMs, an RFC, users blocked for tenditious editing against consensus, a dozen policies, even more reliable sources all show that consensus exists, no need for the tag. Editors not liking consensus because it is contrary to their personal beliefs doesn't break consensus. "I don't like it", "It may offend (insert person/group here)", "I disagree with policy" are not valid arguements against consensus. Nefariousski (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I had said, the religionists will start thread after thread and they will never accept 1) any wording that carries the slightest possibility that Genesis is not true and 2) any wording that will treat Christianity equal to other beliefs. This will go on for the next 5 years. · CUSH · 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Name calling is not appreciated here. Do you not think tensions are high enough without doing this? SAE (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not calling names. And there would be no tensions if you would just adhere to the consensus and to WP policies of neutrality. Good night. · CUSH · 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Religionists, Cush? Look, you're not really helping the "myth" side of this discussion. Okay -- I have a book to get back to writing, and a 95 year old writing partner who can't afford for me to keep wasting time here. I'll be offline for a day while I catch up with the real world. Don't anyone convert to some religion while I'm gone...EGMichaels (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Parsing Meaning

Quoting the words to avoid Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Myth_and_legend (highlights added in bold):

Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.
Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.
When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally.

I think we're all agreed that the same term -- either "belief" or "myth" should be used consistently in any given article. It's not a requirement throughout Wikipedia, for obvious reasons (each article ultimately establishes and defines it's own context of meaning).

In any case, note the statement "All myths are, at some stage, actually believed..." Please note that this is the FORMAL sense. The "less formal" sense is "false belief."

You know what? I've written a few books, have a good library, decent education, and really see no qualitative difference in "Joe, at least at some point, actually believed his son was a good singer" and the statement "Joe thought his son sang well, but he had a tin ear." The "actually believed at some point" is simply implying "it ain't really so" without putting it on the nose because that would be, uh, unnecessary in an educated audience. Why say something directly when you can just imply the heck out of it?

The parsing between the formal and informal senses is just a polite fantasy. That's why the "story" folks won't compromise and the "myth" folks won't compromise. The "formal sense" implies the same thing as the "informal sense". It's just worded to imply instead of directly state. And it doesn't do a very good job of it.

Hand has said that I was too naive when trying to get the two sides to work together. I think he's right. The "myth" side say myth and means myth and won't come up with ANY other term, because there isn't any other term that implies "hogwash" as elegantly as "myth". Oh, we're not SAYING it's false; we're just saying that some folks actually believed it at some distant past.

Reading through the material, "creationists" are repeatedly (even in the past few hours) called "fringe." While I agree that "scientific creationists" are fringe, "people who believe in creation" are not fringe. I think that most folks in the United States (and the planet) believe one of these "creation myths". This isn't "at some time." This is actually "now."

And here's where "myth" gets problematic for a living religion: "myth" in the "formal sense" is limited to something that was believed in the past (i.e. "at some time").

The Genesis creation story is NOT something that was merely believed "at some time." This is something that is believed "right now" by the majority of the English speaking public.

The majority of scientists do not believe in Genesis. The majority of theologians do not believe it literally, but DO believe it metaphorically. In fact, they think it's a bit childish for atheists to assume they believe it in a way they do not. And atheists have as much of a problem parsing metaphor as some fundamentalists do. A metaphor is something that has real and true meaning and is truly believed. I BELIEVE Abraham Lincoln was a giant. I truly believe this. That's a METAPHOR. While the gent was tall, he wasn't LITERALLY a giant. He was METAPHORICALLY a giant. And I REALLY BELIEVE this.

In fact, I think most of the American public believe this too.

Is that a "myth"? No. That's a metaphor.

There are, then, three types of views of Genesis:

  • Atheist: Genesis is hogwash, and a myth in both formal and informal sense (honestly there's no real difference anyway, Wikiprotestations notwithstanging)
  • Most Theists: Genesis isn't a myth, it's a metaphor teaching us how to regard our place in context with God
  • Fundamentalist Theists: Genesis is literally true.

Okay. Cush is a fine honest example of an Atheist. Sometimes I give him a little grief, but only to prod him to chill a bit. If you'll note above, the Atheist and Fundamentalist are not qualitatively different. They are both arguing whether Genesis is LITERALLY true.

The term myth only applies to the argument between Atheists and Fundamentalists, because they are arguing whether Captain Kirk is REALLY OUT THERE flying through space and bedding alien chicks.

The term myth does NOT apply to most theists. We (yes, we) do not at some time believe Genesis. We believe Genesis NOW. We believe it just as we believe that Abraham Lincoln is a giant. We believe it just as we believe George Washington was the "father" of this country. Although there are tons of signs on old buildings that read "George Washington slept here" we do not LITERALLY believe he fathered the country. We METAPHORICALLY believe he fathered the country. And we REALLY REALLY TRULY believe it. We wouldn't have had the country we did had not we started with a first President who did not want to be king. Had we started with John Adams, we'd be crowning monarchs here today.

In conclusion, I don't know where to go here. We certainly have some Fundamentalists here, and they are useful and valid contributors. We certainly have some Atheists here, and they are useful and valid contributors. And, well, we have us theists too, and we've always felt valid amonst ourselves. Hopefully we're not fringe on Wikipedia, because we represent a good majority (not plurality, but majority) of the people on the planet and the editors and readers of Wikipedia.

To call Genesis a "myth" is to miss the point entirely. In the so called formal and informal sense -- the way Atheists are meaning the term, Genesis is a "myth." They say, "it didn't literally happen that way!"

Hat's off to you aheists. I AGREE with you. It didn't literally happen that way. I never said it did. I never implied it did. It didn't literally happen that way -- AND I BELIEVE IT EMPHATICALLY.

I believe in the Genesis creation story AND I believe in billions of years of evolution as explained in most science books. Further, I don't think "intelligent design" has anything to do with that belief. It doesn't enter the picture. I believe in natural evolution AND I believe in God and Genesis.

Fundamentalists can't get that.

Atheists can't get that.

Most of you other folks can.

My feeling is that Hand thinks I was naive because I wanted Fundamentalists and Atheists to agree. Maybe I'm naive, but not quite for that reason. My naivite was in thinking that Wikipedia editors could be honest with themselves long enough to say in English what they really mean.

So, here's what they mean. The myth side means myth in the FORMAL sense because they are saying that people "at some time" in the past believed it (but no one does now). That's the formal sense. Note that in parenthesis is the informal sense. They will argue forcefully against STATING the "informal sense" because they are too polite for that. That's why they won't use a synonym for "myth" because that would be impolite. They would object to "Genesis creation fantasy" because that's not "formal." But they object to "Genesis creation record" because that's (ahem!) well, stupid and untrue.

Folks -- "myth" does not apply in the title because people didn't just believe it "at some time". People believe it right now. I believe it just as fervently and profoundly as the fundamentalists, just as I believe natural evolution just as fervently and profoundly as the atheists.

I'm neither a relic nor fringe. I admit that I AM in the minority because I believe in evolution, but I am NOT in the minority because I believe in Genesis.

And "myth" doesn't apply to this normative group I represent. We are the majority, and not clownish caricatures who believe dinosaurs were riding in a real boat with a chap named Noah who called them "Jesus horses" because he always liked that name.

Myth, really, doesn't apply to the current mainstream view of this book in schools of theology around the world -- where people believe in this book as actually true, but never with the thought of something literally.

And myth, really, can't be used because there are plenty of fundamentalists in the world too. They aren't dead. They weren't alive "at some time" but are alive and believing "right now."

There IS a solution, but you guys may not like it.

The article should be something like "Creation According to Genesis" with three subsections: the literal (fundamentalist) sense, the mythical (atheist) sense, and the metaphorical (mainstream) sense.

Yes, THAT's mainstream -- but you'd never know from THIS discussion!

The Wikipedia policy says to "avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue". Well, Genesis creation IS something that is commonly believed by the vast MAJORITY of Americans. And NO ONE on the "myth" side holds it to be true. Therefore, use of it in this article is not in compliance with policy. This is a current belief, and not a past one. And this is a true belief (for me), though not in the children arguing at the sandbox kind of way.

Okay, back to real life. I have a religious fast I'm enjoying today and a holocaust memoir to work on before building a crib for my new baby who's knocking on the door trying to come out.EGMichaels (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, in labelling myth as "atheist", you appear to be wilfully misreading its formal use in this article. This is in spite of your quoting from appropriate policy — policy, I add, which can easily be read as strongly supporting the formal use of myth here. Second, you're fairly presumptious about what constitutes the "mainstream": I doubt that your reading of Genesis is mainstream at different national or global scales. Third, were we to accept your particular "mainstream" above, then surely "Genesis creation metaphor" would be favoured? Getting that passed your fundamentalist division would be fun; by contrast, I doubt many so-called "atheists" would object to it, though (formal) "myth" would still be preferred. Finally, whether adherents are alive or dead should be irrelevant to how a creation myth is described. This is not a popularity contest, it's an encyclopaedia — so if a topic of class X is included, it should simply be described as class X. Not least because describing it as otherwise is biasing its description relative to other class X topics. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Plum -- AGF please.EGMichaels (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(Slipping in out of time order) I'm afraid that you'll have to explain where I've failed to AGF. If you're objecting to me saying that you "appear to be wilfully misreading" (italics mine), I am merely pointing out that you are conflating the so-called "atheist" viewpoint with the formal use of myth, and doing so in spite of the fact that they are discernibly separate. They may certainly overlap, but to suggest that all proponents of "myth" are taking this position because of a particular (and irrelevant) non-religious viewpoint is "wilfully misreading". As an academic, I wish to use the best terminology for Genesis (which I, obviously, judge as "myth"), rather than terms that either have no support in reliable sources, or which are stridently favoured by groups with particular faith or non-faith positions. Or are you objecting to something else that I wrote? As it happens, I thought that your statement was upfront and honest, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the distinctions that you've drawn above. --PLUMBAGO 14:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the "popularity contest". The relevant community for how we write our articles is the international community of experts, not the American public. Otherwise John F. Kennedy would have said "I am a jelly doughnut" (see Ich bin ein Berliner for an explanation why he didn't), waterboarding would not be characterised as torture, and evolution would be potentially "just a theory". Fortunately, opinion polls among non-experts are irrelevant for our articles. This is of course not an accident. It is because our processes have been designed to enable us to write an encyclopedia rather than a travesty like Conservapedia. Hans Adler 13:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You are in a minority because you believe in evolution? I think I must remind you that although Wikipedia is based in the US, it is not an American project. It is an international project. Also, Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a catechism. There is no need to dumb things down to the point where we don't offend the most naive and ignorant religious people. This is one of those cases where the fundamentalists are uncontroversially and verifiably wrong, so there is no need to respect their beliefs more than we respect antisemitic beliefs at The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or homeopathic beliefs at Homeopathy, or Satanist beliefs at Satanism: Per WP:UNDUE we don't go out of our way to trash them, and we don't go out of our way to pamper their beliefs.
The problem as I see it is that some fundamentalist Christians are displaying an extraordinary amount of sensitivity and are demanding special treatment. It didn't work for the Muslim fundamentalists who are rejecting Muhammad depictions – in fact it backfired seriously for them, as there are now quite a few gratuitous, merely ornamental depictions in Muhammad with no chance to get rid of them – and we cannot allow it to work for the Christian fundamentalists, either. Wikipedia is not the United States. It doesn't have a tradition of overinterpreting religious freedom, and in fact it doesn't even have religious freedom as a separate principle. If you don't understand this, you may come to Wikipedia with a sense of entitlement that is going to get you into trouble. Wikipedia is about facts, and about "verifiable" claims as an approximation to facts. It is no more interested in preserving some people's naive faith by unduly hiding the fact that it involves incorrect assumptions about the real world than it is interested in preserving the effectiveness of the Rorschach test pictures by not presenting a real example in the relevant article. Hans Adler 13:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hans, the "dumb American" idea is overblown.EGMichaels (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:RNPOV (aka Wikipedia policy): "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... concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." Mildly MadTC 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mad, I wouldn't say readers are confusing things.EGMichaels (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you just did: "The "formal sense" implies the same thing as the "informal sense". It's just worded to imply instead of directly state. And it doesn't do a very good job of it." Mildly MadTC 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well spotted Mildly Mad — I missed that particular point earlier. So, EGMichaels, does your objection to "Genesis creation myth" boil down to your belief that the formal sense of myth is (more-or-less) the same as the informal sense? That's what this statement would appear to suggest. --PLUMBAGO 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole section is kind of silly. Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer --King Öomie 15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said. The "formal" is just being polite. But ultimately they are both used for things that are not literally true. We would not have a Wikipedia article that says "the evolution myth" because Wikipedia considers evolution to be literally true. But we DO have "creation myth" articles because... (fill in the blank).EGMichaels (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Right. So you're assuming that we're all just being polite here rather than following guidance and policy? That's worth knowing. We have "creation myth" articles because this is a reliably sourced term used in formal, academic circles for a class of thousands of "narratives" about ultimate origins for which there is little or no objective evidence. If there were direct evidence (and parts of religious texts often do have an objective basis), they would be viewed as historical and then subject to study by scientists, historians, etc. (you know, like evolution, archaeology and the big bang). The absence of Evolution myth is emphatically not because WP "considers evolution to be literally true". --PLUMBAGO 16:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As I've said, you are NOT following guidance and policy (though you are trying). The use of tenses in the guidance and policy indicates that the formal use of "myth" pertains to beliefs that people held "at some time". As I've also noted, the guidance uses past tense for these beliefs -- not present tense. The "myth" editors, then, are merely using the "formal" as if it is a polite substitute for the informal meaning, as repeatedly demonstrated by the refusal to use any kind of synonym for "myth." The reliably sourced academic articles are not universal in the use of "myth" and in fact manuals of style and usage indicate that this word should not be used for contemporary beliefs -- lest we stumble into the informal use. The absense of "evolution myth" is certainly because it isn't considered a myth, fable, fairy tale, fantasy, etc. Look, we've been exploring plenty of terms to use. "Story" is completely neutral, but rejected because... well, it's not specific enough. After all, a "story" COULD be true, and we wouldn't want anyone to think that, now would we?EGMichaels (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I consider story to be something false. Is that usage not normal? Ben (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That's why story is neutral. It could go either way.EGMichaels (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Copying from above ... "All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth" — this can be now. Note: are, not were. Which is as it should be since it's not necessarily obvious when there are no living adherents to a particular myth (maybe someone living out there really does buy into Thor). We are still very much at the "stage" when people (some people) actually believe that this particular creation myth is literally true. I certainly don't read the past tense into the definition of myth at all. In passing, I interpret "story" to mean fiction, so "creation story" doesn't work for me. If you'd like to keep throwing out synonyms (or are they really antonyms?), go ahead. But they need to be derived from reliable sources. That's why I favour "creation myth" since it's common currency in the appropriate academic literature. --PLUMBAGO 16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If you'll note, that sentence mixes the tenses. It should be "are...use" or "were...used" and not "are...used". Although "are used" is correct grammatically, the separating words limit "used" to the past tense, disagreeing with "are." In any case, while I do believe that the Genesis creation story is not literally true, it's presumptive and bad English style to use the term "myth" for a living religion.EGMichaels (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Duly noted. I think a good case could be made for it to be clearer (i.e. that the creation myths of extant and extinct religions qualify). But I don't see that it's either presumptive or bad English to use the term "myth" in its formal sense for a living religion. It may be seen as inflammatory or impolite by those who do hold a literal belief (and who are interpreting "myth" informally), but that is not a factor that should concern us here. Not least because subscribers to a particular creation myth are liable themselves to judge other creation myths (of which there are no shortage to choose from) by the informal standard. --PLUMBAGO 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we don't have the title "evolution myth" for several good reasons that all point in the same direction:
  • The term "evolution myth" is not widely used, and it is used only in fringe publications.
  • Evolution is not a typical example of a myth in the technical sense.
  • While evolution arguably has a mythical facet in the most general technical sense, this facet is not the most notable one.
  • Evolution is just about as much established fact as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth" would also be misleading.
On the other hand, here is the situation for the Genesis creation story:
  • The term "creation myth" is widely applied to Genesis, and the complete term "Genesis creation myth" is used in some mainstream publications.
  • The first two chapters of Genesis form a typical (and notable as such) example of a creation myth.
  • The best way to define what this story is, is to say that it is the creation myth that appears in the Bible. Appearing in the Bible and being a creation myth are its two most significant properties.
  • Belief in a literal reading of this story is just about as absurd as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth", while not intended, is actually appropriate. Hans Adler 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans: "Evolution is just about as much established fact as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth" would also be misleading." Bingo! You're getting it. And "Belief in a literal reading of this story is just about as absurd as it gets, so the natural language meaning of "myth", while not intended, is actually appropriate." Exactly what I'm saying. The question is not whether the creation account is literally true (neither of us think it is) -- but the REAL question at hand, and the reason for this thread is this: a myth is not usually used for something that is literally true. It CAN be, but only in a very limited literary sense, pertaining to something (even a true event) that had such psychic effect on the observers to have mythic force. President Obama generated mythic hopes (and fears) from his supporters and detractors... which makes him just like all the other Presidents. The office itself is so caught up in the American psyche that most presidents become "myth" even in neutral reporting. But that Campbellian sense of the term isn't in the Wiki guidelines, so we can ignore it.EGMichaels (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Numerous people (including myself) have pointed out to you, several times, using WP policy, why this is an invalid argument, but you're just not getting it. Mildly MadTC 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is ridiculous -- since I've been showing that you aren't following the policy, and you're just not...EGMichaels (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
And we're right back to "La, la, la, I can't hear youuuuuu!" — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand, give it a rest. Both sides here want to follow proper usage. We both appeal to policy, and I've gone to great lengths to demonstrate that here. You can la la la all you like -- but there are rational editors on both sides who want to apply Wikipedia policy correctly.EGMichaels (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The policy you cited clearly states that using "creation myth" in this context is perfectly acceptable; herry-picking the letter of the policy in order to violate the spirit of the policy is Wikilawyering. Even so, the majority of editors here are not using "myth" to imply that Genesis is wrong, they are using it because it is the correct scholarly term to use. An example: If I want to call Hitler a Nazi simply because I don't like him, that's still not a reason to not put it in the article, even if "Nazi" in its colloquial use is a derogatory term. It remains a fact, regardless of any editor's motivation. Mildly MadTC 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be such a latecomer to the discussion but just to state that time and time again WP:WTA#Myth and Legend has been decided to be in favor of using Myth in it's formal sense as long as due diligence is made to show that it is being used in its formal sense. You can't cherry pick parts of the WTA article that suit your needs. It clearly states that the formal usage of myth is commonplace in scholarly, academic, encyclopedic articles and that wikipedia should be no different. it also clearly says that under no circumstances should one belief be referred to as a "myth" while others are called "stories" or "accounts" etc... Uniformity is important. Since the precedent for "Creation Myth" has been set and the vast majority of "Creation Myth" articles for different faiths use the term creation myth in their article and name this article's usage meets the uniformity clause of WTA as well as the "formal use is encouraged" clause. Everything stated above is in reference to informal usage which, yet again (see FAQ, Cites, Definitions, footnotes, wikilinks, and so on) this article does not do and in fact takes great strides to avoid. Nefariousski (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Maybe you ARE intending some kind of formal meaning that does not connote falsehood. To help me get your point, please give me another example of how you would use the word "myth" for a factual account.EGMichaels (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


I wouldn't use "myth" for a factual account nor would I use it for a false account. Policy dictates that we do not use it in an informal way that provides any value judgement one way or the other. Used in its formal sense "myth" and more importantly "creation myth" provide no value judgement one way or the other. Please realize that this has nothing to do with my feelings or opinions, I'm more or less quoting WP:WTA and WP:RNPOV in the above statement. I tend to follow a policy maker paradigm here on Wikipedia, meaning that I contribute, edit, revert, XfD etc... in line with policy. I can give you half a dozen examples off the top of my head where my stance on something was shown to be contrary to policy and I did an immediate 180 (most of which are in the XfD realm). If I find a policy to be completely off base and have good reason to challenge it I do so at the policy level, not on articles to which the policy is applied. Nefariousski (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Where does "policy" say that we use "myth" unnecessarily in a title at all? Titles are to identify the subject of an article. "Policy" would never dictate that a particular view be presented on any subject. In fact policy says: "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint." Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:TITLE states that titles must be:
  • "Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." The word "myth," in the appropriate definition, is the best and most precise single word to describe the subject.
  • "Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." Articles dealing with the same subject for different religions, extinct or not, use the term "myth" in their title.
Also, note that WP:WTA#Myth and legend explicitly states that using "myth" is allowed when used in its formal sense. As stated in WP:RNPOV, the mere possibility that something (like using "myth") could be taken the wrong way is not enough to justify its removal. Mildly MadTC 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Mildly Mad — we are talking about titles. At issue is not the use of "myth" within the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is it stated that there's a completely separate set of policies for titles? I see no reason that titles should be excluded from policies about articles. In fact, WP:TITLE says it "should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." Mildly MadTC 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Mildly Mad — we are finding specifically at Article and section titles that: "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint."' Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The formal usage of "myth" does not make a determination whether something is true or false. Also, WP:NPOV is neutral point of view, not no point of view. Mildly MadTC 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
But that's the problem. The understanding of policy that you are promoting is that we can use it about a living belief without a value judgment. So I need ANOTHER example of something that unambiguously cannot be viewed as "false" that included the use you are claiming to use. If you claim to use a word in a certain valueless way here, you can certainly use the same word in a valueless way in another context.EGMichaels (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The only problem is that you cannot imagine people using "creation myth" in a totally neutral way, unless we jump through your arbitrary hoops to prove it to you. I already warned you once about not assuming good faith. Please drop this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Instead of warning me, how about give ANY example on ANY subject in which you can use "myth" in a value neutral way. The subject needs to be unambiguously true. I've given a number of examples below. You can copy and paste if you like. But stop warning and start collaborating.EGMichaels (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Your demand is unreasonable. It is inherent in the technical meaning of "myth", and even more so of "creation myth", that it needs to be old and somewhat complex, and have a strong component of human interest. Also there aren't all that many myths per culture, and each of us is at most familiar with a handful of cultures. Under these circumstances it is of course extremely hard to come up with what you are asking for, for reasons that have nothing to do with the "false" connotation. Incidentally, this connotation probably comes precisely from the fact that all myths we are familiar with are false on the literal level. Hans Adler 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hans, your refusal is unreasonable. I've given a number of examples below, and I'll give another. It is an unambiguous fact that there are seven days per week in this culture. Genesis says that "God rested" on the seventh day. Now, a "myth" doesn't mean something is false, but that something is symbolic. It does no good at all to use "myth" to say something is factually incorrect, because in the informal meaning "myth" is basically useless. It's like saying something is a "symbol." Well, "symbol" of WHAT? "Myth" of WHAT? Although Peter Watson's "A History of Ideas" is not as mythocentric as Joseph Campbells four volume "The Masks of God", it does give some interesting parallels between Babylonian and Hebrew culture, offering some ideas that may have been incorporated during the Babylonian exile -- even including a seven day week and a sabbath. Now for the seven days: (I have the book beside my computer but it's too early in the morning to give the exact page number) -- some primitive cultures have had a five day week and some seven. There are five planets observable to the naked eye, and the sun and moon make seven observable "wandering stars" in the sky. Everything else was fixed -- except for these seven. So, you have a year based on the sun, a month based on the moon, and a week based on all seven observable moving objects in the sky. So, "God rested" from all his creation can thus be seen as a true symbol of the naturally observed limits to the entire created universe. After seven restless objects in the sky, everything else is at rest. Santa Claus is a modern myth. There really is a Santa Claus -- it's called parents. Santa is a true symbol for parents. Now, I've just given you two things that are unambiguously true, but symbolically (i.e. mythically) expressed. This wasn't hard to do. The fact that you continually object to so simple a request demonstrates that you are not trying to express the word "myth" in its formal sense even in an example here -- much less in the article.
Genesis has fabulous potential for this subject, and it is addressed even in conservative theological works. The "myths" or "symbols" are symbolic representations of real things that the Hebrews were trying to communicate, just as these letters on your screen are symbolic representations of what I would like for you to understand. We use phonetic substitutes for ideas, grammatical substitutes, and literary and artistic substitutes. Each of these are incrementally larger units of communication, with "myth" the largest example. And each of these is trying to communicate some kind of truth. Simply saying "but it's just a myth" is like saying this posting of mine "is just a bunch of letters." You seem to have an equally low appreciation for both.EGMichaels (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is getting incredibly silly now. If something is only symbolically true, then of course it's not unambiguously true. (Almost?) every statement can be read on numerous levels; that's one of the reasons why language is generally ambiguous. If one of the meanings (a literal one) is not true, then the statement is not unambiguously true. Why do you insist on this discussion? It seems to achieve nothing but filling up this talk page even further. Hans Adler 11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hans -- so all this is just a bunch of squiggly lines on the screen to you. You've both failed to use ANY example on ANY subject in which you use "myth" in the formal sense. And then you say it's silly when I do so. Yes, it does sound silly when the paper says, "Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus" if you "know better." But if you "really" know better, then you know it isn't. There are three levels here:
  • Believing a myth is literally true (superstition)
  • Believing a myth is literally false (informal use of "myth")
  • Exploring what a myth is symbolically expressing (formal use of "myth")
You're still stuck in the second level -- as the article is -- and refuse to get to the meat of the third.EGMichaels (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
EGMichaels, the one thing you apparently can't understand is the metaphysical (ir)relevance of your very own meta-ontological argument, or lack thereof, as you please. By taking this discussion to an unprecedented level of obscurantism, you are creating the illusion of reasoned debate where there is only miscommunication. Consider the following example sentence:
  • A myth is a myth is a myth, even if it isn't; or actually no, it isn't.
You may ask yourself, what does this have to do with our topic, and the answer is: Exactly, that's precisely the point. And an excellent example of the first and fourth levels – simultaneously. As a vegetarian I insist on skipping the third. Hans Adler 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionists Only, Please

I keep seeing statements that this concern with myth has to do with some kind of creationist agenda. That may be so, and I may just be alone here.

So, out of curiosity, am I really alone on this? Is EVERYONE with a concern with "myth" a fundamentalist creation science person who wants to push a POV?

If there are any evolutionists here who just have NPOV and stylistic concerns (like me), please pop me a note here and let me know I'm not living in some kind of happy Wiki fantasy land...EGMichaels (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is good writing consistent with the humanities — neither religion nor science — that motivates most of us to want a value neutral title of appropriate scope. My motivation is just maximizing elegance of language. I don't know if I do that, but that is my aim. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe in evolution. SAE (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I've once used the word "creationist" (or anything of the sort) in my arguments... I'm with you; this is fully a NPOV and style issue, and I'm 100% of the opinion that "creation myth" is far and away the best term to use. Mildly MadTC 15:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually NPOV does not even arise. NPOV arises where there already is a point of view. But no point of view is conveyed by a title such as Genesis chapters one and two. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about whether evolution is "right" or not. I don't know enough about it, and frankly don't really care much. However the world came to exist, it exists, and that'll do for me. What I do care about is POV - Wikipedia needs to distance itself from the whiff of POV and this article name frankly stinks of it. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You can't just point and say "POV!" What POV do you think this article should distance itself from? Ben (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben — this article should distance itself from any point of view. Again, let me remind you — we are talking about the title, not the body of the article. And I think one would have to have a tin ear not to hear the point of view conveyed by "creation myth" in the title. This problem is only compounded by how avoidable it is. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Take another look at WP:NPOV, especially WP:YESPOV. NPOV stands for neutral point of view, not no point of view. Mildly MadTC 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Mildly Mad -- as a matter of fact WP:YESPOV makes no mention of article titles at all. Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I call WP:WL. While that appears to be accurate, it doesn't specifically exclude them either, and I would hope that the term "article" would extend to its title as well, especially since WP:NPOV is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Remember, the spirit of the rule takes precedence over the letter of the rule. Mildly MadTC 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Mildly Mad — I'm a staunch defender of WP:NPOV but there is nothing in the old title of this article to "neutralize." There was no "viewpoint" expressed in the old title. Can you please explain to me how "creation myth" restores "neutrality" to what was the previous article title? The previous article title was Creation according to Genesis. Do you contend that a "point of view" was expressed in "Creation according to Genesis?" Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That title is perfectly neutral (for the record, I never said it wasn't, and I hadn't entered the discussion until after the change), but it violated WP:TITLE: "The ideal title is... Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." Mildly MadTC 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Other articles may or may not be in error in this regard. But no reason can be established for hanging the term "creation myth" onto the far simpler and adequate titles that already were in place or have since been suggested for this article. "Creation myth" is a gratuitous "spin" put on this article's title. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, and I am assailed for using "Religionist". Evolutionist is a creationist term, and in reaction to that I use "Religionist". It seems we have come to the core of the issue. This whole debate over the title is solely driven by the religious urge of a handful of editor to make Genesis appear real without presenting evidence for its veracity. However, this is no creationist platform and we present what rational research into the matter has provided us with. Genesis is a creation myth as any other. There is no way that Wikipedia can present it in a different manner than those others. We can present the religious interpretation but we do not make that interpretation a position that Wikipedia holds. "Creation myth" is the NPOV term for what Genesis contains. Deal with it. · CUSH · 15:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* SAE (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cush, you're always charming. You and I both believe in evolution (by whatever term you wish). I do use ist and ism for beliefs and idealogies, but that's normal. In any case, we believe in evolution, but differ about what title is NPOV. You believe that myth is NPOV because it's a fact that it's false. Well, I think you're alone in that. Most folks here, on both sides, are trying to acheive a different sort of NPOV, in line with common usage, sourcing, consistency with other articles, etc. While we do have a real discussion going on, we're trying to avoid gotchas. I know I've been accused of trying the gotcha myself -- but that was a little overblown. I'm just trying to get people to be up front. And you know what? You are refreshingly up front and I do appreciate it.EGMichaels (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Evolution is not a matter of belief. Evolution is not a religion. And you know why? · CUSH · 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite -- Cush does NOT believe in evolution. Sorry for thinking you did.EGMichaels (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels, could you please consider avoiding the uncritical use of silly, inflammatory terms such as "evolutionist", "round earther" or "heliocentricist"? It is customary in the English language to refer only to the followers of fringe beliefs with such terms. Since evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for life, and very satisfactory as such, "believing" in evolution is the normal and unmarked case. (Almost everywhere in the world it is also the most common case, but I guess pointing this out makes me anti-American.) Thank you. I also wish Cush would stop using the term "religionist", but at least he doesn't use it in section labels and ask others to self-identify with the term.

Apart from that, nobody seems to have noticed, but I am not actually supporting the present title. I am defending it against inappropriate attacks, which is a different matter. I have issues with the present title that have not really come up yet, and which I am not going to bring up if it puts me in the society of creationists. After all, my issues with the present title are very minor, especially when seen in the light of earlier creationist attempts to purge the term "creation myth" from the lead. Hans Adler 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, would you have a problem with "scientist"? In any case, apologies if I described myself accidentally in some kind of silly manner. Since I believe in evolution, I never thought of evolutionist as an insult. But I've always tried to think kindly of myself... I'd love to hear your concerns, and promise not to lump you as some kind of ist (or even a capitalist ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


"I also wish Cush would stop using the term "religionist", but at least he doesn't use it in section labels and ask others to self-identify with the term." -> maybe not, but he is labelling people falsely. You too seem to group people into categories they do not belong, simply for the fact that they disagree with you (what is your reasoning? you believe in evolution, therefore "whoever opposes my thought must therefore be a creationist-pusher?"). SAE (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
...or they must be an american? (by the way, I am not American.) SAE (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Right -- hence my sanity check here. The best way to debunk a label is to ask the labelled to say if it's accurate.EGMichaels (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
SAE, I didn't address you specifically as a creationist or an American, so you are attacking a straw man. EGMichaels argued specifically with the weight that creationism has in public debate in the US, and I addressed that. If you say you are not a creationist, I must believe you. However, in some of your comments above you have used a typical creationist argument uncritically: That a prima facie implausible explanation is equivalent to the best scientific explanation, merely because it cannot be completely disproved. The absurdity of this argument has been shown with the invention of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which, somewhat predictably, is slowly becoming an ordinary religion with real believers. Hans Adler 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I doubt that argument. Nobody, and I mean nobody, seriously believes God is a flying spaghetti monster. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
And? The belief in any other god is based on the same amount of evidence and reason. · CUSH · 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
And? We're finding sources to write articles, not debating the existence of God here. The sooner you realize that, the better. So can you find any reliable source that even one person alive has ever seriously believed God is a flying spaghetti monster? If not, then what we have here just could be yet another red herring fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There was a time when I would have said the same about Young Earth creationism, but Wikipedia has taught me otherwise. On this basis I see absolutely no reason not to believe those who tell me that through religious observances which started as parody they gradually evolved from atheists into real FSM believers. Do you disagree? Hans Adler 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well at what point do you call someone a Christian/FSM believer/whatever? Surely the bar isn't so high as the literal interpretation of some text? Ben (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A Christian is someone who governs his life and belief structure on the patterns laid out by Jesus and his followers. This includes someone who believes in a literal physical resurrection (a fundamentalist) or someone who believes it is metaphorically powerful (a lot of mainstream protestants and catholics). People don't usually say, "I believe this myth" but they may say "I follow this metaphor" and more often say, "I believe in the resurrection" (BOTH fundamentalists and mainstream, one meaning literal and one meaning metaphor, by the term belief). "Myth" is just not normally used internally for self description the way metaphor is. In any case, there may be no room for the mainstream use of metaphor. We've been hijacked by fundamentalist atheists who are stuck on a literal meaning that most of us don't even believe in the first place. "Myth" is being used to describe what Genesis ISN'T (literal fact) and not what it IS (foundationally meaningful). Oh well. One day we'll get out of the sandbox and stop arguing if something is literally true. The whole point of THIS thread was to show that "story" promoters aren't the fundamentalists. And what I discovered is that the atheists were. God help us from fundamentalists! ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So now you're categorizing and battling against the "atheist fundamentalists" simply on the basis of that characterization, much in the same way that they previously labeled you as a "religionist?" Excellent! Mildly MadTC 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thought you would like that, since I was amused at the irony as well. A fundamentalist argument on this would be on the subject of creation literally happening. The IRONY is that it's only the anti-theists who are arguing whether or not it literally happened. Most folks on both sides don't care.EGMichaels (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Again: nobody in this article is currently arguing whether Genesis actually happened, and, according to WP policy, the term "creation myth" does not make that determination either. Also, you're getting really WP:POINTy with your arguments. Mildly MadTC 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep reading. Hans is being helpful.EGMichaels (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the point FSM tries to make is that the existence of "God" is just as likely as the existence of an all powerful flying spaghetti monster, or invisible pink unicorn or any other parody. If the FSM folks teach their children that the gospel of FSM is true and that he exists it's not beyond the pale that an actual religion will emerge, look at the goofy things that scientologists believe in, it only took a generation for that to bloom into a full fledged religion. But I digress from the topic, I personally take issue with editors on both sides who are acting like Dicks and turning this into some sort of emotional arguement. "Religionist" and "Creationist" as words are not inflammatory per se but any title in the wrong context (e.g. lumping everyone together and assuming they all follow the worst case scenario of belief on their side) is poor form at best.
As for my take, if an alternative is proposed that can be shown to be supported by encyclopedic sources, academia, etc... and there is some sort of significant policy / guideline support for using said alternative then I'm open to discussing its use. Arguements based on logical fallacies or simple opinion carry zero weight in my eyes and if all the so called "pro myth" side used to support their case were those arguements I'd be just as critical. Danger lies in assuming motive or agenda on either side (unless said motive is made plain and clear). I'm not trying to crusade against some sort of agenda, i'm just trying to contribute to an article in a way that is as compliant with policy, academic / scholarly standards and encyclopedic sources as possible. Nefariousski (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Support. I fully agree with this statement. Mildly MadTC 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. But we've been here before (many, many times). --PLUMBAGO 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't start this thread to create something irrelevant and incendiary, but to STOP the irrelevant and incendiary accusations that the "story" side is primarly motivated by some desire to convert people to fundamentalist beliefs. At least a fair percentage of the "story" side shares the same view of human origins as the "myth" side. The accusations against the "story" side were therefore irrelevant and incendiary, as demonstrated by the answers here.EGMichaels (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Any accusations against any side are irrelevant and incendiary and discussing such accusations as opposed to ignoring them the same way you ignore a petulant child who is throwing a tantrum is just as stupid. Hence why this box should be collapsed and furthermore we should kill this persecution fork and just move on. Nefariousski (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Ignore it. It's a terrible argument, and doesn't prove anything. Every editor here could be Mormon, or Shia, and I wouldn't really care. If you're tired of arguments saying "you want X believe X", the solution is NOT to ask "So what does everyone believe?". It doesn't matter when someone uses it as a weapon, and it doesn't matter when used as a shield. --King Öomie 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
EGM, I wish you would go back and critically look at your own posts. Then, you may realize how your own approach has been entirely based on dividing people up into groups and creating the perfect environment for "irrelevant and incendiary accusations" to grow. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand, trying to INCLUDE both groups (one of which was being driven off) isn't divisive -- it's an attempt to solve the divisiveness. You can run off and ignore people who disagree with you until they leave, and then claim consensus, but that's just not the way to go about things here.EGMichaels (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Or we could just revisit this same tired thread again and again and again? Policy seems completely clear to me on this point (though your remarks above re: "are" vs. "were" potentially indicate one place where it could be tightened). And given that we'll struggle to find a reliably sourced alternative to "myth", and that even if we do we'll have to edit/rename every article on mythology (as it will then-formerly be known), I can't see this as a plausible avenue. --PLUMBAGO 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
EGM, your intention is surely to be inclusive, but your actions have been horribly divisive. Until you actually stop and acknowledge this, I'm going to keep pointing it out to you. You keep trying to fit a square peg through a round hole. It might be time to step back and put the square peg down, until you figure out how to use a round one here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hand -- although running off all opposition may feel unifying, it's not the way true consensus is built. Yes, I invited back everyone who was being run off, creating a second side where only one triumphal side would have been. But I didn't CREATE the second group. I merely invited them back with the promise that I would try to be fair between the two. I asked them to brainstorm and I asked you to brainstorm. They did and you didn't. I've even tried to find some way of retaining "myth" in the title that wouldn't exclude those who are troubled with the current title. If there is a square peg round hole problem, it is in repeatedly asking you to build real consensus. I'll keep asking on any article I'm on, because that's how Wikipedia is supposed to function -- and how it's not functioning here.EGMichaels (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mythical interpretations of Genesis

Deadtotruth just pulled some information from another article Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and I see also there is Framework interpretation (Genesis) and Genesis (Hebrew Bible).

There does not seem to be a Literal interpretation of Genesis article but there does seem to be a Creationism article.

The strongest point in favor of "myth" is the link to the Creation myth article.

There MAY be a way to keep the word "myth" in there that follows the pattern of the allegorical and framework articles -- and ALSO satisfies the "story" side of this discussion.

How about: "Mythical interpretations of Genesis" as the title. It interconnects with the allegorical interpretations article, the framework interpretations article, and the creation myth article.EGMichaels (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose proposed title "Mythical interpretations of Genesis". That is a rather odd phrase. Most scholars agree that the myth preceded its incorporation into the Jewish Bible. This proposed title reverses that order: as if the Book of Genesis were written first, then people started interpreting it as a myth. "Creation Myth" is a commonly used term. Also, there is another poll underway above. It may be wisest to wait for that to settle down. --Noleander (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
How did the myth preceed its incorporation into the Jewish Bible? This myth is a wild assembly of numerous Mesopotamian, um, myths and its writing is dated to the time after the "Babylonian Captivity". You may want to read some in the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL) · CUSH · 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's just a made up phrase, no doubt found sometimes - I see 2 web ghits, & I gbook hit, but we should be sticking rigidly to WP:COMMONNAME - most of the problem here comes from ignoring it. It also implies you have to "interpret" Genesis to find the myth/story, which isn't the case. Also the phrase is creation myth; myth is different. This is a dead end, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title would necessitate expanding the article to interpretations of the rest of Genesis (Abraham, Jacob, etc) as well. It is best to limit the scope of the article to the creation myth only, which necessitates something about that in the title. Mildly MadTC 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There may be a way to get it all in, though. I think there's some room for a few minutes of brainstorming... Genesis Creation Narrative as Myth, for instance. The "as Myth" shows that THIS article is exploring the mythical aspect of the creation narrative without saying that it is the ONLY such way to take it (obviously so, since there are other articles with other takes).EGMichaels (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most scholars use the term "Genesis Creation Account." The term myth is normally reserved for extinct religions. Many Christians and Jews would consider the use of the term "myth" uncivil for what they consider to be true. The term as used on this page doesn't fit the wikipedia guidelines for civil language. Deadtotruth (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[citation needed] please point out the section(s) in WP:CIVIL that discuss why we shouldn't use "Creation myth" or even the formal usage of "myth". There are multiple sources / policies in support of its use, and I'd love to see where you're getting your information from. Nefariousski (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
In fact - see the statistics above "Genesis Creation account" comes a clear second in scholarly usage to "Genesis Creation story", though certainly it is massively more common than "Genesis creation myth". Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
John -- the sources they are using seem to be largely British. British idioms are a bit different from American ones. J.R.R.Tolkien, for instance, spent hours convincing his friend C.S. Lewis that the gospels were "myth." In the British idiom (which I prefer myself), a "myth" is a story with transformative metaphoric power. Once convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was "myth", C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity. That wouldn't have happened if they had been American professors. While I'm willing to grant that it's possible to use "myth" in this British sense, all of my requests to express it have been declined.EGMichaels (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There is something close to this in Webster's Dictionary under "mythos" 2: a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture. In this sense -- close to the British idiom and Joseph Campbell's preferred use -- viral symbols become myths. When Andrew Jackson was called Andrew Jackass by his political opponents, he liked the attempted insult so much that the Donkey became the symbol of the Democratic party. Don't know where the heck the Elephant came from... but the Donkey came to symbolize the rugged fighter for the common man that became paradigmatic for the Democratic party. Regardless of your politics, then, the Donkey and Elephant have gathered such mythical force that they can be substituted for the parties themselves. As I said before, Abraham Lincoln was a giant. George Washington was the father of his country. These are myths in the British sense -- basically metaphors with a life of their own. When the metaphor becomes more familiar than the thing itself, it is a myth. Now, the current arguments on this talk page often break down into something like, "but Democrats aren't REALLY animals..." or "Lincold wasn't THAT tall..." or "Washington didn't sleep in THAT many places..." And unfortunately the article itself takes great pains to show that Genesis isn't LITERALLY true and has been debunked by science... The entire article, while claiming some kind of neutral use for "myth" isn't written in a way that shows it. All of the arguments in the article that the book of Genesis isn't LITERALLY true in its creation account are thus "informal use of myth." Oh well. I'm still inviting neutral examples of myth (such as the ones I've provided), but it's like pulling teeth.EGMichaels (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with this at all - most seem American to me. Nor do I actually think there is a "British sense" as you describe; Lewis's personal thought patterns were rather individual, though I'm sure some American professors were perfectly capable of sharing them - he is rather more popular as a thinker in the US than the UK. However if there were a significantly different British sense, that would be yet another reason for avoiding "myth" under WP:ENGVAR. I doubt you will find any dictionaries to support your belief. But we care talking about creation myth here anyway. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Where in the article does it try to disprove Genesis, or use myth as a colloquial term? If you can find them, you should edit them out for WP:NPOV. Mildly MadTC 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Third paragraph: "Although traditionally accepted as historically accurate, by the 19th century scientific discoveries and biblical scholarship had led most people to abandon a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.[3]" This is completely appropriate if the article were not titled myth. But the title prohibits any informal use of the word myth, and trying to prove that informal meaning is inappropriate. My proposed alternate title, or something like it, could retain the word "myth" in such a way that the third paragraph and others like it would be fine.EGMichaels (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify why you think the third paragraph is inappropriate given the current article title? Gabbe (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the title includes the word "myth" then the entire article must be avoid the informal meaning of "myth" -- which involves something commonly believed but untrue. ANY reference in an article entitled "myth" to the subject of that myth being untrue therefore, creates the informal usage for the entire article.


Please allow me to paraphrase the third paragraph (correct me if you disagree with my interp) "Before a large amount of scientific discoveries apparently came into conflict with genesis being actual history, most people believed it to be actual history. After, a large number of people adopted a less literal interpretation." being that this is a cited statement and its accuracy as a statement isn't really in question here how is the third paragraph as it is currently written not acceptable? Almost identical statements are made on the creationism article (under the heading prevalence) and there doesn't appear to be much consternation. Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually would very much like to see an article exploring the mythical understandings of genesis, but we cannot do so with the current title. "Genesis creation interpreted as myth" is ONE example that would avoid that problem, because the article would be about various understandings of the creation account as myth. The article basically supports that. But "Genesis creation myth" takes an assumptive stance that the article is proving Genesis to be myth, rather than exploring notable and reliable sources that view it as myth. This is a fixable problem, but there has to be some brainstorming to get there -- and all the brain power is being used trying to avoid it.EGMichaels (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


What does "most people" refer to? On a global scale the followers of the abrahamic religions have not always made the majority of the world popluation. The Chinese and (H)Indians never believed in the Bible, and for the larger part of civilization history these made the bulk of all "people". So how can someone claim that "most people" believed in this? · CUSH · 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if you found that confusing or didn't understand the intent. would you like me to ammend that paraphrasing to specify "most adherents of jewish or christian beliefs" I assumed since genesis is the topic of discussion that would be a given and everyone would have understood intent but I'm guessing I assumed too much? Nefariousski (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You see, in an international encyclopedia with a global audience terms like "most people" refer to fractions of the world population. You cannot just implicitly restrict such statements to the adherents of the ideology in question. Although the topic of this article is related to the abrahamic religions, you cannot claim adherence to their ideas for the rest of world as well, can you? Everyone reads Wikipedia, not just Jews and Christians. · CUSH · 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to look like grasping at straws. Firstly a valid arguement needs to be made that the current usage is bad (and no, offensive to my beliefs, I don't like it, etc... aren't valid arguements), policy and or guidelines need to be in support of said arguement and there should be some sort of reliable source that backs up said arguement. Once that is established then you have your foot in the door for proposing an alternative which has to be shown to be preferable to status quo (once again, sources, policy, guidelines etc...). That is how the framework for any upcoming suggestions should work if they are to be taken into serious consideration. Nefariousski (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI posted

My apologies for not notifying all of the legion of individual participating editors on this page regarding the ANI (per standard protocol). Let this serve as notification that I've submitted to WP:ANI.

Please keep in mind that the ANI posting is not there to serve as a proxy for this page's ongoing debates. I did post this with a bit of a heavy heart because I do believe (very much so) in the ability of community to resolve their own problems but considering that if we continue at this rate we'll all be on disability with carpel tunnel by the end of March and more gentle means (discussion, RFC, NPOV notice board, the second RM etc...) seem to have been fruitless I felt there wasn't much other option. Nefariousski (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nef -- thanks for all the hard work. It looks like this is being bounced back as a content dispute. Please let me know if this is open or closed, because I'm not that well versed in Wikilawyering. I just like to work things out by reason.
In any case, please see my last post to Hans under "Parsing Meaning" where I give him two examples of unambiguously true things expressed as "myth" in the formal sense. Maybe that can help you understand that I'm not your opponent here. I'm trying to improve the article just as you are, but "going forward" in the wrong direction is the same thing as "going backward." There are people on both sides who see mythological aspects to the Genesis creation account. The question is how to express this both formally and with a neutral point of view. I have a stack of books on my table right now, including the Oxford Annotated Bible, works of Joseph Campbell and Peter Watson, and even the Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis that can add details toward this article. I'd like to collaborate, and would appreciate it if you would too.EGMichaels (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So long as you insist on proving that you can't even get the plain and obvious meaning of WP:MYTH, I am not looking forward to the wisdom of these books as filtered through your interpretation. We are having some serious communication issues, and I am pretty sure they are not primarily on my side. Hans Adler 14:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative/Archive_7&oldid=1087963319"